Is It Time For War Crimes Charges?
by Big Dog on Jan 25, 2009 at 15:46 Political
Since the war on terror started the left has called for war crimes charges to be levied against George W Bush. It never happened, at least not yet, but that did not stop the daily calls for the charges. Barack Obama took control of the government with a promise to immediately ending the war**. Those plans changed somewhat when he realized that an immediate pull out would be disastrous.
Is it now time to call for charges of war crimes against Barack Obama?
President Hamid Karzai is condemning the US for strikes in Afghanistan that allegedly killed 16 civilians.
Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations “is strengthening the terrorists.”
~snip~
Karzai’s latest criticism follows a Saturday raid in Laghman province that the U.S. says killed 15 armed militants, including a woman with an RPG, but that Afghan officials say killed civilians.
Two women and three children were among the 16 dead civilians, Karzai said in a statement.
The attacks are strengthening the support of terrorists. Isn’t that what the left screamed about with regard to President Bush?
Obama is now in charge of the military and its operations. Are we now going to hear the left scream about civilian casualties and call for war crimes charges to be levied against The One?
Don’t hold your breath.
Obama lied, people died….
**Randy made a good point in the comments. Obama said he would end the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. The way this is written is unclear and makes it appear as if he said he would end it all. He did not say that and he said he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Sorry for the confusion.
Source:
My Way News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: afghanistan, attacks, civilians, deaths, Karzai, Obama, terror
I guess the reverse question can be asked too: How long before the right condemns Obama for “nation building” and “lobbing missiles” around?
More accurately would be when will the left? They need to be consistent.
As for me, I have no issue with what happened. I just thought I would point out the hypocrisy.
Most of the “war crimes” talk I have heard has been more directed at the goings on in Iraq, and the practice of torture as an interrogation tactic in the War on Terror. There has been a fairly general consensus and a relatively small opposition to the need for military action in Afghanistan. If anything, most of the criticisms I have heard about Afghanistan have been related more to strategy than the US maintaining a military presence there. I NEVER heard Obama say anything about immediately ending the war in Afghanistan.
Obama did say he would end the war in Iraq and increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. The way it is written gives a different impression.
The problem is the definition of torture. If waterboarding is torture then the Congress needs to be put on trial for war crimes. That technique is used on our troops in training.
Congress is responsible for that…
Is making a person sit in the cold or heat torture? Is playing loud music torture (maybe if it is above 90dB).
There needs to be a clear definition. If the techniques are authorized then how can it be torture?
Now, cutting off a person’s head is torture. Our troops who were captured were tortured and their hearts cut out. Their genitals were cut off and put in their mouths. This is what we deal with.
And, people want Bush charged with war crimes for the deaths of civilians. They want the charges for other reasons but this is one of them.
I am well aware that our troops have been tortured in Iraq. Many people have. That doesn’t make it OK for the US to torture. It’s one of the things that in the past has separated the good guys from the bad guys. I feel you on the clearer definition of torture being needed, but just because a technique is authorized doesn’t mean it isn’t torture. You could authorize stoning someone to death. It’s still torture.
I am not saying it isn’t torture or even that it is. One person’s torture is another’s aggressive questioning. What I am saying is that it was authorized and people did it based upn the authorization.
Why bring them up on charges for doing what they were told when they did what Congress was aware of?
They need to clearly define what is acceptable and what is not and go from there.
Without clear direction it is hard to make a case.
I don’t think it is OK to torture per se but I do think that it needs to be defined so there are no questions.