Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Should President Bush be given immunity to possible war crimes?

Yes22%22% - 15
No77%77% - 52
Total: 67
2008-06-18 21:56:20
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|7162|United States
Simply put, President Bush is trying to pardon himself from any war crimes that he may be accused of.



Should he be allowed to do this?

I honestly hope this bill doesn't pass.  He should take responsibility for everything he and his staff have done.

Last edited by Bert10099 (2008-06-18 21:59:13)

2008-06-18 22:05:41
MetaL*
Banned
+188|6579|Anaheim, Mexifornia
No he's a douche.

Nuff said.
2008-06-18 22:10:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6827|North Carolina
I doubt that Bush would be brought up on any war crimes, but no, I don't think ANYONE should be immune to war crime legislation.
2008-06-18 22:21:23
SpIk3y
Minister of Silly Walks
+67|6561|New Jersey
No one is above the law... but exactly what "war crimes" has Bush committed?  Like Turquoise said, I don't think it matters.  Bush has committed no war crimes, and even if he did, there wouldn't be any conclusive evidence that would stand ground in court.
2008-06-18 22:33:11
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6779|CA, USA
if they try Bush on war crimes, i want those in the UN that backed him to also be held accountable.  i want those in the senate, the house, and so on in our own country to also be held responsible.  while we are at it, we should also use this time to clean house in the UN - bunch of corrupt azzhats
2008-06-18 22:36:38
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6575|what

Would the Nuremberg Trials still have taken place, if the German government passed a law in 1945 that said they couldn't be charged with war crimes?

And how does he have jurisdiction over that sort of thing anyway?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-06-18 22:38:03
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249
No.


Not that I think he should be tried for what he's done, but to guarantee immunity in this manner is disgraceful.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Would the Nuremberg Trials still have taken place, if the German government passed a law in 1945 that said they couldn't be charged with war crimes?

And how does he have jurisdiction over that sort of thing anyway?
Yep.  The Nuremberg Trials were a sham.  The laws they were tried under didn't exist when they did what they did.

Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-18 22:38:52)

2008-06-18 22:39:44
Vax
Member
+42|6273|Flyover country
It's Jack Cafferty, in a video from 2006, so I'm confused about this topic.

Gullible, and in a timewarp ?
 
Anyway, I echo the above sentiments that no one should be above the law.
2008-06-18 22:43:48
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6575|what

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No.


Not that I think he should be tried for what he's done, but to guarantee immunity in this manner is disgraceful.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Would the Nuremberg Trials still have taken place, if the German government passed a law in 1945 that said they couldn't be charged with war crimes?

And how does he have jurisdiction over that sort of thing anyway?
Yep.  The Nuremberg Trials were a sham.  The laws they were tried under didn't exist when they did what they did.
Laws can be past to act retrospectively. You can be charged with something you did when at a time it was legal using this type of law.

It was the US which charged Australian David Hicks under retrospective legislation as a suspected terrorist and held him at Guantanamo.

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-06-18 22:46:23)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-06-18 22:47:57
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Laws can be past to act retrospectively. You can be charged with something you did when at a time it was legal using this time of law.
Laws can do whatever the guy with an army wants them to do.  However, not only were the laws retrospective, they were passed by a group that the defendents were never beholden, and the judges were from nations who, until recently, had been at war with them.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

It was the US which charged Australian David Hicks under retrospective legislation as a suspected terrorist and held him at Guantanamo.
Which is relevant....................how?
2008-06-18 23:03:25
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6575|what

ZombieVampire! wrote:

The Nuremberg Trials were a sham.  The laws they were tried under didn't exist when they did what they did.
Because the laws didn't exist when the crimes were committed, they shouldn't have been charged?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

It was the US which charged Australian David Hicks under retrospective legislation as a suspected terrorist and held him at Guantanamo.
Which is relevant....................how?
This is a case in point that the US does not have a problem passing retrospective law to hold and charge people in the same manner. If you think the Nuremberg Trials were a sham, it's a practice that is still in use, and in use by the US.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Laws can be past to act retrospectively. You can be charged with something you did when at a time it was legal using this type of law.
Laws can do whatever the guy with an army wants them to do.
Well Bush has the army \ power at the moment. So he's going to absolve himself if possible before a charge can be brought forward, or even one that says what he did was illegal under retrospective law.

