Could Bush stand trial as a war criminal?

ShadowEyes: I provided links pertaining to the Saddam Al Queda ties, and you ingnore them. The Downing Street were not the end-all be all, and it doesn't prove what you think it does.

I get only limited news from talking heads, and the rest I research on my own. Sorry.....

I show you are wrong about your thoughts concerning the reality of Communism in America, and there is no rational discussion or rational thought(s) from you, which is what the forum is all about. What a shame.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by zappafan1
ShadowEyes: I provided links pertaining to the Saddam Al Queda ties, and you ingnore them.

Your own president admitted that there were no ties, on t.v. no less, so I guess that must make him a liar huh, at least according to you.

Did I ignore your links??? No more than you have ignored my links, INCLUDING the one where the 9/11 Commission didn't find any credible ties either.

The Downing Street were not the end-all be all, and it doesn't prove what you think it does.

They prove that your president actively sought blair's help to back up his lies for his war of choice, a move that is now causing blair a lot of trouble.

I get only limited news from talking heads, and the rest I research on my own. Sorry.....

Yeah right. Bet you don't get paid nearly as well as they do though.

I show you are wrong about your thoughts concerning the reality of Communism in America, and there is no rational discussion or rational thought(s) from you, which is what the forum is all about. What a shame.
[edit on 12-8-2006 by zappafan1]

The only thing you have managed to show me is that you do nothing but spew rightwing propaganda, and then have the nerve to insist that it should be accepted just because you said it.

You can believe anything you wish, but don't expect those of us who know better to let you shove it down our throats. When your own president comes out and admits one of his lies BUT you're still in deep denial it tells much more about you than you think. It is obvious that your posts on this thread have nothing to do with rational discussion or thoughts, as it seems your sole interest is to push disinformation. I have provided numerous links to back up what I've said, but you've ignored them. When you finally provide a few links they're from partisan and/or pnacnazi sources and yet you wonder why they're not given credibility? Sorry, but I can see from the other posters that not many are buying your wares.

I have noticed that not to many people respond to your posts, and I can certainly see why.
.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

Originally posted by ShadowEyes

Originally posted by zappafan1
ShadowEyes: I provided links pertaining to the Saddam Al Queda ties, and you ingnore them.

Your own president admitted that there were no ties, on t.v. no less, so I guess that must make him a liar huh, at least according to you.

Did I ignore your links??? No more than you have ignored my links, INCLUDING the one where the 9/11 Commission didn't find any credible ties either.

Well now, here's a link that disputes whether even Bin Laden had credible links to 9/11. Seems this present administration has a bigger lying problem then many people are aware of.

FBI says no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11

In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn't Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of Sept. 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its bin Laden Web page, www.fbi.gov... that Osama bin Laden is wanted in connection with the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” bin Laden by saying, “In addition, bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

The Muckraker Report contacted the FBI headquarters on June 6 to learn why their bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Osama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

.

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

REPLY: Again, the evidence is there, as was in the article. As to why Tomb said what he did, all I can say is their may be inteligence reasons for not bringing to light what we know..... at least what my sources tell me.

Well.. it's been a while since I saw this thread having any activity.. so.. I thought I would revive it a little..
I think the answer to this question is No.. After Bush put into effect a bill that would not only allow him to torture detainee's but would also keep him, his administration and the CIA free from being charged with war crimes.. which is utter lunacy.. Kill one and youre a murder... kill a thousand.. and youre a President..

I have read NOTHING in this thread, and I don't intend to spend any more time on it then it takes me to post this video link:

"President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here’s the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They’ve been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they’re trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns. The reason there’s such a rush to do this? If the Democrats get control of the House in November this kind of legislation probably wouldn’t pass."

Source.

Click on the link above to see the video.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by loam]

In theory: Yes
In real life: No because i'm sure he can find some way of getting out of it. Hes the U.S President and im pretty sure hell have something up his sleeve to get him out of such allegations/convictions.

