Why George Bush Jr. Won’t Be Tried as a War Criminal
http://www.criminalswanted.org/international-crime/why-george-bush-wont-be-tried-as-a-war-criminal/
The International Criminal Court’s primary objective is to try those who have been indicted for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The court is based on a treaty signed by 106 countries including such powerhouses as Zambia, Latvia and Djibouti. The United States has never ratified the treaty that would enter it into the ICC. The core of international humanitarian law is the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention has been accepted by 194 States across the globe, with what can be considered universal acceptance. There are parts of the Geneva Convention that date back as far as 1863 when the red cross held a conference in the city with hopes of making war more civil. Now if a civilized war seems like an oxymoron to you then you’re probably right: while characteristics of old style warfare like large scale massacres and depopulation are gone, we can now see with awful clarity a cruise missile or a predator drone destroying a wedding party.
There has been a great deal of speculation lately as to whether President George Walker Bush Jr. will ever be tried for crimes against humanity when he steps down from office. A large number of people across the globe would love to see him on trial for the massive cluster fuck he brought down on the Middle East, the reaming he gave to the global economy, the number of politically-based manipulations of the media (not to mention wiretapping, Enron, stock manipulation, New Orleans, FISA, and Guantanamo). That an administration in the United States violated the Nuremberg principles is a sign of a truly dark time. Yet still, George Bush Jr. is not a war criminal, just the worst US president to ever stand in office.
Would the current administration ever face trial? Most likely not. As much as people despise the current President, it is unlikely that he will ever be held accountable for his actions and his policies. With roughly four months left in the Bush Jr. Presidency, it is important to examine the criteria required to be tried, as well as the role of the ICC, the UN, and some of the conventions in greater detail.
According to the ICC, genocide has five criteria. “Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction” is the one seemingly applicable to the war in Iraq. Article 6c of the elements of crime prosecutable by the ICC explains the conditions by which this would constitute genocide. Part 3 of Article 6C is where things become difficult and why the Bush administration could avoid conviction. Part 3 states that “The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Unless people can prove that Bush and his administration intended to create an environment where a large groups in the population would kill each other, Bush can walk away.
Proving intent is the often most difficult aspect of any trial. Motive means nothing in the criminal justice world. Intent is the big one. Did Bush intend to create a situation in the Middle East where thousands upon thousands of people have died? It is rather obvious what the intents were of the Bush administration. They wanted oil and good times. The whole human cost thing was rather secondary. Long term thinking does not seem like one of the strong suits of the Bush administration. After all, these are the same people who didn’t think that global warming was a potential threat or that petroleum speculation, large-scale debt purchasing and investing could have negative effects on the American economy. Obviously the intent to cause harm is not in the Bush administration. What they intend to do is make as much money as possible for their friends while in office and gradually screw over anyone who stands in their way of making more money.
In 1968, the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity banned the use of mercenaries in conflicts and stripped mercenaries of their combatant status. Since 2003, Blackwater Security Consulting LLC has been on an official government payroll. In reports published by Congress’ official accountability office, the GAO, Blackwater received nearly $11 million dollars from the government. Three years later the official amount paid was $24 million. All this was for security consulting. There are an estimated 48,000 private military contractors currently operating in Iraq. Wouldn’t people feel that having an unmonitored, unregulated, and unaccountable military force operating in a combat zone is a bad thing? There are dozens of private security firms operating in Iraq. The US army core of engineers is protected by a British private security firm. That specific firm that is operating in Iraq has estimated that they have killed about seventy insurgents while losing about three men.
The United States has lost 4,124 military personnel since 2003. The total number of injured or wounded personnel is officially at 30,435. The documented amount of civilians directly killed by violent acts perpetrated in Iraq is between 86,000 and 94,000. The total number is off because the bodies are pilling up so quickly that it is becoming difficult to accurately measure the complete number of deaths and their causes. Unfortunately, an “accurate” figure of the number of deaths that have resulted from non-violent acts (e.g. improper storage of food, lack of medicine, ruined infrastructure, exposure, etc.) is still missing and the total number of dead Iraqis at this point is immeasurable. There are estimates, though. Lancet estimates that six hundred thousand have died from the invasion alone. The British based Opinion Research Business has calculated that about 1.2 million have died. This number is based on the percentages of the population that it has been tracking, and calculated by the amount of adults who have lost a family member since the invasion.
One million two hundred thousand dead is a massive part of a population. That’s a rate of 240,000 people dying in Iraq each year. The kill ratio (the term used for the number of killed enemies per dead US combatant) was about 40/1. In Iraq that number is 290/1. That means for every dead US soldier in Iraq there are 290 dead Iraqis. In July of 2007, the Iraqi population was about 27.5 million, according to the CIA. It is quite obvious that America will not be in Iraq for a century since it would take 114 years to deplete the country of its population in entirety. Remember: this is not directly genocide. Most of those who have been killed in Iraq have been killed by other Iraqis and US employed mercenaries, and so do not count towards the number of US military casualties. Only when the last Iraqi is killed can we bring back the mission accomplished banner.
As Navy medic Timothy Bryan said about Iraq, “we aint liberated shit, this country was fucked before and is fucked now.” Bush was a fuck-up seven years ago and is an incredible fuck-up now. Along with cronies in the Republican party, this president has fouled up much of the Middle East, destroyed the the economy, polarized the American population, and incurred the wrath of the entire world upon the USA. The most effective analogy of the Bush administration would be that of a hurricane smashing through an unprotected coastal city. This has happened twice now under Bush and amazingly both events have been mishandled. What makes even less sense is that Bush Jr. has been one of the best presidents when it has come to terms with relations with Africa. More federal aid has been given for African relief projects than under any other president. How is it a man who has strived so hard to help feed, house, innoculate and care for Africans can be absolutely incapable of effectively running relief efforts in his own country?
Thomas Aquinas theorized on the possibility of a “just war.” It is evident though that sometimes a war begun with noble intentions is rendered unjust by the manner in which it is fought. This becomes that much more complicated when the opening salvo is a bombing of a shopping centre, the killing of women and children or the crashing of passenger planes into skyscrapers. When there are no rules of how the conflict can be waged between the combatants, what are the effects on the civilian population? At this point we begin to see the true rationale behind terror campaigns, and the devastating consqeuences for the civilians of warring nations. Many will point to how, in times of conflict, various leaders have changed or broken the laws of their country in order to protect their people. Can there be such a thing as a “just war” if there are no longer any rules? Or are we back to that old and depressing tenet of realism - might makes right?
