Smoke Without Fire / Bush Can't Travel To Europe

Hello ATS!

I lurk these parts - i lurk them often. I've even gotten into a discussion here and there with some of you, even though my senses told me i probably shouldn't speak up too loud because of how many qualified and intelligent members we have. However, i get tired of being quiet, so this is my first thread.

I wanted to start a general discussion about the implications of this article, and the weight of its claims:

Bush Cancels Trip To Europe Fearing Arrest

This isn't the first article like it, and there's a link in the first paragraph about a cancelled trip to Switzerland from 2011 for the same reasons - that there are committed groups in these countries (Center For Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International) who will attempt to litigate against Bush and/or Rumsfeld for war crimes (namely torture).

To save the idea behind this thread from being too drawn out, i'll condense it to a few questions i keep asking myself with the information available.

If he or those with him were able to run institutions where people were being illegally tortured, is he really worried about legal action being brought against him by any government? I'm confident whoever was protecting his legal security then is surely protecting it now. The paranoid person in me would say that articles like this only preserve what we 'ought to think of him,' but that's a whole separate issue altogether.

If him being litigated against is actually possible, would it be easier in Europe rather than the States where the idea of taking legal action was essentially born? If anybody can shed light on this for me that would be wonderful, because in my mind, why not go for a lawsuit here if you're sure it has a good chance of working overseas?

Lastly, this has an aura of ridiculousness to me. Why exactly are individuals like Bush not the targets of public speculation in a free nation? Where we can share the facts, and even urge him to be seized internationally, but cannot find a unified voice to dissect him here?

I'll be talking to you all a lot about how passive aggressive our reflex responses can be as Americans, because it is the one thing i believe truly stands in the way of unifying our country. If we all know he's guilty, why not say so publicly and live with what comes? If the idea of our former president being guilty of something so heinous is unacceptable, why would a nation built on liberty and independence not act on that notion when there is reason to believe it?

Maybe the notion that our media is controlled is more true than we would like it to be, and it creates a good deal of cognitive dissonance when met with articles like these.

Tl;dr - in a crude sense, it looks like money makes our world go 'round. Thanks for reading this far, hopefully i haven't been redundant in content or form. Insights and comments deeply appreciated!

a reply to: facedye

Smoke WIthout Fire / Bush Can't Travel To Europe - Perhaps he can now understand how Julian Assange feels.

a reply to: facedye

As a private citizen one of those nations could charge Bush with war crimes and try to arrest him. It's mainly an issue of jurisdiction. International law doesn't really exist and neither do international courts as there is no governing body above that of sovereign states that can force compliance. If a nation were going to arrest Bush, they would need him to be within their legal jurisdiction which would only be the case if he took a trip to that nation.

That's the theory atleast. In practice it is HIGHLY unlikely that any nation would damage their relationship with the US by arresting a former President over something like this. Just think about it, what does a nation actually gain by prosecuting one of our high profile citizens and pissing us off?

More likely, Bush canceled the trip because he didn't want to deal with protests rather than any actual legal issues.

a reply to: Aazadan

My sentiments exactly - it seems really impractical, would gain unfavorable political attention, and any conceivable motive to do so would pale in comparison to the negative repercussions.

With that being said, why would he realistically care about protests? G20 summits, the shoe from the Iraqi... hell, even his election day when his car was egged. This doesn't seem like a viable reason to not take the trip either.

There's something obvious and missing here in my opinion.

Above all, this is an American led group asking Switzerland and the like to prosecute him. I say again, why would they think Switzerland would have an easier time doing it? Is this not actually the case, and is being proposed just for show?

a reply to: facedye

I agree with you on most things - and its not only Bush involved here, you can add Blair, Obama and Cameron into that mix (along with a few others) because they have all ordered unnecessary warfare, interfered in other countries and caused misery, death and destruction for huge numbers of peoples in other countries.

