• dsmk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t put Afghanistan and Iraq on the same level.

    Bin Laden (and Al-Qaeda) was in Afghanistan and they refused to hand him over. That invasion had the support of NATO and even Russia and China. Why? Because Al-Qaeda existing doesn’t benefit anyone and they were behind the attacks.

    Iraq was different. It was mostly a US and British invasion, under false pretences. Iraq used to have chemical weapons and even used them against civilians back in the 80s, started a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait, but those were not the reasons given for the invasion…

    Now, why wasn’t Bush charged with any crimes? For the same reason nothing will happen to Putin in Russia. What are you going to do, invade the country to arrest the president?

    Is it fair? No. But it’s how the world works.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      116
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Fun fact! In 2002 the US passed a law allowing themselves to invade the Hague in case any high-ranking US officials ended up on trial there.

      Which I’m sure they passed in the year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq just by coincidence, and they weren’t expecting any shady shit to go down at all.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The USA has NEVER supported the ICCJ and this was not a new policy the Bush 43 administration devised on their own.

        • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But still, quite convenient timing to pass a “Guys we’re SUPER SERIOUS about not being on the hook for war crimes” bill.

          • gowan@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah but it’s like the PATRIOT Act (it’s an anagram Im just lazy). The PATRIOT Act had been kicking around DC for decades before we had an excuse to pass it. The ICCJ bill was no different.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How would that work? Wouldn’t that be an act of war unprovoked aggression per the UN charter?

        • thantik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No no, don’t you know that we don’t do “war” any more? We do “operations” now. War is totally different. Then we have to obey Geneva conventions and all sorts of other hairy stuff. Our politicians have decided as long as we don’t call it “war” then we’re fine.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it would be.

          It’s geopolitical dick wagging, not a law that was actually needed or does anything.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why I maintain that Trump will never go to prison… The u.s government itself would never allow it. They’ll likely help him stay out on appeals till he dies, that’s gonna be the worst punishment he’ll get. I think the government would have him killed and made it to look like an accident before they ever allow him to set foot in prison.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US government will allow Trump to go to an American jail. This is like ruling over like. The US government would never allow Trump to go a foreign jail, no matter how much he deserved it.

          • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think there are enough people in power who will use the “one of our presidents in jail will hurt our country” excuse, or they’ll fear reprisal from the maga cult, that they’ll let him walk. I hope I’m wrong, but the u.s pulls this shit all the time.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Iraq was different. It was mostly a US and British invasion, under false pretences

      Lil Bush didn’t even really know…

      He was just a puppet, and Cheney was part of his dad’s “old guard”. Lil Bush knew the game, so Cheney set it up so every intel agency reported to Dick Cheney, and Dick Cheney decided if that info went anywhere else, including Lil Bush.

      Cheney wanted the war, so he only passed on info that would cause the war, and it’s entirely likely he was the only member of the American government who could have seen 9/11 coming. The reason no one else could, was everything has to go thru Cheney, and he saw everything.

      I’m not saying Lil Bush is innocent, I’m saying he was a useful idiot that knew he was just a puppet and went along with

      But it pisses me off everyone acts like the puppet fall guy is who we should be upset with, not the people who were actually doing stuff and still work with the American Republican political party.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Officially that was the reason. The violation of the ceasefire. Iraq did not abide by the terms of the ceasefire.

      In hindsight, we shouldn’t have invaded. I supported the invasion at the time because of the violations of the ceasefire. I didn’t completely buy the wmd argument.

      Looking back, Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan.

      • dsmk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, tl;dr: After being hammered by strikes they made an offer to hand him over to a 3rd party?

        • grte@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s correct. It wasn’t their first attempt, either. Instead Bush opted for the 20 years of occupation for whatever reason.

          • dsmk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not defending the occupation and whole “nation building” (which I doubt they though would take 20 years). Just pointing out that there was a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, and that difference was reflected by the support (or lack of) from other countries.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.

        It’s insane to suggest the US would ever agree to that.

        I believe it would have been the correct move, but the US as a nation would straight up never agree to that. The citizenry would have lost their fucking minds.

    • malloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both countries also do not recognize the authority of International Court. High ranking officials definitely should have been hauled off to jail for authorizing, developing, and employing “enhanced interrogation” (aka torture) techniques

    • Gigan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now, why wasn’t Bush charged with any crimes? For the same reason nothing will happen to Putin in Russia.

      Trump is being charged with crimes

      • JBar2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump is being charged by the US and state governments with violation of US and state laws

        That’s a far different scenario than an international court attempting to charge and arrest a US president (current or former

        • Gigan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bush lied to congress and the American people. I don’t believe there were no crimes committed by doing that.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            But did Bush knowingly lie to a degree provable in court?

            He would have had to have known it was a lie and for that to be proven in court. With trump, his crimes were so egregious there were devout party line adherents backing out and explicitly stating just how illegal what they were doing is. Trump had been told multiple times, in multiple ways that what he was doing was illegal and he went for it anyways.

            • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Another point to add. It is not illegal for anyone to lie, so unless he was testifying under oath, Bush could lie as much as he wanted without legal repercussions.

              • kbotc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not quite. The constitution has a cutout for official duties of the office. The president must faithfully carry out the duties of the office. So knowingly lying can fail that test.

                If you want someone to blame for the US invasion of Iraq, blame Italy, their Intelligence apparatus, and Nicolò Pollari in particular. He submitted the “Iraq is buying Yellowcake” to the CIA twice, who figured out it was a forgery before setting a private meeting with the vice president who did not know the CIA had already ruled it out.

                • Archpawn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The Constitution lists one crime: treason. He didn’t do that. Not faithfully carrying out the duties of the office is absolutely grounds for impeachment, but it’s not a crime.

                  • kbotc@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s not true. Even the specific rules laid out in the constitution have limits. You have the right to freedom of speech, and yet it is silent about the type of speech protected. We did not write down that the president is allowed to lie about winning the election in the constitution, but we did write down the president must carry out the duties of the office faithfully, and we gave Congress the power to create laws, which all citizens are bound. The president is a citizen, not a king, and I have to say this again as it was very important to the authors of the constitution: The president is not a king. He doesn’t have the divine right. Trump’s just another citizen who was temporarily given the power of the executive. You could charge him with a crime and put his ass in prison while he was a president without impeaching him. Executive privilege is court tested, but it only applies to confidentiality, and going in front of the public and lying is, by definition, not confidential.

                • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not illegal to not do that. The legal framework to deal with that is impeachment and trial by Congress.

                  • kbotc@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not quite. Trump is currently being charged in federal court for his part in lying to overturn the election. They used “knowingly false” 32 times in the indictment for a reason. His defense is not that the president is allowed to lie, but rather that he truthfully believed he was telling the truth, so I’m not sure where you assertion is coming from: It is illegal to lie in furtherance of breaking the law, even for the POTUS.

          • Archpawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not illegal to lie to the American people. And it’s practically a requirement for office.

      • dsmk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trump is being charged with crimes

        Not for dropping bombs or ordering drone strikes in a different country.