War criminals, perhaps the most notorious were those tried at Nuremberg following the second world war. The defense they attempted to mount was that they were “following orders”.
I mention that for two reasons, one that it didn’t work then and doesn’t work now inspite of the fact this administration seeks to resurrect it.
A large segment of the population view George Bush and Dick Cheney as war criminals and repeatedly called for them to be prosecuted as such- something I agree with .
But let’s take a moment to consider their crimes – crimes that included torture, drone strikes that indiscriminately killed non combatant men, women, and children, and the unlawful detention of other non combatants at Gitmo who have committed no crime nor act of terrorism/war – 68 known and classified as such by the current administration.
During the Bush administration something like 30 drone strikes were authorized over an eight year period of time, during this administration the number is close to a thousand, and torture continues under the aegis of the Army Field Manual.
Still apologists will claim Bush was merely “protecting” this nation while the Obama apologists will resort to the inanity that Obama really isn’t to blame as he “inherited” the situation, ignoring the fact that if this “inheritance” were to be measured in a tangible asset like gold it’s been invested and multiplied beyond any measure of conscience.
That’s the difficulty that arises when such things are singularly viewed through a prism of party allegiance – facts no longer matter, statistics, reality, and body counts are ignored. it’s about loyalty and nothing else.
A pathetic approach that is the core of the dysfunction that is the gripping the nation.
Is an armed robber who robs one,five, or ten people more of a criminal than one who robs dozens?
Not by any metric I would embrace anymore than I would say if Bush is a war criminal then Obama can’t possibly be.
The truth of the matter is Obama didn’t pursue an indictment against Bush or Cheney for an obvious reason, had he of a precedent would have been set that in all likelihood could lead to him or any future president being indicted – it had nothing to do with moving on or not being “weighed” down by past arguments – it had to do with preserving the “sanctity” of the Presidency and immunity for the good ol’ boys club.
The actions and events I’ve written about are violations of the Geneva Convention that warring nations routinely violate- one might argue in view of the literally hundreds of treaties the U.S. entered into with the indigenous people of this land and routinely violated nothing much should be expected when it comes to something like the Geneva Convention, but I would submit any process of dehumanization should never become the norm or tolerated in a “civilized” world.
If you find a flaw in my line of reasoning feel free to correct me.