So, the new question for liberals is: Should Truman have been tried for war crimes for dropping the A-bomb on the Japanese?

Some say yes, and some say no. 

Let me first say to those of you liberals who support going after Bush, but say Truman should not have been, lets just review a couple facts here.

Bush reasonings:  3 prisoners were waterboarded. 

Truman reasonings: 2 Atomic Bombs dropped on 2 Japanese cities causing over 200,000(est) deaths of civilians.

How can you possibly, with facts, state that Bush committed war crimes and Truman did not?  It's impossible.  Plain and simple.  If you believe this first case, you are simply doing it for partisan reasons. 


Then there are those who believe neither should be tried(or should have been).  There is no reasoning that needs to be made from me here.  I cannot come up with a single argument in which either should be tried, so I will move on to my last case.

Those that think both should have been tried or should be tried.  First I will break down the Truman case more solidly then I will move to Bush. 

Truman:

To understand why the bomb was dropped, one must understand the circumstances under which is was done.  So, I will use one such piece of information, which is the invasion plans for Japan.  The United States had plans for if Japan did not surrender, and they would not have if we did not drop the bomb.  What would have happened if we did not drop the bomb?

Operation Downfall had two parts and some estimates for casualties were taken.  Operation Olympic is the plans for invading Kyushu and that island alone.  Operation Coronet was the second part of the invasion and would take place near Tokyo

"In a study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in Apr 1945, at least 456,000 casualties were to be expected for Operation Olympic alone."http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=54

"Low numbers are quoted as reasons to do the invasion, 125,000 for Olympic and to end the war. High numbers, one million US casualties for Downfall"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

"Based on the numbers of Japanese troops they believed were available to repulse an invasion and on the brutal fighting spirit they had shown in previous engagement, military planners estimated nearly 500,000 casualties in the invasion of Kyushu with over 100,000 fatalities. For the invasion at the Kanto plains, they estimated 1.2 million casualties with over 260,000 fatalities. To put that in perspective, overall in the war, including both the war in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. suffered a little over a million casualties with around 300,000 deaths. Operation Downfall, if even close to military estimates, would account for a greater number of American casualties then all the rest of WWII combined. "http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=1459

This is just in US casualties, imagine the Japanese civilians as we came in for the invasion.  They were brainwashed so entirely, that whole towns ran off cliffs as we invaded other smaller islands.  Would they be defending their homeland vigorously as we came through?  You bet they would!  I have heard millions being the number of people that would died, up to 10 million, but that is the highest end.  Certainly nobody could argue that less than a million would die in the invasion, on the Japanese side alone. 

"216,627 troops were surrendered on Kyushu alone"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

Their soldiers fought to the death, unlike the western style fighting in Europe.  If there was over 200,000 soldiers defending that island, it is a good bet that over 90% of them would die for us to succeed. 

Simply put, hundreds of thousands more people would have died if we did not drop the A-bomb on Japan.  There is no way around the facts of that.  In troops alone the numbers would easily exceed 500,000 combined.  Add in the patriotic civilians and the numbers grow exponentially. 

So how can one charge Truman with war crimes if he saved hundreds of thousands of lives? 

For more information I recommend watching a special about it from the history channel.  I have it on my DVR, but you can buy it if you like.  Maybe Ill find a way to get it off my DVR and onto the internet or something. 

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=69228M

Bush

Bush is more a case of opinion than anything.  Not a single person has died from interrogation techniques used.  Only a total of 3 people were waterboarded and information was given to us which saved American lives.

"the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques... Before the CIA used enhanced techniques ... KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' "http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/did_enhanced_interrogation_sav.html

The CIA memo contends that prior to waterboarding being used Mohammad was not only "...uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves." However, the CIA contends that after Mohammad was subject to the waterboard technique, he became "...cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."
http://www.examiner.com/x-6709-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner~y2009m4d21-Did-Waterboarding-save-Los-Angeles-lives?cid=exrss-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner

The evidence of waterboarding giving us useful information is out there for all to read.  With that, waterboarding saved American lives at the expense of some displeasure of an enemy to our country. 

Keep in mind that throughout this moral judgement, these terrorists do not fall under the Geneva convention, for they are not dressed in uniform.  According to law, there is no case against Bush for war crimes.

I would like to take this moment to put forth my opinion on the matter.

Torture is necessary if we believe a person has information we need.  Other techniques should come first, but if they do not budge, the President should be allowed to give authorization to waterboarding without being held for war crimes.  If we go down this path of, trying any former president who has a different opinion, of war crimes, we will be handcuffing ourselves from defending this country.  Other techniques were used against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and he did not budge.  I do not support waterboarding of all prisoners, but why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage by removing a way of gaining intelligence.  Why would any prisoner give up any information if they know for certain that they will not have to worry about any inconveniences while in our care?  Even the possibility of threatening them is gone.

Both men saved lives in a calculated move that helped our country and hurt our enemies.  Truman ended up saving Japanese lives as well, and Bush didn't kill any extra terrrorists while interrogating them.  How any sane person could hold them for war crimes is beyond me. 

PS, sorry about the short break.  School is coming to a close and projects and finals have taken up more time lately.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke