No, not as long as those American war criminals include those anti-Americans who were in DC last weekend – Sarandon, Robbins, Fonda, Spicoli etc. You know, those who gave aid and comfort to the enemy and declared war on the USA in front of at least 2 witnesses.

Sounds like treason to me. Refer to Article III, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution.

Checkmate.

Regards,
Peter H.

By that logic, then, the Yugoslavs should have taken care of Milosevic themselves, the people of Darfur should take care of their warlords themselves, the Rwandans should have taken care of their own genocidists themselves, and we should have butted out and left the German people to take care of the Nazis themselves.

Further following that, there should be no need for an international war crimes tribunal or court, since every country should take care of their own.

What you make patently transparent, Ian, is that “war crimes” are nothing more than another one of your attempts to sabotage and harm the United States You won’t lift a finger to go after Iraqi insurgents who are CURRENTLY and REGULARLY blackmailing, kidnapping, and killing civilians in a constant and daily merry-go-round of REAL “war crimes”, but you’re poised and ready to attack the United States for any perceived crimes.

Treason is harder to do. Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution (the judiciary) deals with treason – the only crime explicity mentioned in the Constitution.

You need at least these 3 criteria met:
1. Proof of a declaration of war against the US (both within the country and outside of it).
2. Proof of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.
3. A confession of such actions in either a court of law with a sitting judge, or in the person of two witnesses who will testify as such.

This is the reason why it was so hard to get John Walker Lindh, aka “Taliban Johnny” to be convicted of treason. He met #1 and #2 but there was no proof of #3.

Also just FYI – the punishment for treason is defined by the sitting Congerss at that time. So with Pelosi and Reid in charge, think “slap on the wrist.”

Regards,
Peter H.

I’d be happy if the Libs proceeded with “war crimes” charges against anyone defending our nation….

… as long as the President would take off the gloves and start implementing and prosecuting sedition and treason charges against those in the Congress and Mainstream News Media who leak our operational details to the enemy.

If you and your fellow Democrats are so desperate to prosecute “war crimes”, Ian, the terrorists and insurgents you are doing your best to aid in Iraq are committing them by the bushel, including their nearly-continuous attacks on Iraqi police and military members, civilians related to Iraqi police, and hostages they take from Iraqi police members’ families as punishment.

I seem to recall challenging you and your fellow leftists already to go over there and enforce the laws against these terrorists and their “war crimes” — or to insert yourself as “human shields” for the benefit of Iraqi civilians, since certainly these insurgents wouldn’t attack you……right?

In short, if you want war crimes trials, you don’t have to wait — go over to Iraq and start holding them for these terrorists. Why won’t you?

even if it endangers soldiers in the field.

There will be plenty of funding for redeployment; the soldiers will only be endangered if Dear Leader attempts to use the redeployment funds to continue his vanity war. Then it will be time for impeachment and war crimes trials.

it’s all about humiliating Bush.

Bush does that well enough on his own. I see his poll numbers have dropped even further. Leave it to Bush to get a negative “bounce” from a SOTU!

It will be interesting to see the reaction on this blog once it becomes clear the escalation has failed; another case of too little too late for this inept administration. There’ll be plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth not to mention blaming Democrats and liberals and defeatists but I won’t hold my breath waiting for any of the usual suspects to face up to the reality of the situation. Who knows, by then, Dear Leader may have started a third war he can’t finish?

1. The desire for the US to surrender in Iraq (ephemism: “redeploy”) is based on domestic politics, and not the strategic interests of the USA.

2. The “redeployment” will be a massive victory for jihad, will strengthen Islamic radicalism, and eventually lead to more terrorism and potentially thousands upon thousands more deaths.

3. They don’t care, because it’s all about humiliating Bush.

Either that, or you’ll increase your funding of terrorists, a la Cindy Sheehan.

the liberals would have the balls to cut funding.

Just wait. It’s coming.

you want the United States to fail.

No, I state simple facts: it’s dead-ender Bush bootlickers who are ensuring failure all because they are desperate buck-passers who want the next President to take the blame for their disastrous debacles. It won’t work. The mess is the exclusive property of Bush and his sycophantic enablers. As I said, while Iraq is and will be bad for the US, it will be disaster for the GOP.

Good boy, Ian; make it obvious that you want the United States to fail.

Can we quote you as admitting publicly that the Democrats are doing their best to make sure the United States fails because they believe it will give them political power?

One would think that if the war was so vastly unpopular, the liberals would have the balls to cut funding. They don’t seem to have any.

Why, do you suppose, is that?

The consequences for this botched and failed war may be almost uniformly bad for our country but Bush has ensured the consequences will be disastrous for the GOP.

Is that why liberals have offered NOTHING in the last few elections? Is that why Reid and Pelosi had to hide out for 2 weeks prior to the 06 election?

How in the h*ll can you expect to win support and influence people if you have nothing to offer? Furthermore, what would be his motivation for accepting suggestions from liberals? Time after time he’s been open to them and they stab him in the back with their version of gratitude, graciousness and class.

Maybe some on the left have drunk enough bongwater to believe that after America is defeated, Iraq will go back to being the peaceful, kite-flying, place of “flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles” as Michael Moore and Sean Penn made it out to be. But the fact is, those who are fighting to control Iraq are allied with al Qaeda, and or Iran, and either way, if they win, Iraq becomes a victory for Islamic fascism.

And what do they think all of those “insurgents” are going to do once they’ve won? Open 7-11s? The proponents of American defeat claim we should focus on Afghanistan. Are they really so stupid that they don’t think the “insurgents” wouldn’t just pack up and go to Afghanistan, too?