How far, responsiblity?

[Blissman]

I have a moral question. Please understand that this is theortical. Suppose it were discovered that President Bush had ordered the torture of the Iraqi's. (Please understand I am not claiming that he had). My question is: If it were so, should the President be put on trial as a war criminal, or is there some reason that isolates him from this moral judgement? It could, for example, be argued that going to war itself is immoral, but someone has to do it. Would Bush not be judged the same as anyone below him (such as the soldiers, whom under military law, are not required to obey an unlawful order). How high up the ladder does a judgement of a war crime be held in such judgement? If people are or are not to be tried as war criminals, others will judge them. You don't have to be an Iraqi or anyone in the middle east to hold someone in contempt.

Another question: In war, is it possible for a jury to be impartial ?


How far is moral responsiblity?

Suppose the issue was abortion. Assume for the sake of discussion, that it was your personal opinion that abortion is a crime. If you were to try abortion doctors, would you also include nurses?

 

[michabo]

Since when has morality had anything to do with war and politics?

 

[katherinethegreat]

i think he should be be tried if he was behind it because he could take sadem hussein out for the torture of his people..and the only difference that their would be between the two of them is Bush didn;t do it to his own people...its still bad...take him out if he did it...war crimes trial even!

 

[Schism]

how come clinton got a trial for a little fun time in the whitehouse which did no harm to anybody (hillary doesn't count) but Bu$h isn't investigated for his actions regarding the legality of the war?

whether bu$h lied or not is certainly an opinion

 

[megan76291]

Bush should be tried for what he may or may not have done. Like schism said, Linton was tried for what he did, Bush's time will come soon enough. His stupidity and rash decisions will get the better of him some day. All political leaders must deal with consequences- If hitler wouldn't have killed himself, he would've been put on trial, and there are many more cases like that.

 

[SacredLight]

Morally, YES he should be tried.

Would I want him tried, NO, he is trying to save lives.

 

[michabo]

Would I want him tried, NO, he is trying to save lives.

He says he is trying to save lives, but he isn't doing anything about it.

 

[Prufrock]

If it were so, should the President be put on trial as a war criminal, or is there some reason that isolates him from this moral judgement?

There is no moral reason why the laws that punish other war crimes offenders would not apply to the president. Bush is a citizen of the U.S. and a member of the armed forces, not God.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Bush should be tried for what he may or may not have done. Like schism said, Linton was tried for what he did, Bush's time will come soon enough. His stupidity and rash decisions will get the better of him some day. All political leaders must deal with consequences- If hitler wouldn't have killed himself, he would've been put on trial, and there are many more cases like that.

 

[katherinethegreat]

he's not saving lives..he's killing our innocent soldiers and the innocents in iraq..dont believe his bullcrap about us fighting for our frweedom..our freedsom was never in danger..it was our oil and his daddy's head that is in trouble

 

[Volos]

I have a moral question. Please understand that this is theortical. Suppose it were discovered that President Bush had ordered the torture of the Iraqi's. (Please understand I am not claiming that he had). My question is: If it were so, should the President be put on trial as a war criminal, or is there some reason that isolates him from this moral judgement?

if evidence were found that President Bush ordered, encouraged, or knew of the torture going on in Iraq (note I am not saying such evidence exists, this is a hypothetical after all) then yes he should be subject to the same laws and face trial for such crimes. Being President of the United States does not in any way allow him to break international law and the torture engaged in by American troupes certainly breaks such law.

It could, for example, be argued that going to war itself is immoral, but someone has to do it.

I would prefer to leave the legality of this particular little war out of the equation, there are plenty of threads running around debating that issue.

Would Bush not be judged the same as anyone below him (such as the soldiers, whom under military law, are not required to obey an unlawful order). How high up the ladder does a judgement of a war crime be held in such judgement? If people are or are not to be tried as war criminals, others will judge them. You don't have to be an Iraqi or anyone in the middle east to hold someone in contempt.

Which brings up another point, one I have not seen addressed by our government or the press. Are the soldiers engaging in the above mentioned torture going to be held responsible for their actions? I can not be convinced that any of thought what they were doing (and probably still are doing) is in any way moral or legal. Will they be tried for engaging in this behavior? Will their commanding officers? Did they not have the moral responsibility to refuse to commit such atrocities?

Another question: In war, is it possible for a jury to be impartial ?

I would think that in the case of the soldiers and commanding officers any trial would be military and considering the pentagon’s desire to pretend none of this happened I do not believe that such a trial would be either public or impartial.



As for the theoretical trial and possible impeachment of President Bush: I would question if an impeachment would be impartial. I am however wondering if President Bush were put on trail for war crimes would he not have to be tried in a different country?

How far is moral responsiblity?

I think the American people have the responsibility to demand full disclosure in this matter.

 

[jingwei]

No soldier is innocent.

 

[Volos]

Morally, YES he should be tried.

Would I want him tried, NO, he is trying to save lives.

So are you saying you would accept this if it was Saddam Hussein claiming he did what he did to save lives?



If you would not, why are you holding Hussein to a higher standard than you are President Bush?