The simple fact is that Bush is indictable under both US and international law.

He has, as President, ordered acts which are illegal under the Constitution, the UN Treaty and the Geneva Convention.

You could even stretch it to felonies in the District and New York under destruction of the evidence of a crime but I have to say that would be gilding the lily somewhat.

Cheers

S396

Originally posted by Ox
Well.. it's been a while since I saw this thread having any activity.. so.. I thought I would revive it a little..
I think the answer to this question is No.. After Bush put into effect a bill that would not only allow him to torture detainee's but would also keep him, his administration and the CIA free from being charged with war crimes.. which is utter lunacy.. Kill one and youre a murder... kill a thousand.. and youre a President..

Maybe his new bill will keep them safe for a little while, but not forever.

I suspect that Hitler also passed laws that he thought would keep the Nazis safe from war crime charges too, but whatever those laws may have been, they didn't hold up after someone else was in charge.
.

Shadow, I hope youre right.. I hope whoever the next President maybe has some sense of honour and does some good.. hell.. they cant do much worse...

And I doubt Hitler had any such laws.. he would have just had the SS kill whoever he wanted.. pretty much what Bush seems to be doing with his "terrorist" labelling law.. Disagree, be labelled a terrorist and rendered and taken to a secret CIA prison where you're tortured to get a coersed confession..

The man has probably ordered the abuse and probably deaths of countless people and he wont see any sort of punishment from it..

Originally posted by Ox

And I doubt Hitler had any such laws.. he would have just had the SS kill whoever he wanted.. pretty much what Bush seems to be doing with his "terrorist" labelling law..

When Hitler first came to power he did it legally. He was elected. After he got his foot in the door he started changing laws as he felt it was needed. He wanted his regime to have the air of acting in a legal manner. This is one of the reasons the people fell for it so easily.

I'm not sure if he continued to pass his new laws up to the end or not, as it seems logical that after a certain point, yes, he had people executed when they became a problem.

There's definately some astounding similarities there.. Who knows .. maybe Bush isnt an idiot and it trying to be Hitler.. Although.. Hitler could get through a speech without screwing it up

The interrogation bill just passed by Congress is an attempt to retroactively protect members of the Bush
administration from criminal prosecution.

Hopefully The Supreme Court will have a enough guts to overturn the bill.

Unlikely, but possible, The Supreme court did find that Bush was using illegal methods of interrogation and has deemed things illegal, but!.. Bush has found a way around them, and seeing that Bush appointed the new Chief Justice, I think it would be unlikely for the court to find this bill illegal, HOWEVER!.. I do think that if they court finds that there is still torture being used as interrogation methods, they MIGHT then do something, but I wouldnt count on it. And youre right the bill does protect the Bush administration and the CIA from being prosecuted for war crimes..

The only thing protecting the Bush administration from impeachment and criminal prosecution is the
Republican majority in Congress.

However, IF that situation changes this November, they still do carry a trump card in the Supreme Court.

Roberts

This is why I strongly believe they will stop at nothing to stay in power.

They rigged the voting machines to get in and I fear they will do even worse if they are facing time behind bars.

This week Congress passed legislation undermining The U.S. Constitution.

They have limited the rights of political prisoners to dispute or question the charges against them.
They have allowed warrantless surveillance of American citizens
and they have undermined the Separation of Church and State by preventing citizens from
covering their legal expenses in cases questioning the constitutionality of faith based issues
in the government.

These scoundrels will stop at nothing to protect themselves.

I've been saying it all along, they're protecting themselves.. But Bush swears the USA does not torture.. then why is he protecting himself? Because the USA DOES torture and I'm sure it's been ordered directly from Bush.. and now he knows he's in the hot seat and he might be found guilty of war crimes.. so he changes the law.. again..
And you know.. Someone who is trying to bring peace and democracy and freedom to the world, wouldnt be facing war crimes... They'd be hailed as a great leader... Not a sociopathic mad man...