Bush for me, although from an extremely powerful family with links to the world's Royalty etc was only ever a puppet enabling wars purely for financial gain and power. Wasn't his family involved with a bank supply not only the American side in WW2 but also the other side? That alone should have sunk his family into the gutter where that behaviour is not merely good business but disgusting and disloyal. Politics is ultimately about control and politicians, despite their rank are mostly operators for the huge money men and their desires. These are the people who ensure their pawn gets elected by financing them in the first place.

I don't know about the torture issue because I suspect every country, within its 'dungeons' carry out torture to get what they consider vital information. Its simply no use asking nicely and where people pose a huge threat to innocents lives we need that information when we ask for it.

You are in the realm of who is above the law and who is not. There are two ways of avoiding your trial one, by being able to afford top notch and bent barristers/lawyers and two not being identified as the culprit in the first place because you hide behind men like Bush etc.

What gets me is the attitude that we can't do anything about it so ignore it. We don't act nothing changes and generation after generation of these world pests keeps popping out.

Our Western societies are all controlled by a mostly zionist influence when you look at the people in charge and their affiliations. They also control the world's media, make propaganda films in Hollywood etc. Its almost as though there is a world council sitting in the shadows that runs every government and people in the world. Its easy to see because those responsible control the money without which they wouldn't have any power over us.

That's ok, he bought 300,000 acres in Paraguay right after 9-11, just by sheer coincidence it's the only country in South America that doesn't extradite to the US.

a reply to: Aazadan

Having seen him interviewed after leaving the Presidency I do suspect he has massive conscience issues. I sensed regret alongside the view that he could have done nothing different (just my speculation).

a reply to: facedye

Bush and his cronies should have been arrested a long time ago for war crimes. If he was a leader of a small country, he would be rotting in jail.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: facedye

Bush and his cronies should have been arrested a long time ago for war crimes. If he was a leader of a small country, he would be rotting in jail.

If he was a leader of a small nation there would have been a regime change followed by a public execution in the streets without trial all under the watchful eye of a nato no fly zone

You all are forgetting one thing...Bush isnt president anymore and the current pres/puppet has been as bad if not worse....and he still is pres...and I dont hear a loud call like there was with Bush for impeachment or jailing...which is racist...hell they made a movie in which Bush got assasinated...that would NEVER happen with Obama....two reasons.....his mixed race and his party affiliation..

originally posted by: twitchy
That's ok, he bought 300,000 acres in Paraguay right after 9-11, just by sheer coincidence it's the only country in South America that doesn't extradite to the US.

Oh dear.... another tall tale!

www.mcnabbassociates.com...

Paraguay International Extradition Treaty with the United States November 9, 1998, Date - Signed March 9, 2001, Date - In - Force MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY, SIGNED AT WASHING TON ON NOVEMBER 9, 1998

originally posted by: Azureblue

Perhaps he can now understand how Julian Assange feels.

What, a alleged rapist escaping justice? Bush is many things, but I don't think he's that.

On the OP. It's only Switzerland.

I stand corrected. You're aware of the political exemptions?

a reply to: facedye

Having read the responses to your 'thread', know that many in this country would lock and load to protect and even 'take one' for Bush. I include myself in that.

That aside, The tradition of Presidential pardons for previous administrations is still a safeguard for the incoming administration. That pretty well ends any internal 'legal' issues.

Amnesty international? Really? Any EU nation that gives credence to activist groups that target the U.S. and only lip-service to groups/nations like Isis and the Saudis would, in effect, be declaring war on the U.S..

I, for one, would withdraw from NATO, let Putin have his way with Europe and sit back and laugh.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: facedye

Having read the responses to your 'thread', know that many in this country would lock and load to protect and even 'take one' for Bush. I include myself in that.

That aside, The tradition of Presidential pardons for previous administrations is still a safeguard for the incoming administration. That pretty well ends any internal 'legal' issues.

Amnesty international? Really? Any EU nation that gives credence to activist groups that target the U.S. and only lip-service to groups/nations like Isis and the Saudis would, in effect, be declaring war on the U.S..

I, for one, would withdraw from NATO, let Putin have his way with Europe and sit back and laugh.

