Should Bush be tried for Violating the Geneva Conventions?

I believe that a precedent must be set.

The senate can not be held accountable as they were misinformed, whereas Bush and crew were the only ones provided with all of the intel. There have been numerous reports of backroom meetings with a select group.

It should be the entire administration though, everyone involved. It is not JUST Bush, not JUST Cheney, not JUST Condie.

If we do nothing now then the next person will know that there are no consequences for treason. And make no mistake, when you are elected to represent the people and then purposely endanger them without just cause, you are guilty of treason!

Edit: This is not referring to Geneva but the treaties of Hague, Netherlands. If you do not know the difference then you do not have the education to attempt to answer a question of this complexity. No offense.

The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with pre-emprive invasions. They are strictly rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. You are probably referring to a provision in the U.N. Charter which forbids pre-emptive war except in the case of self-defense against an imminent attack. Bush was unable to prove to the UN that Iraq was an imminent threat so it didn't approve the invasion.

However, Iraq never complied with the conditions of the cease-fire after the first Iraq War, so technically that war never ended.

Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 687 which were the terms of surrender agreed to after the first Gulf War.The resolution passed the UN 12-1 with Cuba opposing.

Secondly the Geneva convention talks about the treatment of wounded and lawful combatants. I see no description of your imminent attack limitation. Please state your source.

Well, although the US ratified the treaties put forth by the Geneva Conventions, US Law has also been given priority above international law. Therefore, although Bush inherently committed an international illegal act, he cannot be tried under internatinal law. The Hague has no jurisdiction.

No, because the attack into Iraq was a continuation of the war we fought in 91. The one where Saddam ILLEGALLY invaded the Nation of Kuwait. Remember that we never signed a formal peace agreement. Also recall that a great many leading Democrats wanted to remove Saddam and stated that he was a threat to the peace of the region and a threat to our national security.

The question is, "would trying him actually help anything for our future?" I don't think so; I think it's more probable that such an act would open an irreparable divide between the Democrats and the Republicans, which is the last thing this country needs right now. The unpopularity Bush and Cheney are currently experiencing will prevent future presidents from repeating his mistakes.

If so you the senate must also be tried ! seeing as how they voted for it and all !

The truth must be forever silenced & you think to do what!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

what flavor kool aid are you drinking? marxist flavored?