“war crime is when war I don’t like and the more I don’t like it the war crime-y-er it is” - average person discussing war crimes of modern presidents
For the record, Bush is guilty of legitimate war crimes (sanctioning the torture of PoWs) and crimes against peace (the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Iraq), and Trump is quite possibly guilty of war crimes (his advocacy of ‘killing the families’ of enemy combatants combined with the fact that he removed the transparency from our drone strike program is… suspicious, to say the least) but shit will leak out from that administration for years to come yet.
Obama and Biden probably do not count as war criminals. Killing enemy combatants is legally unproblematic. However, the acceptance of high collateral damage and relatively low certainty of identification may qualify them, depending on how you see the matter of drone strikes vs. traditional methods. It would be a much tougher sell at the Hague.
EDIT: It was pointed out below that Obama is more likely a war criminal due to the approval of legally dubious ‘double-tap’ drone strikes which presume first responders to militants are militants themselves.
“war crime is when war I don’t like and the more I don’t like it the war crime-y-er it is” - average person discussing war crimes of modern presidents
Literally.
Obama and Biden probably do not count as war criminals
Obama is definitely a war criminal. For the Kunduz hospital strike, or if you think he’s not responsible for that personally, then for his approval of “double tap” drone strikes, where after the first drone strike on people they suspect might be terrorists they would wait for first responders to come help, and then send another strike on them assuming they are also terrorists, despite international law stating they must assume people are non combatants until they can prove otherwise.
Obama is definitely a war criminal. For the Kunduz hospital strike,
I don’t really see how that incident is on him.
or if you think he’s not responsible for that personally, then for his approval of “double tap” drone strikes, where after the first drone strike on people they *suspect might_ be terrorists they would wait for first responders to come help, and then send another strike on them assuming they are also terrorists, despite international law stating they must assume people are non combatants until they can prove otherwise.
Yeah, that’s much more likely to make him a war criminal.
The idea being that as the leader of the country the buck stops with him. But I acknowledged that not everyone will view it that way, and included the other, less debatable example too.
The idea being that as the leader of the country the buck stops with him.
That the buck stops with him doesn’t make him personally responsible for every decision made by people under his command. If that was the case, it would be literally impossible to not be a criminal in any position of power - if GI Joe chooses to drive drunk on a Saturday night, that nets you a DUI. ‘The buck stops here’ means that the president must ultimately take responsibility for the decision-making that comes to his desk. It doesn’t mean “GI Joe’s DUI is your DUI”, it means “When GI Joe’s DUI comes to your desk, what you decide cannot be blamed on anyone else - this is your duty to make the big decisions and own up to what happens.”
In the Kunduz hospital strike, that meant a rare admission of guilt from the US government and reparations. If you think that’s not enough - then the buck stops with Obama. It’s his fault that more was not done in response to the incident. But the strike itself was not ordered or authorized by him, and can’t be reasonably blamed on him simply because he’s the CiC.
“war crime is when war I don’t like and the more I don’t like it the war crime-y-er it is” - average person discussing war crimes of modern presidents
For the record, Bush is guilty of legitimate war crimes (sanctioning the torture of PoWs) and crimes against peace (the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Iraq), and Trump is quite possibly guilty of war crimes (his advocacy of ‘killing the families’ of enemy combatants combined with the fact that he removed the transparency from our drone strike program is… suspicious, to say the least) but shit will leak out from that administration for years to come yet.
Obama andBiden probably do not count as war criminals. Killing enemy combatants is legally unproblematic. However, the acceptance of high collateral damage and relatively low certainty of identification may qualify them, depending on how you see the matter of drone strikes vs. traditional methods. It would be a much tougher sell at the Hague.EDIT: It was pointed out below that Obama is more likely a war criminal due to the approval of legally dubious ‘double-tap’ drone strikes which presume first responders to militants are militants themselves.
Literally.
Obama is definitely a war criminal. For the Kunduz hospital strike, or if you think he’s not responsible for that personally, then for his approval of “double tap” drone strikes, where after the first drone strike on people they suspect might be terrorists they would wait for first responders to come help, and then send another strike on them assuming they are also terrorists, despite international law stating they must assume people are non combatants until they can prove otherwise.
I don’t really see how that incident is on him.
Yeah, that’s much more likely to make him a war criminal.
The idea being that as the leader of the country the buck stops with him. But I acknowledged that not everyone will view it that way, and included the other, less debatable example too.
That the buck stops with him doesn’t make him personally responsible for every decision made by people under his command. If that was the case, it would be literally impossible to not be a criminal in any position of power - if GI Joe chooses to drive drunk on a Saturday night, that nets you a DUI. ‘The buck stops here’ means that the president must ultimately take responsibility for the decision-making that comes to his desk. It doesn’t mean “GI Joe’s DUI is your DUI”, it means “When GI Joe’s DUI comes to your desk, what you decide cannot be blamed on anyone else - this is your duty to make the big decisions and own up to what happens.”
In the Kunduz hospital strike, that meant a rare admission of guilt from the US government and reparations. If you think that’s not enough - then the buck stops with Obama. It’s his fault that more was not done in response to the incident. But the strike itself was not ordered or authorized by him, and can’t be reasonably blamed on him simply because he’s the CiC.
I get your side of this, I’m not arguing against you dude.