I'm not sure i understand the totality of your message. when have you or would you ever be in the situation to "lock and load" for Bush? Would he do the same for you and your family?

Why speak about others who have been pardoned and those who will be pardoned in the future?

If a person is guilty of illegal activity while holding a position under public scrutiny, there should be formal investigations/trials to be had.

All i see is a former president who is for *some reason* cowering from traveling to Europe.

Your last statement seems coarse and dishonest. I don't think anybody 'having their way with Europe' is a solution for anyone involved, including yourself.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: facedye

Having read the responses to your 'thread', know that many in this country would lock and load to protect and even 'take one' for Bush. I include myself in that.

That aside, The tradition of Presidential pardons for previous administrations is still a safeguard for the incoming administration. That pretty well ends any internal 'legal' issues.

Amnesty international? Really? Any EU nation that gives credence to activist groups that target the U.S. and only lip-service to groups/nations like Isis and the Saudis would, in effect, be declaring war on the U.S..

I, for one, would withdraw from NATO, let Putin have his way with Europe and sit back and laugh.

I'm not sure i understand the totality of your message. when have you or would you ever be in the situation to "lock and load" for Bush? Would he do the same for you and your family?

Why speak about others who have been pardoned and those who will be pardoned in the future?

If a person is guilty of illegal activity while holding a position under public scrutiny, there should be formal investigations/trials to be had.

All i see is a former president who is for *some reason* cowering from traveling to Europe.

Your last statement seems coarse and dishonest. I don't think anybody 'having their way with Europe' is a solution for anyone involved, including yourself.

Of course. I expected this response from you.

I couldn't care less whether you think it is 'coarse and dishonest'. ( I have about the same views, merit-wise for the very premise of your thread.)

Whether I would take a bullet for Bush, literally or figuratively, communicates a view I'm sure you 'don't understand'.

As far as Europe goes, allowing some hyped charge to arrest a former U.S. President would be an act of war. Period. At the least, leaving them to their own devices is what one does with those that don't merit ally status. Definitely a 'solution' to European issues...

Of course, your very premise of arresting Bush and charging him is completely disingenuous, political and a joke.

I'd even say....no, no I can't.....

originally posted by: facedye
Above all, this is an American led group asking Switzerland and the like to prosecute him. I say again, why would they think Switzerland would have an easier time doing it? Is this not actually the case, and is being proposed just for show?

Switzerland would have an easier time doing it because they're an outside party. The US will never prosecute a high level official from a previous administration (this applies to Hillary too). The moment we do, things will get really ugly really fast as everyone gets caught up in revenge and punishing perceived injustices of the other side. The only outcome of that is one of our two major parties jailing, killing, or deporting everyone of the other party or a civil war.

Also, as was already mentioned, there's nothing in the US to ever arrest him for. Incoming administrations offer blanket pardons to the previous administration (again, why Hillary will never see a jail cell) to prevent this very thing from happening.

I don't think he would be detained in Europe.

Remember Khalid El-Masri, a German resident who was tortured at a CIA black sites in Macedonia and Afghanistan and then released. I say released, he was dumped in Albania during the middle of the night with no money.

The European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling, finding his abduction, rendition and torture as established beyond reasonable doubt. A Wikileaks document showed that U.S. officials had warned the German government not to pursue the issue as it could adversely affect relations between the two countries. Consequently Germany took no further action.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Azureblue

Perhaps he can now understand how Julian Assange feels.

What, a alleged rapist escaping justice? Bush is many things, but I don't think he's that.

Do I detect an element of humor here? I think many people who have read the background to the allegations are aware of how technical the allegations of rape are.

Comparing a rapist against a genocide perp?? Gotta love that.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Aazadan

Having seen him interviewed after leaving the Presidency I do suspect he has massive conscience issues. I sensed regret alongside the view that he could have done nothing different (just my speculation).

I'll sleep a little better at night knowing that Bush's conscience keeps him awake. That said, it would still be wrong to prosecute him, either through the US or through having some other nation do it.