Reasons why I think he'll be up on charges(kind of like how his dad was..and was found guilty to boot):

*Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
(America bombarded Badghad randomly from a distance)

*Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
(again, America randomly bombarded Baghdad)

And it pretty much continues on and on about how they RANDOMLY BOMBARDED BAGHDAD

I'm certain other things occured..but you know me, I don't know much about the military's attacks save for that random bombardment.

We are cognizant of the fact that you don't know much about anything. You certainly are not aware that the US had used precision guided bombs on military targets in Baghdad so as to avoid collateral damage.

So shut the fuck up and go back to your glass pipe.

They were using those nifty precision bombs when they specifically said that they were randomly firing into the city? Wow...

That article was done way back when we were still outside of Baghdad, and has since become mostly lost. If you can find then more power to you.

In other news:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_war_crimes_2
Group Accuses U.S. of War Crimes in Iraq
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A top human rights group Tuesday accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes by demolishing homes of suspected insurgents and arresting the relatives of Iraqi fugitives.


The military denied the charges by Human Rights Watch, saying it only destroyed homes that were being used to store weapons or as fighting positions, adding that all Iraqis detained were suspected of taking part in attacks on coalition forces.


"Assertions that the coalition is intentionally attacking homes as a matter of collective punishment are false," said Col. William Darley, a military spokesman. "People are not arrested because they are related to other suspects — people are detained because they themselves are suspects."


The New York-based human rights group said American soldiers demolished at least four Iraqi homes for no apparent military reason other than to punish the families of anti-U.S. guerrilla suspects.


"Troops are entitled to suppress armed attacks, but they can only destroy a civilian structure when it is being used in an attack," Kenneth Roth, the group's executive director, said in a statement. "These demolitions did not meet the test of military necessity."


The group also accused the U.S. military of kidnapping in two cases in which American soldiers arrested civilians who happened to be related to guerrilla suspects.


In one case, the Army detained the wife and daughter of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top lieutenant of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and now the most wanted man in Iraq (news - web sites). The two women remain in U.S. custody more than six weeks after they were arrested without charge.


Darley refused to discuss al-Douri's wife and daughter, saying there were "special circumstances" surrounding their case.


"Detaining persons for the purpose of compelling actions from the opposing side amounts to hostage-taking, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions — in other words, a war crime," Human Rights Watch said.


Demolishing homes and destroying civilian property as a reprisal or deterrent amounts to collective punishment, which is also prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.


"International law allows occupying forces to detain individuals who have attacked them or who pose security threats," Roth said. "U.S. forces should immediately release anyone being held solely because they are related to a wanted person."


In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the group called for a halt to such tactics and asked him to ensure U.S. forces abide by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, holding soldiers accountable for ordering, condoning or carrying out serious violations of the laws of war.


Human Rights Watch also condemned as war crimes bombings, assassinations and other attacks by Iraqi rebels that target civilians.


Military analysts have said many of the U.S. military counterinsurgency tactics resemble those used by Israeli troops on the Arab territories they occupy. Human Rights Watch and other groups have also accused Israel of war crimes.


Recent U.S. methods in Iraq increasingly mimic those Israel uses in the West Bank and Gaza — house demolitions, setting up impromptu checkpoints, keeping militants on the defensive with frequent arrest raids and, in at least one case, encircling a village and distributing travel permits.

Re-read my post.
1. I stated the previous article that I had gained that knowledge from has long since become lost due to the time that has passed since it came out.

2. The other article helps support that they were destroying peoples homes in a manner that would constitute a war crime.

You really should read the posts before you make comments. It's making you look like an idiot.

The article proves that certain attacks destroyed houses.
Not that all attacks were specifically aiming for something.

Logic isn't your strong suit is it?
As for what Saddam did, I don't really care since I'm trying to make America fess up to it's own BS Before Saddam.

news flash

those homes were beign used for storage of weapns and housing terrorists so that makes them legit targets.

you continue believeing what you want...the rest of use will just deal with reality without you

One source says one thing another says another thing.
It's always so interesting how that happens isn't it?