The US is not a member of the ICCm3thod wrote:
The Hague?God Save the Queen wrote:
who is going to try him?
Poll
Should President Bush be given immunity to possible war crimes?
| Yes | 22% | 22% - 15 | ||||
| No | 77% | 77% - 52 | ||||
| Total: 67 | ||||||
No one should be given immunity to war crimes, but Bush has not committed any war anyway. So, it doesn't matter.
I presume this could only possibly give him immunity under American law? Otherwise why didn't Milosevic or Hussein give themselves 'immunity' from prosecution over war crimes? The mere idea of retroactive immunity just screams 'guilty as fuck'.
fixedDeadmonkiefart wrote:
No one should be given immunity to war crimes, but Bush has not committed any war crimes anyway. So, it doesn't matter.
QFTGod Save the Queen wrote:
The US is not a member of the ICCm3thod wrote:
The Hague?God Save the Queen wrote:
who is going to try him?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7115
No. That's just silly. Is it not the job of the UN to decide things like this?
If anything: "Bring him behind the chemical sheds to be..."
If anything: "Bring him behind the chemical sheds to be..."
I heard an excellent debate Monday night on the Phil Hendrie show regarding putting Bush on trial for murder.
Both sides of the issue would enjoy listening to it.
Listen Here
Two very strong debaters.
Both sides of the issue would enjoy listening to it.
Listen Here
Two very strong debaters.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
chittydog wrote:
Obscene. Anyone still wonder why Bush is making such a big deal about offshore drilling at this moment?
Maybe it's because this story is from two years ago ?chittydog wrote:
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.
Cafferty is being kind of sensationalistic about it too, there was quite a bit of debate at the time.
Also, see here for more recent developments.
dude, have you read a newspaper in the last 4 years? how can you actually believe bush hasn't committed any war crimes?SpIk3y wrote:
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.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Do tell.d4rkst4r wrote:
dude, have you read a newspaper in the last 4 years? how can you actually believe bush hasn't committed any war crimes?SpIk3y wrote:
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.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bush pretty much violated the American constitutional laws regarding war with other countries by invading a country that did not in fact pose any credible threat to domestic security. He also led a military coalition into combat on the back of incredibly flawed intel, that's before you start adding up all the people who died as a result of the war he started. Bush effectively deposed the Government of a sovereign nation because he didn't like it.SpIk3y wrote:
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.
There's a tendency among many people to think that things like this don't count as criminal acts of war because they have been carried out by Western powers but the same rules apply for everyone. Bush deciding to attack Iraq on the basis of a smoke and mirrors WMD argument is in principle no different to Hitler invading Poland after staging a smoke and mirrors 'attack' on the German fatherland.
Do you know what a war crime is?Braddock wrote:
Bush pretty much violated the American constitutional laws regarding war with other countries by invading a country that did not in fact pose any credible threat to domestic security. He also led a military coalition into combat on the back of incredibly flawed intel, that's before you start adding up all the people who died as a result of the war he started. Bush effectively deposed the Government of a sovereign nation because he didn't like it.SpIk3y wrote:
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.
There's a tendency among many people to think that things like this don't count as criminal acts of war because they have been carried out by Western powers but the same rules apply for everyone. Bush deciding to attack Iraq on the basis of a smoke and mirrors WMD argument is in principle no different to Hitler invading Poland after staging a smoke and mirrors 'attack' on the German fatherland.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Thanks. Now it makes sense.Vax wrote:
chittydog wrote:
Obscene. Anyone still wonder why Bush is making such a big deal about offshore drilling at this moment?Maybe it's because this story is from two years ago ?chittydog wrote:
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.
Cafferty is being kind of sensationalistic about it too, there was quite a bit of debate at the time.
Also, see here for more recent developments.
SpIk3y wrote:
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01687.html
The Rockefeller report was initiated to prove Bush lied. It concluded that what Bush was saying was substantiated by all 16 agencies. Backfire much?
The Rockefeller report was initiated to prove Bush lied. It concluded that what Bush was saying was substantiated by all 16 agencies. Backfire much?
And a friendly reminder Mr.Rockefeller:On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
ROCKEFELLER wrote:
Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States.
