The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes

Ha i would like to see that.

Prob not in this lifetime.

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I know how the US likes to pretend its a law unto itself, but for the rest of the world, we will continue to ensure that those who need to be brought to justice will be. International law, in matters such as this, must begin to get its teeth on!

All Sovereign nations are a law unto themselves. They are free to enter into, and also to leave treaties. As I said before- the only way one's sovereignty would be violated, is if you happen to be on the losing side in a war, and foreign forces occupy your Capitol.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by questioningall

 

It'd be nice to see the crooks in Bush's admin get what's coming to them but isn't this too little too late? Our country's already got one foot in the toilet and Bush is back in Texas. It'd be different if we could've impeached them or brought them up on charges while they were in office...

I agree, I was all for impeachment years ago. But Pelosi (who I absolutely can NOT stand) would not hear of it. I think she was thinking of it being better having him in office due to this last Presidential election (easier to get a Democrat elected).

She is nothing but an PTB patsy - The truth of the matter is the WHOLE government elected officals need to be thrown out! I was hoping none of them get reelected - but of course they did. Too much power behind them to make sure that happened.

I know - even though the UN says it is a "requirement" the truth of the matter is ALL of them in Washington are all in the same boat, but at different places on it.

Lets face it, the fact of the matter, is we are screwed - Congress will never do anything except for themselves (just like their recent pay hike) and we will all be sitting back - not demanding that justice takes place.

reply to post by questioningall


Hey- somebody voted for them, so obviously not everyone shares your views. It's always somebody elses representative that's at fault, and as long as your district is getting pork spending, there won't be major complaints. Of course there is no such thing as a perfect government, because no matter who's in, there'll always be people that disagree with them, but that's democracy for you.

Originally posted by questioningall
You have to watch the video, it IS against the law in the U.S., due to the fact that Reagan signed a treaty, that makes it International law and U.S. law.

this is inaccurate. the president does not have the power to make laws in the US. he can only pass or veto what the congress hands to him as law. just signing a treaty does not make the terms of that treaty a law of our country. it simply means that, at the time the treaty was signed, the government was willing to abide by the terms of the treaty.

OP -

Why stop at Bush and Rumsfeld? To comply with the treaty requirements, the US would need to put on trial every single FBI, CIA, NSA, operative and adminstrator who either had knowledge of, or performed the so called "torture" procedues. Same goes for every lawyer who consulted with the government on what was acceptable, Same goes for every uniformed military man/woman, enlistee/commissioned officer who had knowledge of/and or performed the procedures.

Now, do you really want to put all these folks on trial, and then in jail for doing they were burdened with doing? Specifically, coercing information from bad people intent on killing innocents?

You can call water boarding torture if you want. But it pales in comparison to cutting the heads off kidnapped hostages taken from the streets of Kabhul or Bagdahd by the 1,000s. These were the kind of people we were, and still are, dealing with.

Put all these American men and women on trail, and then in prison, and good luck finding anyone like them ithe next time someone is needed to do the difficult, unsavory, and possiblly unethical things necessary to protect the rest of us.

In an ideal world, waterboarding wouldn't exist, and no one would be compelled or tempted to employ it in order to protect the innocent, but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world...Far from it actually.

I

Why do you all have to kill my hope? I really wish they would charge him, and I had some hope when I read the OP, then everyone had to shoot down all hope for me... thanks a lot You people are meanies.
j/k except the part that he needs charged wit war crimes.

As much as I despise Bush and what he's done, I find nothing more uncalled for than answering to a world body such as the UN. The same UN that seated UGANDA at their Security Council LOL

laws are for poor people.

reply to post by darkbluesky


Well said. I wish others understood that.
Too many people think of things as either black or white when it rarely is...

[edit on 27-1-2009 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by centurion1211

You simply can't have the leaders of the U.S. or any other major country put on trial. Doing so would forever handcuff those leaders from ever making a tough decision. And if obama agreed to it, he'd have to wonder when they were going to come after him and for what.


[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

I don't recall seeing Rumsfeld or Bush or Cheney in cabinet positions in the Obama administration. How exactly are they our leaders? And also, you seem to be confusing AMERICA with TORTURE. That's what these UN folks seem to be against. Until they start railing for war crimes trials for the crime of being American, you seem to have missed the point completely.

The UN calls for an investigation into Rumsfeld, the House Judiciary Chairman Subpoenas Karl Rove and now the UK Government ordered to release Iraq minutes. Telegraph, 27 Jan 2009

So far, just words, but...

Downing Street refused to reveal whether it would comply with the ruling by the Information Tribunal, which follows a long-running legal battle to keep details of the meetings secret.

