Send War Criminals to Jail!

As we talk about another war in Syria, we should look at why politicians are so comfortable with war and in some cases war crimes. Now just to be clear, as defined by the Geneva convention, destroying civilian areas is a war crime. These crimes have been committed by the administrations of Trump (e.g.: Civilian bombings in Yemen), Obama (e.g.: Civilian bombings in Syria) , Bush jr (Really?), Clinton (Civilians killed in Afghanistan) and the list would go on to.

Even Franklin D Roosevelt, who is considered the most progressive president by many had illegal Japanese internment camps. Therefore, by stupid logic we would send every president to jail. Send War Criminals to Jail!

However, that would be a flawed way of thinking. One of the main reasons we make certain actions illegal is to disincentivize the act. One of a government's, or in this case the ICC/ICJ's, job is to disincentivize "bad" actions and incentivize "good" actions. Had the ICC or the ICJ prosecuted Bush's administration over the crimes committed during the Iraq war, Obama may have thought more before he began bombing campaigns in Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya (where he also led a regime change).

So why the hell doesn't the ICC or the ICJ prosecute these guys? Well if I'm completely honest, the UN is very weak. When it comes to prosecuting the US, UK, France, China and Russia for war crimes they will almost always suffer from a veto, the same applies for their allies.

So then why the long rant? Well Obama had the opportunity to prosecute the Bush administration, had he done that he would have been the first person to prosecute war crimes by a US president. This would have set a standard which would mean that presidents would be hesitant before committing these acts.

Anyways, I'm no genius but it seems to me like this is a recurring problem which no-one does shit about, so thats my idea on how this may eventually be stopped.


2|1
524

Most Helpful Guy

  • In regards to the Japanese-American internment, it was definitely wrong. Those Japanese-Americans were loyal US citizens. However, it wasn’t FDR who came up with the idea to intern them, it was the notorious John L Dewitt. FDR just went along with it, it can even be implied that FDR felt bad about it since he allowed Japanese-Americans to enlist in the US army as part of the 442nd RCT. FDR is even quoted with saying the following in regards to the 442nd RCT. www.azquotes.com/.../...-d-roosevelt-133-66-90.jpg

    1|1
    0|0
    • But you are right, the Internment of Japanese-Americans was a decision made by a progressive/liberal administration.

    • Wow, I didn't know that. I guess that kinda sorta redeems FDR

Most Helpful Girl

  • If they werent killed in that way they wouldve killed each other in their own country so whats the fifference.

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Join the discussion

What Guys Said 23

  • We are selectively shocked:

    When the Bush administration killed 1,000,000 Iraquis they were collateral damage.
    Same for those in Afghanistan. And those killed by the Obama administration in Libya. etc.

    When Assad kills 50 in Douma WE ARE SHOCKED!

    2|1
    0|0
    • Did Assad even kill them though? Or was it the radical rebels who we claim to be moderate?

  • If they were the leaders of any other country, they would be in jail.
    Even South Korea send their president to jail for corruption.
    I'm sick and tired of the U. S. being allowed to get away with everything.

    1|2
    0|0
  • I'm pretty sure that every day there are attempts to sue the US about a whole bunch of stuff that they did overseas, but no nation is really that keen to start washing their laundry in public, as there were plenty more war crimes from plenty of other nations that would still make the front page.

    There is probably a lot of "let bygones be bygones" going on.

    0|1
    0|0
  • You guys keep throwing stones at international organizations. They are made up of all the nations you just mentioned. So of course they are imperfect. But when it comes to the UN, there are five permanent members. The ones you mentioned. And in order for there to be a security resolution, the five nations must agree. Unless you contact an alien civilization and bring them to earth, you will not get an impartiality. You will have to work with these nations with all of their biases, interests, and issues and find a way to build some kind of consensus for international norms and standards.

    It is extremely unfair to poorer nations, nations with less influence, etc.

    But we have to start someplace. And this is the best we got.

    Until you guys actually come up with solutions, it will be hard to take questions and posts like this seriously.

    0|0
    1|0
    • The solution would be to prosecute presidents once they are done, within the US. The security council only prosecutes leaders of poorer countries, but Obama ran on the idea that he would prosecute Bush had he done that it would disincentives illegal war crimes for the future.

    • Right, keep living in fantasy land. Obama never said he would prosecute Bush. Had he said that, he would never have been elected. Keep thinking these nations are going to prosecute their own leaders.

      It will never happen.

      We have to find some kind of consensus and keep building on that. It is in the liberal mind that we can get instantaneous justice. That will not work. We need a model that moves us towards some kind of semblance of international norms. Chaos will not work.

      I know, it is horrible. But what else do we have. Maybe one day, we can hold people accountable, because the international organizations will have the power. But do I have to tell you the visceral reaction in America to any type of "globalism"?

      Really? The site is full of those rabid screaming conspiracy folks who claim globalists are trying to take away their rights.

      We have a very long, uphill right.

  • I think the difference is the Bush administration wasn’t really made up of war criminals. You can disagree with what they did, but they didn’t really commit a crime. Now some American soldiers did, but they were largely independent from the Bush administration. I get what you’re saying though, because every government has been involved in dirty business that’s borderline illegal

    0|0
    0|0
    • When the Bush administration killed 500,000-1,500,000, innocents in Iraq because they lied about WMD's, that is a war crime as defined by the UN.