Asking for a pardon is almost an admission of guilt. But he isn't asking for a pardon, he's trying to hand it out to himself.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-06-18 23:54:24
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7190
Everyone has to be held to the same standard. Voted no
2008-06-19 00:08:43
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6972|CH/BR - in UK

I like Bush, but no - everyone should get the same treatment.

-kon
2008-06-19 01:08:03
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6249

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

The Nuremberg Trials were a sham.  The laws they were tried under didn't exist when they did what they did.
Because the laws didn't exist when the crimes were committed, they shouldn't have been charged?
Of course.  How can you break a law that you don't know exists?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

It was the US which charged Australian David Hicks under retrospective legislation as a suspected terrorist and held him at Guantanamo.
Which is relevant....................how?
This is a case in point that the US does not have a problem passing retrospective law to hold and charge people in the same manner. If you think the Nuremberg Trials were a sham, it's a practice that is still in use, and in use by the US.
Again.............your point is?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Laws can be past to act retrospectively. You can be charged with something you did when at a time it was legal using this type of law.
Laws can do whatever the guy with an army wants them to do.
Well Bush has the army \ power at the moment. So he's going to absolve himself if possible before a charge can be brought forward, or even one that says what he did was illegal under retrospective law.
Which makes it right........how?
2008-06-19 01:10:18
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6765|tropical regions of london
who is going to try him?
2008-06-19 04:51:10
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7179|Argentina
Yes, and Cheney and Rumsfeld should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
2008-06-19 04:59:06
san4
The Mas
+311|7110|NYC, a place to live
I'm not an expert, but President Bush may have violated the Geneva Conventions by torturing prisoners and refusing to provide them adequate rights. The Geneva Conventions existed long before Bush came to power.

Would the EU try Bush (or Rumsfeld)? They were pretty pissed off about the Iraq war.

If I were Rumsfeld I wouldn't travel much in the next several decades. Maybe they will take Serge's idea and send him a letter saying he's been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and he has to come pick it up in Oslo or wherever . . .
2008-06-19 05:04:38
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6283
Bush and his neo-con foes should be tried in the same courts as Saddam, then hanged!!!!
2008-06-19 07:03:00
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

Obscene. Anyone still wonder why Bush is making such a big deal about offshore drilling at this moment?
2008-06-19 07:08:57
chittydog
less busy
+586|7257|Kubra, Damn it!

You know what else is obscene? Not one news site has this story mentioned anywhere. MSNBC thinks that "‘Little Baghdad’ thrives in Sweden" is a bigger story. CNN thinks "Luck runs out for pigs caught in flood" is a bigger story. USAToday seems to think people still care about Lieberman. ABC and Yahoo news are both covering the flood rather than a big upcoming scandal.
2008-06-19 07:33:05
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7093|UK

God Save the Queen wrote:

who is going to try him?
The Hague?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-06-19 07:39:35
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6951|Global Command
Is the use of mercenaries not illegal?
2008-06-19 07:53:20
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6529|Birmingham, UK

God Save the Queen wrote:

who is going to try him?
Yeah, who WOULD try Bush?
2008-06-19 07:55:07
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6383|Washington DC

SEREVENT wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

who is going to try him?
Yeah, who WOULD try Bush?
Kucinich tried to get him impeached the other day
2008-06-19 08:39:02
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6529|Birmingham, UK

HurricaИe wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

who is going to try him?
Yeah, who WOULD try Bush?
Kucinich tried to get him impeached the other day
Really? Man i hate not knowing stuff.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard