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

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.

No, I still live in the real world, though, and have to deal with that. Not some utopian vision of what someday could be.

And the real big picture is that some of you want to hand over the keys to the country to a bunch of foreigners. You actually want to help create and perpetuate the "complex" you say you don't want.

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences I've mentioned? Well, if you make our leaders subject to prosecution by the UN or other foreigners, one of those might be that we become more isolationist again. Throw up a wall and kick out everyone we don't like. Like the sound of that?

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 off 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.



[edit on 27/1/09 by Quantum_Squirrel]

[edit on 27/1/09 by Quantum_Squirrel]

While I agree that Bush and Co. should stand trial for their crimes, and not just the public trial they are now standing before, but, as to the UN, no.
I neither acknowledge, nor, recognize the existance of and the authority of the UN. Read this site. Their are plenty of reasons to detest the UN and fear it. But, being that it is predominately ruled by third world countries and the like whose politics I neither agree with or pledge allegiance to, well, I don't empower them. What's more they are a quasi- government without a Country or a people. They are not what I consider natural God given Authorities and Powers on Earth. If my scumbag President's and their cohorts are to be tried and convicted and punished anywhere, it will be right here at home. Call for that and I'll support it, otherwise, I could care less about InterNational Laws and Treaties. Even if Our Constitution does declare Allegiance to them, and It DOES, I don't care. I refuse Allegiance to any Foreign Law or Power, even if the rest of My Country Uphold them.

Try Bush in America, in Public Courts of Law, and, if guilty, Publically Execute him, as is required for Traitorous Acts during time of War. Drug War. War on Poverty and the Economics, Iraq War, War on terror, pick one, I don't care which, We are a Nation at War. He should be held under such terms. Torture is Traitorous to America. To Traitor your Country is to betray it. Torture betrays the very fabric of Our Ideals. I'm tired of Government getting away with it decade after decade, often, behind Our backs, and writing it off when they are revealed. they should pay for their Acts. Or else make it legal for us to torture one another and Our neighbors as well.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

I share your misgivings about the UN PhyberDragon, but Manfred Nowak was not suggesting America hand over the keys to foreigners as centurion1211 seems to think. He called for America to try Rumsfeld.

I suggest that living in "the real world" as centurion puts it, while hoping for a better world, we should be encouraged by such news (not that it makes much difference what we feel about it).

Originally posted by centurion1211

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.

No, I still live in the real world, though, and have to deal with that. Not some utopian vision of what someday could be.

And the real big picture is that some of you want to hand over the keys to the country to a bunch of foreigners. You actually want to help create and perpetuate the "complex" you say you don't want.

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences I've mentioned? Well, if you make our leaders subject to prosecution by the UN or other foreigners, one of those might be that we become more isolationist again. Throw up a wall and kick out everyone we don't like. Like the sound of that?

I think letting the rule of law fail is a much greater tragedy...
The thing is you actively chose to IGNORE and apologize for actions of people you admire. Its understandable, but not principled one bit.

IN the real world , where you claim to exists, we don't have the luxury of committing any act we want. RULES are the fabric of our society, you break a law you are RESPONSIBLE for your actions.

ISN'T that a GOP tenet???? Responsibility?

Only when it is easy I suppose.

reply to post by questioningall



Update on this thread:
link:rawstory.com...

A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes -- such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- if it chose to look the other way. On Monday's show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn't just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."

"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"

Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says 'I'm still claiming executive privilege' when the current president is saying we don't recognize it. Indeed. Obama's people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."

Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."

A former president of the US is not going to be handed over to the UN to prosecute.

It doesn't matter what the UN's adviser on torture said.

It doesn't matter what gets voted on.

The US will not had Bush over.

You have to be simple to believe that the US would even consider such an action.

Originally posted by centurion1211

I believe in setting precedents and in 'slippery slopes'. You do this to one leader and how long before any and every group with a real or imagined axe to grind files charges against obama and/or any other world leader.

Think about it. I mean really think about what you'd be setting all world leaders up for in your zeal to nail Bush.