    • Show All
    • the papers released by Chelsea Manning showed that the US knew they were civilian areas and there were specific orders from generals to not leave any survivors in these areas, so they did try to kill them and it was planned.

    • Well it wasn’t that they intended to kill civilians, according to what I’ve read about what Manning revealed, but they did advocate the use of cluster bombs to clear insurgents, which led to high civilian casualties and is a pretty low thing to do. However, War is brutal, so you’d probably have to put every president in trial for war crimes. Of course we can’t do that so we’ve got to draw the line somewhere. What separates Bush from Nazi war criminals is that he didn’t plan the genocide of an entire group of people. Now should some American soldiers go on trial for lower level war criminals? Yes, but it wouldn’t really work to prosecute Bush

  • Oh please. Are you going to charge virtually every African national leader then? Because they're the kings of killing civilians. Did anyone prosecute Mao ZeDong, the largest mass murderer in history? Justin Tredeau actually praised Che Guiverra. What about the president of Venezuela? You gonna get him too? I hate interventionalists as much as the next guy, but to complain that US presidents got a few civilians killed in pursuit of their agendas while ignoring the fact that their agendas were to take down other leaders who were killing far more people than they did is absolute hypocrisy.

    0|1
    0|0
    • In terms of most civilians killed, the US military is above any nation, including Russia. Many of the worlds dictators, 73%, are supported by the US government. YES they should of prosecuted monsters like Mao and Che, but today the US the biggest killer of civilians in the world.

    • That's only if you look at civilians killed by military personnel. Mao ZeDong killed 90 million of his own people without ever having to use the military, Joseph Stalin killed 60 million without needing the use of his military, Venezuela is in the process again without the use of military power. There is more than one way to murder your own populace than turning soldiers on them. The US is not the biggest killer of civilians. It's just the best at getting press for it. You're living in a dream world.

    • Firstly, I said TODAY, there is no doubt that Mao and Stalin were much worse, but today the US is the biggest killer without a doubt. The Venezuelan death toll estimates are at about 10 000 maximum. Meanwhile, the US lets its own people die. The opioid crisis, caused by the common sale of opioids by pharma companies, kills 65000 per year and the US government places no sanctions on pharma companies because they are the biggest donors to politicians.

  • Sure, they'll get right on charging American Presidents, right after they charge the ANC and every other sub-saharan African leader, and the iranians, north koreans, chinese and the leaders of every single other country in the world.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It would be the ideal, but when there are tooo many interest in between justice it's just a word and not a fact.

    1|1
    0|0
  • It's called the "Golden Rule" - the people with the gold make the rules.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Definitely. A crime is a crime, especially during war period when it's easier to take advantage of certain situations for your own good.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Japanese internment wasn't a war crime, hell, considering the attitudes towards Japan, it probably save truly massive amounts of lives

    0|1
    0|1
    • It may not have been a war crime but it was uncalled for. If the progressives truly wanted to protect the internees, the guns would have been pointed out of the camps, not inside. Even with several Japanese-Americans volunteering to fight the axis in WWII (442nd RCT) many of the progressives refused to view Japanese-Americans as Americans. It was even discovered that none of those internees had sympathy towards imperial Japan.

    • Show All
    • It was both race and ethnicity but the Japanese-Americans faced more restrictions in regards to which theaters they would be demployed to.

  • I guess they would say they didn't mean to kill civilians in bomb attacks.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I disagree with the take. On a side note, are you a giant? You look super tall

    0|0
    0|0
    • 5'8, lol, I try.
      What do you disagree with specifically?

    • Show All
    • I never said they did take down the towers, but I do think they're careless actions empowered Al-Quada

    • Lol yeah that’s what I said. Thy were complacent

  • Simply put war is good business.

    1|1
    0|0
  • When did you become all humanitarian?

    1|0
    0|0
  • It can't be stopped. The End.

    0|0
    1|0
  • what are you on?

    0|0
    0|0
  • In real war there are no criminals.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Interesting!

    1|0
    0|0
  • Agree

    1|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    3

What Girls Said 4

  • I dont think Roosevelt interning Japanese Americans was a war crime.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Putting civilians in internment camps and carrying out human experiments is definitely a war crime.

    • Show All
    • Japan's, just because your at war with a country does;t mean you can abuse their civilians

    • You see that's where your wrong. If they are citizens of an enemy country living in your country you have the right to intern them as long as you treat them humanely unlike how the Japanese treated the citizens of their enemies.
      It wasn't a war crime and the reason it wasn't was because those internet were US citizens. It was racist and discriminatory.
      Carrying out human experiments on your own citizens is not a war crime but a crime against humanity and the the US government has done so many times from US soldiers, to us cities, to African americans to the disabled.

  • interesting.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes I agree.

    1|0
    0|0
  • U mean like Dickless Cheney? THe truth is americans enjoy war as long as they can watch it from the safety of their living room and the results are positive.

    0|1
    0|1

Recommended Questions

Loading...