So, is not knowing really an excuse for war crimes?

[DemosthenesOfTheWest]

I know that, for rhetorical reasons, it is not permissible to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis, but this is the case I'm familiar with. Almost, all of the high ranking Nazis indited at Nuremberg denied that they knew about the atrocities committed by their henchmen.

However, it was ruled that that was not, even if true, a sufficient argument for innocences. If the crimes were wide spread and institutional then even if you, as political or economic figure, claim that you didn't know, you should have known and are therefor responsible. This was the line of reasoning in under which Albert Speer was imprisoned. Shouldn't this apply to Bush as well? Aren't these men legally war criminals?

[RBHam]

1. Read my sig line.

We are all responsible.

[DemosthenesOfTheWest]

2. I agree. We all need to ask ourselves if we've done everything we could,

To fight the policies and practices of this administration. To the degree that we haven't, and surely all of us haven't in some way, we are guilty.

[Lars39]

3. It IS permissable to compare them to early Nazis.

There are many valid comparisons.

[welshTerrier2]

4. courtroom scene ... take one ...

first of all, this whole "intelligence operation" was directed from the very highest levels of our government ... "of course bush knew ... do you think these things just happen?"

second, there is only one excuse that is valid to get you off the hook when you commit war crimes:

Prosecutor: Mr. bush, isn't it true that you condoned these abuses of the Iraqi prisoners to get them to talk and save your ass by disclosing the location of WMD's in Iraq?

Mr. bush: my dog ate my homework ...

Judge: well, that's good enough for me ... not guilty !!