So, what your saying is that, no matter what any leader of any country does, they should never have to answer to ANYBODY for crimes they may have committed or ordered during their reign as leader?

That's ridiculous!

Never mind the "get out of jail free" card, you are saying that leaders of countries should not have to adhere to ANY laws anywhere, and would never even need a "get out of jail free" card!

All the other world leaders have nothing to worry about unless they broke a law/committed a crime, or ordered a law to be broken!

If they couldn't do their jobs as leaders without breaking laws, they should have resigned!

Despite what a lot of people say, laws weren't made to be broken, especially by our leaders who should be held to a higher standard!

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by pieman
yes, but unless it's specifically against the law in the US before now, they'll have to make it law now and they'll have a hard time prosecuting GWB and co. retrospectively.

Actually no.

If the UN has made a ruling, and we have a treaty with the UN supporting that, then it supersedes US Law.

That's why treaties are so important, and why Bush backdooring the US into many treaties with dangerous nations for the benefit of his corporate friends without Congress ruling on them was so bad.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
A former president of the US is not going to be handed over to the UN to prosecute.

It doesn't matter what the UN's adviser on torture said.

It doesn't matter what gets voted on.

The US will not had Bush over.

You have to be simple to believe that the US would even consider such an action.

i totally agree with this. the US is one of the worlds top super powers. why would we hand over one of our former leaders to a bunch whining third world countries.

but for me i believe the enitre UN is a joke and is completely useless.

Originally posted by sos37

So you're saying that if we stopped supporting Israel by some chance that Al Qaida would leave the U.S. alone? I don't buy that for a minute! It would be one excuse after another to hate us, but what it boils down to is that we're not exclusively Muslim. While some Muslims are fine with that, the extremists aren't and they want to see us dead.

So your response is for the USA to become extremist and see to it that we make THEM all dead?

Originally posted by centurion1211

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]

You seem to have mistaken me. I don't care for Obama. Didn't care for Bush either. I don't care WHO is in office. War crime committed, trial should ensue. That is all.

Some of the 'logic' in this thread both amuses and sickens me.

No offense to the sensible Americans, but you have some real idiots in your midst.

Because it was the US doing the torturing, not some dictator on the edge of thee world, it is ok?

Please finally get it through your thick skulls: AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLD. You are a small part of it, and you do not have immunity to do as you like without consequences.

If the US signed this treaty, they are legally bound to adhere to it. So why the argument?

If you sign into a contract, and comes back to bite you, what leg do you have to stand on? You can cry about it all you like, but you signed it originally so there is no one to blame but yourself.

Seriously, get some balls and stand up for your beliefs. Stand up against barbaric torture and punish your own for stooping to such a low level.

I thought America was for Freedom, Democracy and Equality?

Should we add 'Circumvention of International Treaties Because It Suits Us and We Think We Own The World' to that list?


[edit on 27-1-2009 by fooffstarr]

reply to post by jam321


I read further up the page someone say the US is spineless and wont prosecute - I have to agree.
I also read someone say it would be political suicide for Obama to prosecute? how? that's exactly the kind of spineless attitude we're talking about. When did your country last have a leader who was willing to stand against your own laws uncompromisingly and defend the nation against those laws? even from its own people.. its own government?

no. American pride is more important than the law. time and time again the rest of the world watches as your leaders bend and twist the truth in the name of freedom and democracy. You let your leaders do it. to scared to act. to lazy to fight for change. to proud to ask for help.
Spineless.

Im not anon. either
I just didnt want to sign up. My name is Steve, my email is [email protected]

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Some of the 'logic' in this thread both amuses and sickens me.

No offense to the sensible Americans, but you have some real idiots in your midst.

Because it was the US doing the torturing, not some dictator on the edge of thee world, it is ok?

Please finally get it through your thick skulls: AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLD. You are a small part of it, and you do not have immunity to do as you like without consequences.

If the US signed this treaty, they are legally bound to adhere to it. So why the argument?

If you sign into a contract, and comes back to bite you, what leg do you have to stand on? You can cry about it all you like, but you signed it originally so there is no one to blame but yourself.

Seriously, get some balls and stand up for your beliefs. Stand up against barbaric torture and punish your own for stooping to such a low level.

I thought America was for Freedom, Democracy and Equality?

Should we add 'Circumvention of International Treaties Because It Suits Us and We Think We Own The World' to that list?


[edit on 27-1-2009 by fooffstarr]

im for the barbaric tortures of terrorists. i think by choosing to side with murdering extremist you have forfeited your right to a fair trial. also im not a religious person so i think we should punish them in this lifetime just to be safe.

What I want to know is why the deflection with threads like this? The current President is doing the same thing. No difference and if there was he would let those in Gitmo free right now not a year from now.

It would be nice to see that kind of resolve on the part of our leaders,but it would set a precedent and a dangerous one at that.

I believe that the best thing everyone who is salivating over this scenario can do is to completely forget about it. This will not happen.

The PTB will not allow the past administration to be used as a sacrifice.

reply to post by pieman


"The torture of human beings" those are strong words used in defense of people who would kill you in an instant, not all of them, but you have to admit a percentage of these detainees are guilty of terror against innocent lives. This is just like the age old arguement of capitol punishment, to end the life of somebody who has taken lives.
When does it stop, when do we stand up for ourselves instead of turning the other cheek. God said killing is a sin, but not in defense against adversaries inclined to doing such. It's a hard topic to debate because of the numerous gray areas intertwined within. Who to torture, who not to? Being ex-military and having alot of friends & relatives still involved with that kind of makes me bias towards certain methods of intelligence gathering, not saying its humane, but trying to deter loss of life is our ultimate goal, not torturing people for the hell of it.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Some of the 'logic' in this thread both amuses and sickens me.

No offense to the sensible Americans, but you have some real idiots in your midst.

Because it was the US doing the torturing, not some dictator on the edge of thee world, it is ok?
...
[edit on 27-1-2009 by fooffstarr]

I'm just amazed that the topic is even up for debate.

There are so many people who puff out their chests and say; "Weakness in front of al Qaeda will get you and your kids bombed."

What a bunch of weak-kneed sissies. Al Qaeda can only be defeated as a threat, if we lock up everything that is sharp and pointy. We spent a few Trillion dollars on our Military, at least, and they couldn't defend against 19 guys with box cutters? I want my money back.

For these guys in caves to be a threat, we have to once again, give them passports in Saudi Arabia, ignore them being on our suspect list in the first place, then make sure everyone is busy doing war games about planes flying into buildings while we can't apparently track where they are... right. Just try flying a toy airplane headed at the White House.

... anyway. Above and beyond the logistics of stopping everyone who might have a pointy stick, it seems a lot more cost effective and practical, not to do things that undermine our integrity in the world. Al Qaeda, and a whole host of radicals, are really depressed that we have a person in the White House who wants to talk to Iran. It's hard to get people to strap on bombs when the "great Satan" is having tea with your moral leader and listening to their concerns.

But above and beyond all that. We had founding fathers, who in the midsts of being hunted down and killed by the British, pushed for the most ethical treatment of prisoners of war.

This new "enemy non-combatant status" is just another "term." Used to get around ethics. Blatantly, the point is we don't torture PEOPLE. The problem is, that our government can designate you as someone who is exempt.

We should never support torture. It is beneath us. I don't give a damn what the other side does. All throughout history, nations have demonized the other side.

One day, you might learn that you were wrong. Maybe you might find that the first Gulf War was based on false pretenses, and was just a way to get military bases out of Saudi Arabia and find a new place, and in the meantime, help out good old Kuwaiti royals end the Democracy that is brewing in their country. Then maybe, you might say; "I was wrong for torturing those Iraqis. They had about as much to do with Saddam's policies as I did."

That's the thing. There are all these people so damn SURE that these people deserve what BushCo did to them. They don't know their name. What they think. But somehow, they TRUST that a government who lied us into a war, is going to be waterboarding the right person.

>> And we have to even debate this? There are sick, disconnected people in the US -- I would have never believed I would have this debate 10 years ago. How do we know we aren't the Bad Guys? How? Every movie I saw as a kid -- the bad guys would do anything they could to win.