But it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also pose serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their time frame is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing -- for our citizens and for our nation -- are too great to bear.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
People seem to not understand the reason for invading Iraq because it's a new strategy/concept. The Bush administration had evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. So, in order to ensure that Hussein did not use these weapons against the US or sell these weapons to people who would use them against the US, we invaded Iraq. It turned out that we did not find any WMDs. However, I'm glad I have a president who has enough balls and sense to make a preemptive strike instead of sitting around with his thumb up his ass waiting for thousands of innocent Americans to die before he makes a move. Some people have a problem with this "Attack before you are attacked" strategy, but I like it. I don't care how flimsy the evidence was, if there was even a shred of intel suggesting that thousands of innocents could be in danger, it's worth the risk of sending an all VOLUNTEER military force into Iraq.Braddock wrote:
Bush pretty much violated the American constitutional laws regarding war with other countries by invading a country that did not in fact pose any credible threat to domestic security. He also led a military coalition into combat on the back of incredibly flawed intel, that's before you start adding up all the people who died as a result of the war he started. Bush effectively deposed the Government of a sovereign nation because he didn't like it.SpIk3y wrote:
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.
There's a tendency among many people to think that things like this don't count as criminal acts of war because they have been carried out by Western powers but the same rules apply for everyone. Bush deciding to attack Iraq on the basis of a smoke and mirrors WMD argument is in principle no different to Hitler invading Poland after staging a smoke and mirrors 'attack' on the German fatherland.
Bush did not commit war crimes, he just exerted America's military power before America was attacked. People don't like our big scary military doing anything unless it's helping their country, which is why people don't like Bush and Iraq - it's a selfish war to protect the US.
Last edited by SpIk3y (2008-06-19 12:11:55)
But the far more pertinent issue, is whether the intelligence gathered was done so in the normal manner or whether it was fabricated to fit the politics. This is what the investigations have been into in the UK and there have been many links suggesting this was not confined to the UK, but was also prevalent in US intelligence agencies.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The Rockefeller report was initiated to prove Bush lied. It concluded that what Bush was saying was substantiated by all 16 agencies. Backfire much?And a friendly reminder Mr.Rockefeller:On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”ROCKEFELLER wrote:
Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States.
But it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also pose serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their time frame is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing -- for our citizens and for our nation -- are too great to bear.
Bush wouldn't need to lie if he told the intelligence agencies to go out and find intelligence saying what he needed it to say. Which various sources suggest to be the case.
Also, you should never, ever be able to pardon yourself for anything.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-06-19 12:12:56)
Interesting. Bugliosi is seething with hate. Phil brings up congress' approval and he uses the old "congress was duped" line. Are there really lawmakers who will accept that ? "we were duped"... Clever, clever Bush, fooled them all.Kmarion wrote:
I heard an excellent debate Monday night on the Phil Hendrie show regarding putting Bush on trial for murder.
Both sides of the issue would enjoy listening to it.
Listen Here
Two very strong debaters.
I like how Bugliosi scoots past the Rockefeller report to get to his point about the ' imminent threat' wording.
Last edited by Vax (2008-06-19 12:19:55)
I agree with the pardon issue.Bertster7 wrote:
But the far more pertinent issue, is whether the intelligence gathered was done so in the normal manner or whether it was fabricated to fit the politics. This is what the investigations have been into in the UK and there have been many links suggesting this was not confined to the UK, but was also prevalent in US intelligence agencies.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The Rockefeller report was initiated to prove Bush lied. It concluded that what Bush was saying was substantiated by all 16 agencies. Backfire much?And a friendly reminder Mr.Rockefeller:On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”ROCKEFELLER wrote:
Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States.
But it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also pose serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their time frame is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing -- for our citizens and for our nation -- are too great to bear.
Bush wouldn't need to lie if he told the intelligence agencies to go out and find intelligence saying what he needed it to say. Which various sources suggest to be the case.
Also, you should never, ever be able to pardon yourself for anything.
There may be sources that suggest that Bush gave the order to check for threats in the Iraq. Hardly a war crime. These reports have also substantiated by Russian intelligence . As leader and commander in chief he has to use judgment. That is what Presidents do when they are elected. Every single one of them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Like I said it's a good discussion. Both of them made great points. I posted knowing that it would most likely be ignored...lolVax wrote:
Interesting. Bugliosi is seething with hate. Phil brings up congress' approval and he uses the old "congress was duped" line. Are there really lawmakers who will accept that ? "we were duped"... Clever, clever Bush, fooled them all.Kmarion wrote:
I heard an excellent debate Monday night on the Phil Hendrie show regarding putting Bush on trial for murder.
