You are herecontent / For His Treatment of Children in the 'War on Terror' Bush is a War Criminal

For His Treatment of Children in the 'War on Terror' Bush is a War Criminal

By Dave Lindorff

Surely nothing that President Bush has done in his two wretched terms of office—not the invasion and destruction of Iraq, not the overturning of the five-centuries-old tradition of habeas corpus, not his authorization and encouragement of torture, not his campaign of domestic spying—nothing, can compare in its ugliness to his approval, as commander in chief, of the imprisoning of over 2500 children.

According to the US government’s own figures, that is how many kids 17 years and younger have been held since 2001 as “enemy combatants”—often for over a year, and sometimes for over five years. At least eight of those children, some reportedly as young as 10, were held at Guantanamo. They even had a special camp for them there: Camp Iguana. One of those kids committed suicide at the age of 21, after spending five years in confinement at Guantanamo. (Ironically and tragically, that particular victim of the president’s criminal policy, had been determined by the Pentagon to have been innocent only two weeks before he took his own life, but nobody bothered to tell him he was slated for release and a return home to Afghanistan.)

I say Bush’s behavior is criminal because since 1949, under the Geneva Conventions signed and adopted by the US, and incorporated into US law under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, children under the age of 15 are classed as “protected persons,” and even if captured while fighting against US forces are to be considered victims, not POWs. In 2002, the Bush administration signed an updated version of that treaty, raising the “protected person” age to all those “under 18.”

Treaties don’t mean much to this president, to the vice president, or to the rest of the administration, but they should mean something to the rest of us. Five hundred children remain in US captivity as "enemy combatants today." More are held who were captured as children, but grew up as POWs.

But capturing and imprisoning children isn’t even the worst of this president’s war crimes when it comes to the abuse of the young. Under Bush’s leadership as commander in chief, the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan has been considering any male child of age 14 or older to be a potential combatant. They have been treated accordingly—shot by US troops, imprisoned as “enemy combatants,” renditioned to Guantanamo, and even subjected to torture.

In the 2004 assault by US Marines on the city of Fallujah, things were even worse. Dexter Filkins, a reporter for the New York Times, reported that before that invasion, some 20,000 Marines encircled the doomed city, which the White House had decided to level because it harbored a bunch of insurgents and had angered the American public by capturing, killing and mutilating the bodies of four mercenaries working for US forces. The residents of the 300,000-population city were warned of the coming all-out attack. Women and children and old people were allowed to flee the city and pass through the cordon of troops. But Filkins reported that males determined to be “of combat age,” which in this case was established as 12 and up, were barred from leaving, and sent back into the city to await their fate. Young boys were ripped from their screaming mothers and sent trudging back to the city to face death.

In the ensuing slaughter, as the US rained bombs, napalm, phosphorus, anti-personnel fragmentation weapons and an unimaginable quantity of machine gun and small arms fire down on the city, it is clear that many of those young boys died.

This was a triple war crime. First of all, it was a case of collective punishment—a gruesome practice popular with the Nazis in World War II, and barred by the Geneva Conventions. The international laws of war also guarantee the right of surrender, so those men and boys who tried to leave, even if suspected of being enemy fighters, should have been allowed to surrender and be held as captives until their loyalties could be established. The boys, meanwhile, were “protected persons” who were by law to be treated as victims of war, and protected from harm.

Instead they were treated as the enemy, to be destroyed.

For these crimes, the president should today be impeached by the Congress and then tried as a war criminal.

After watching this Congress cower from its responsibility to defend the Constitution, I have little hope of that happening. But I do harbor the hope that once Bush has left office, some prosecutor in another country—perhaps Spain, or Canada or Germany—will use the doctrine of universal jurisdiction to indict him for war crimes, and, should he leave the country for some lucrative speaking engagement, arrest him, the way former dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested by a Spanish prosecutor on a visit to the UK.

For his abuse, imprisonment and killing of children, this president should stand trial for war crimes.


DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). He is working on a book on the president’s war crimes. Lindorff’s work can be found at

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It has occurred to me over the Bush gang`s time in power that he has done many things that seem to resemble Nazi Germany."Homeland Security;"the Patriot Act;Gitmo`s,Abu Graib`s torture policies;internal spying;,the free speech zones for war protesters that are several thousand feet away from Bush and his minions,outing Valerie Plame without consequences; politicizing DOJ as well as nearly every department of government,to name just a few.It makes me wonder if there will be a 2008 election or just another sham power grab by the fascist mob element that controls this country.
I enjoyed the depth of truth in your article.Thanks for all the good work you do.And please continue to do this work.

Rest assured sully18, we will have a normal election this year. You have to be careful though, because the outcome may not be to our liking, in which case a whole new generation of dirt seekers will be ready to start a new movement. That movement will then make the same mistakes and dirt sling themselves into the ground. The free speech zones for war protesters are only there to assure that every opinion is worth to be listened to and not to be interrupted by intolerant people. These rules are brought on by people who have no respect for their fellow citizens, both in speaking and listening.
Name me one instance when a person with an ultra leftists opinion, on a university campus, was not able to speak his/her mind without being interrupted or threatened?
On the other side of the coin are the rightists, not being able, or allowed to speak. You can fill a whole page with this. What are the rights of the minority, wanting the majority to conform to their political points of view? That is not going to happen, no matter how hard you try. I lived under Nazi Germany and believe me, we are far from that. It would not surprise me if both of us want the same thing and the only difference is how you go about it. That difference sully18, makes me being called from; a Pelosi lover to a McCain ass-kisser.
This organization instead of being focused on the middle of the road, has aligned itself with the far left lunatics, wanting to take away our American way of life, by shoving down our throats their twisted ideology. They are in desperate need of a real leader, with principals and convictions, instead of relying on the Hollywood "have beens" who do not even know how to act as leaders instead, love to instigate. Even though our thinking may be the same, I refuse to align myself with a bunch of losers, who through debasing, are trying to get their point across. We almost thought having found the Savior of America in Obama, which was nice as long as it lasted. That dream was shattered with the likes of Wright, some of his close friends and his arrogant way of trying to convince us. Furthermore, his wife got even me ticked of. So you see, looks can be deceiving. As far as I am concerned, we have been deceived for eight years and it is time for a change however, I wish it was with a "Yes we shall", in place of "Yes we can", because sully18, I'm sorry, we can't. Not this time around. I suppose, we just have to: "keep hope alive".

No "left lunatics" here. The "shall" that should be imposed is the one in the Constitution - "shall impeach".
Glad James/Paul hasn't been around for awhile. Will be glad when you aren't either. Will apologize when you have made me want to do so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events



August 2-6: Peace and Democracy Conference at Democracy Convention in Minneapolis, Minn.


September 22-24: No War 2017 at American University in Washington, D.C.


October 28: Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference

Find more events here.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.