Are Tony Blair and George Bush 'war criminals'?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Pretty common refrain on the left is for Bush and Blair to be arrested for war crimes. Indeed Blair barely goes anywhere without people trying to arrest him. Do you agree with this opinion?

[politicus]

No, it takes more than starting a war to become a "war criminal".

[ingemann]

Yes, but honestly so was every PM or President in NATO, when we started the Kosovo bombings, anyone starting a war of agression is a war criminal. Of course that have nothing to do with whether the war was a good or bad thing, and unless you lose or your own population decide to punish you, it's not like anybody who matters cares about whether you're a war criminal.

Just as crime have one rule; don't get caught, war crimes have their own one rule; don't lose.

[politicus]

anyone starting a war of agression is a war criminal.

A "war of aggression" against a tyrant is not a crime, neither is one against a planned ethnic  cleansing, like the Kosovo bombings.

War crimes should be reserved for warfare using massacres, execution of prisoners, mass rape, forced enlistment of civilians, child soldiers or other actual crimes. It is pointless to call any attack on any country a crime. Individual US soldiers and "security contractors" did some crimes in Iraq, but that weren't part of the overall political or military strategy to an extent where you can say Bush was a war criminal, and this is even more true for Blair (there were fewer British violations of the Geneva convention).

A crime is a legal concept, and there are international laws regulating warfare. Just calling everything you morally disagree with "a crime" is pointless. Use another word for that.

Lets just take a Wiki excerpt to get a rough idea of what we are talking about:

"A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include:

- murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps
- murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees
forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power
- killing hostages
- killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
- wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity"

(there are of course other types of war crimes, but this covers the most important ones apart from mass rape)

The US did the bolded and you can argue they did the last to some extent (but also argue against it with good reasons), but it wasn't on the Presidents order. There isn't any serious basis for holding Dubya personally responsible for war crimes during the iraq War, and even less for Blair.

[DC Al Fine]

Basically what politicus said.

Invading without a casus bellie does not make you a war criminal.

[H. Ross Peron]

No, it takes more than starting a war to become a "war criminal".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

anyone starting a war of agression is a war criminal.

A "war of aggression" against a tyrant is not a crime, neither is one against a planned ethnic  cleansing, like the Kosovo bombings.

So I understand that several Axis aggressions against countries less-than-democratic were not "crimes".

The "war of aggression" is clearly defined as a illegal under the international law.

[Intell]

No, simple as that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

anyone starting a war of agression is a war criminal.

A "war of aggression" against a tyrant is not a crime, neither is one against a planned ethnic  cleansing, like the Kosovo bombings.

War crimes should be reserved for warfare using massacres, execution of prisoners, mass rape, forced enlistment of civilians, child soldiers or other actual crimes. It is pointless to call any attack on any country a crime. Individual US soldiers and "security contractors" did some crimes in Iraq, but that weren't part of the overall political or military strategy to an extent where you can say Bush was a war criminal, and this is even more true for Blair (there were fewer British violations of the Geneva convention).

A crime is a legal concept, and there are international laws regulating warfare. Just calling everything you morally disagree with "a crime" is pointless. Use another word for that.

Lets just take a Wiki excerpt to get a rough idea of what we are talking about:

"A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include:

- murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps
- murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees
forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power
- killing hostages
- killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
- wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity"

(there are of course other types of war crimes, but this covers the most important ones apart from mass rape)

The US did the bolded and you can argue they did the last to some extent (but also argue against it with good reasons), but it wasn't on the Presidents order. There isn't any serious basis for holding Dubya personally responsible for war crimes during the iraq War, and even less for Blair.

[ingemann]

anyone starting a war of agression is a war criminal.

A "war of aggression" against a tyrant is not a crime, neither is one against a planned ethnic  cleansing, like the Kosovo bombings.

Of course it is, let's say that I find out my neighbour beat his wife and children, and I decide to help him stopping it, by beating him and promising the next I will do worse. This may be fair or even understandable, but it doesn't change that the act is a crime.

[TNF]

I don't think it's a useful term, and that's coming from someone who has used it in the past. The problem is that the term itself is inherently undefinable by most people using it (seriously, just ask an antiwar protester what they mean when they call Bush or Blair 'war criminals' and make sure you bring your popcorn with you...) and on a personal point, I would reject that formulation because it reinforces the silly idea that international law is worth the paper that its written on and/or will ever be applied to leaders of the countries that set it up for their own advantage.

Bush and Blair are bourgeois politicians, and on that account, they are guilty as charged for acting as commanders-in-chief of imperialist polities. You don't have to appeal to some pretend notion of universal, international law (which doesn't exist in reality) to note that and condemn them as such.

[Cory]

No, it takes more than starting a war to become a "war criminal".