Both sides of the issue would enjoy listening to it.
Listen Here
Two very strong debaters.
I like how Bugliosi scoots past the Rockefeller report to get to his point about the ' imminent threat' wording.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nope. Not check for threats in Iraq. I have heard interviews with CIA agents (who inconveniently, yet also quite understandably refused to be named) who have said that after reading the reports on Iraq Bush told them to go away and find something that said there were weapons there (I can't remember the exact words they used, it was on a documentary about the Hutton Inquiry) - which is something I find highly credible (especially considering the overwhelming evidence that Blair did the same thing - sexing up intelligence they called it) but very much doubt there will be any hard evidence to substantiate these notions.Kmarion wrote:
I agree with the pardon issue.Bertster7 wrote:
But the far more pertinent issue, is whether the intelligence gathered was done so in the normal manner or whether it was fabricated to fit the politics. This is what the investigations have been into in the UK and there have been many links suggesting this was not confined to the UK, but was also prevalent in US intelligence agencies.Kmarion wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
The Rockefeller report was initiated to prove Bush lied. It concluded that what Bush was saying was substantiated by all 16 agencies. Backfire much?And a friendly reminder Mr.Rockefeller:On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
Bush wouldn't need to lie if he told the intelligence agencies to go out and find intelligence saying what he needed it to say. Which various sources suggest to be the case.
Also, you should never, ever be able to pardon yourself for anything.
There may be sources that suggest that Bush gave the order to check for threats in the Iraq. Hardly a war crime. These reports have also substantiated by Russian intelligence . As leader and commander in chief he has to use judgment. That is what Presidents do when they are elected. Every single one of them.
"Unamended" CIA agents are not enough to counter the 15 other agencies who substantiated the threat. I can't see how anyone could possibly consider this to be evidence of a war crime anyways. In fact even if the President felt there was a threat and ordered the intelligence agencies to keep looking that is well within his Presidential right. Disturbing but legal under the constitution.
The Dems know this and that is why they keep squashing Kucinichs plea for impeachment. The GOP wants to openly debate it in front of the world.
The Dems know this and that is why they keep squashing Kucinichs plea for impeachment. The GOP wants to openly debate it in front of the world.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It isn't. Not in the slightest. Even if it were demonstrably true.Kmarion wrote:
I can't see how anyone could possibly consider this to be evidence of a war crime anyways.
At least we agree there . And a President pardoning himself is pretty damn scary. We developed a system of check and balances to prevent these types of tyrant like actions. I look forward to seeing this country move on.Bertster7 wrote:
It isn't. Not in the slightest. Even if it were demonstrably true.Kmarion wrote:
I can't see how anyone could possibly consider this to be evidence of a war crime anyways.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The only potential case I could imagine Bush facing (not that he ever will, by any stretch of the imagination) would be that of human rights abuses that his administration was responsible for at places like Gitmo.Kmarion wrote:
At least we agree there . And a President pardoning himself is pretty damn scary. We developed a system of check and balances to prevent these types of tyrant like actions. I look forward to seeing this country move on.Bertster7 wrote:
It isn't. Not in the slightest. Even if it were demonstrably true.Kmarion wrote:
I can't see how anyone could possibly consider this to be evidence of a war crime anyways.
On a side note, I really enjoyed The Trial of Tony Blair.
Listen to the audio if you get a chance: http://media.putfile.com/Bush-TrialBertster7 wrote:
The only potential case I could imagine Bush facing (not that he ever will, by any stretch of the imagination) would be that of human rights abuses that his administration was responsible for at places like Gitmo.Kmarion wrote:
At least we agree there . And a President pardoning himself is pretty damn scary. We developed a system of check and balances to prevent these types of tyrant like actions. I look forward to seeing this country move on.Bertster7 wrote:
It isn't. Not in the slightest. Even if it were demonstrably true.
On a side note, I really enjoyed The Trial of Tony Blair.
It's the best case I have ever heard in favor of prosecuting GWB. It mentioned a lot of what you said and more.
This is the book.
Xbone Stormsurgezz