Artful Dodger:

> The claim being made here is that Bush is a war criminal. My ONLY question has to do
> with Obama. Is he also a war criminal? If yes, how so. If no, why not.

The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

" 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:
a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes."

Now we turn to a definition of crimes against peace.
"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing"."

The Bush administration can be justified in the war in Afghanistan since Al Qaida attacked the United States (9-11). However, the war in Iraq is a different matter. While the administration tried to make a case for going to war, by refusing to act with UN support, and then using manufactured and faulty information deliberately, the Bush (and Blair) administrations commited a war against peace. Barrack Obama has tried to end the conflict in Iraq. Obama cannot be blamed of a war against peace.

Now we turn to the issue of war crimes:
"The basic rules of International Humanitarian Law:
1. Persons hors de combat (bystanders) and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives."

Although one cannot conclusively prove some of these:

Considering the conflict in Iraq:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Whether the Obama administration continued with some of those violations is yet to be seen.

Considering the conflict in Afghanistan:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The Obama administration has apparently violated principles 6 and 7 by using drones to attack targets that were not always military.

Well, on this point we can say that almost every war involves violations of International Humanitarian Law. Once the military are in control, they throw those principles out the window, and then go on to make excuses for their actions.

We move onto crimes against humanity. For that we look at the definition. The International Criminal Court in the Hague gives a definition:

" For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[17]
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

The Bush administration violated a, e, f and g knowingly. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition violated some of those statutes at some point or another during the course of the war. The Obama administration has exposed some of those things, in particular extraordinary rendition by the CIA. However, the Obama administration has not punished any of those involved and some of those involved in those crimes have actually been promoted and now advise the president on national security matters.

All in all, one could argue that by using drones and harming civilians, the Obama administration violated some of the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In practice, who is going to prosecute? It is like the Bush administration. If people in the Bush administration commited crimes, who is going to prosecute? A law is meaningless because in war there is such a thing as "The Law of the Victor". Those who win the war make the laws, and if they break a law, nobody prosecutes them.