The Tribunal upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that minutes of Cabinet sessions on March 13 and 17 2003, at which ministers are thought to have discussed the controversial question of whether an invasion would breach international law, be made public.

Lawyers for the Government had argued that the ministers had a right to expect that their private deliberations and advice from officials would remain confidential.

But in its ruling, the Tribunal said: "We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two Cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not... outweigh the public interest in disclosure.''

Originally posted by '___'eviant


I don't recall seeing Rumsfeld or Bush or Cheney in cabinet positions in the Obama administration. How exactly are they our leaders? And also, you seem to be confusing AMERICA with TORTURE. That's what these UN folks seem to be against. Until they start railing for war crimes trials for the crime of being American, you seem to have missed the point completely.

Maybe not yet ... But I'm confident you'll see the obama versions of the above soon enough. Prediction: the first one will be rahm emmanuel.

And no, I totally get the point. It's the bush-o-phobes such as yourself that are not able to grasp the bigger picture.

Remember it's obama's finger on the trigger that is firing the civilian killing missiles in Pakistan these days (since 1/20). So, what's to stop the pakistanis from going after obama for those "war crimes"? Answer: nothing since the people that believe as you do will have already opened 'Pandora's Box' ...

Understand now what I was trying to convey earlier?

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by sos37Terrorists don't want to kill us because we tortured them or bombed them or invaded some foreign country - they hated us LONG before those things ever happened! They hate us because our country is the polar opposite of theirs - we believe in freedom and equality of our women, for example. We teach our women to read and write and we treat them as equals.

Well, that certainly explains why the Saudis are such pals. And Pakistan...are they allies this week, cuz they're getting a little antsy about naked wrists and all. Now Afghanistan...there's a hotbed of womens rights. I donno...Yemen? Algeria?

Wake up...did we crap on these peoples that are now showing the temerity to fight back?

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I know how the US likes to pretend its a law unto itself, but for the rest of the world, we will continue to ensure that those who need to be brought to justice will be. International law, in matters such as this, must begin to get its teeth on!

All Sovereign nations are a law unto themselves. They are free to enter into, and also to leave treaties. As I said before- the only way one's sovereignty would be violated, is if you happen to be on the losing side in a war, and foreign forces occupy your Capitol.

by now, foreign forces probably OWN our capitol!

tell ya what though, I think it would be better if we were to try them than to have them hauled off to the world court. You don't want to put these people in a position where it's in their interest to start babbling all that they know to a bunch of foreigners!

reply to post by FlyersFan


you mean 1/4 that you americans print ? i don't want paper anymore show me gold i'll believe you more

Originally posted by centurion1211
It's the bush-o-phobes such as yourself that are not able to grasp the bigger picture.

Remember it's obama's finger on the trigger that is firing the civilian killing missiles in Pakistan these days (since 1/20). So, what's to stop the pakistanis from going after obama for those "war crimes"?

I think you're the one who doesn't see the bigger picture. This isn't about Bush v Obama - it is about a corrupt system owned and run by the financial/military/industrial complex and fronted by puppets. What's to stop the Pakistanis from going after Obama for presiding over the murder of their citizens?

Lack of financial and political power? Lack of justice in the world? Those sort of things.

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by centurion1211
It's the bush-o-phobes such as yourself that are not able to grasp the bigger picture.

Remember it's obama's finger on the trigger that is firing the civilian killing missiles in Pakistan these days (since 1/20). So, what's to stop the pakistanis from going after obama for those "war crimes"?

I think you're the one who doesn't see the bigger picture. This isn't about Bush v Obama - it is about a corrupt system owned and run by the financial/military/industrial complex and fronted by puppets. What's to stop the Pakistanis from going after Obama for presiding over the murder of their citizens?

Lack of financial and political power? Lack of justice in the world? Those sort of things.

Amen charge BUSH - hes a man - and if they want to Charge OBAMA 2.

If they are innocent what do they have to fear?

There should not be 2 sets of legal systems here, thats BS and anti AMERICAN.

ITS not GOP or DNC first -

ITS AMERICA 1st

Wow i wonder what if the U.S. refuses. then what?

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

imho America could and would restore its integrity if they did bring these torturers to justice ,

Would it really? or would they merely substitute questioning our integrity in other areas as well until we finally appease them in all areas?

just curious

In my eyes yes, and that's the only ones i got to form my opinion

Torture is wrong, and the majority of times victims statements are not in the slightest reliable, I'd also say anything after no sleep for countless days , beatings, starvation , Hell i would hold my hands up and say "OK rip of my rubber mask , you got me i am bin laden.

Building peace takes times and although maybe this would be a small step , I believe it would be the first one in the correct direction.