Wikileaks: The evidence needed to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice for crimes against human

Unfortunately, no.

That in itself is a crime. It appears as the the ICC, a branch of the world court in Hague which tries individuals for crimes against humanity has bee ratified by 114 countries. Guess which country has signed, but not ratified the treaty? If you guessed the United States, you would be right!

Wikileakes whether you think of what they are doing as traitorous or extremely brave and courageous has shown the entire world that there is such thing as disclosure. Disclosure of corporate criminal greed to crimes against humanity where the world court will not and cannot go after the richest nations whom exercise their whims for personal or national gain, irregardless of the sovereign rights of smaller nations,

Has the Internet finally driven personal accountability of those formally untouchable, or to rich and powerful to prosecute? That will be seen in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years or less, many more sites startup like wikileaks and may even generate a new era of private investigators with global access.

What a wonderful time to be alive!

Perhaps this is the reason the United States has quietly approved an Internet off switch ....

Any opinions on this?

Thanks for reviewing.

I'm sitting here scratching my head
wondering what the heck ur title
has got to do with ur OP.
The names in ur title are not mentioned
once in the OP or is it just
sensationalism?

As far as the title. I hope they
do prosecute ALL those responsible
and justice is served. Maybe one day
we will gain the evidence needed for a
real 9/11 conviction.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
Unfortunately, no.

That in itself is a crime. It appears as the the ICC, a branch of the world court in Hague which tries individuals for crimes against humanity has bee ratified by 114 countries. Guess which country has signed, but not ratified the treaty? If you guessed the United States, you would be right!

Wikileakes whether you think of what they are doing as traitorous or extremely brave and courageous has shown the entire world that there is such thing as disclosure. Disclosure of corporate criminal greed to crimes against humanity where the world court will not and cannot go after the richest nations whom exercise their whims for personal or national gain, irregardless of the sovereign rights of smaller nations,

Has the Internet finally driven personal accountability of those formally untouchable, or to rich and powerful to prosecute? That will be seen in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years or less, many more sites startup like wikileaks and may even generate a new era of private investigators with global access.

What a wonderful time to be alive!

Perhaps this is the reason the United States has quietly approved an Internet off switch ....

But these criminals could still be tried in a US court.
second line

The most powerful people / corporations in the world will not be held accountable, in court or otherwise...BECAUSE they are the most powerful people / corporations in the world. That is the very definition of power. Until their power fails, they are untouchable.

(btw - the word is regardless, not irregardless - for future reference)

Originally posted by ArcAngel
Unfortunately, no.



Perhaps this is the reason the United States has quietly approved an Internet off switch ....

If they turn my internet off, there will be dire consequences.

reply to post by Astraios


I agree, not just you, I believe anyone, even the most pacifist, naive person would riot in such a situation.

reply to post by ArcAngel
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this , but Kissinger is wanted right now for crimes against humanity, I think the warrent is out of South America, I also believe it is two countries the are after him.

Thay almost got him a while back, but he was able to sneak away, he's a low life from way back, the US and Israel will protect him I'm sure.

reply to post by boondock-saint

Just an attempt to distract attention from the current administrations incompetence by starting a Bush Administration-bashing thread.

When I saw the thread, I wanted to see what kind of evidence Wikileaks came up with that every anti-Bush fanatic failed to come up with for almost ten years.

To all Bush bashers: Opinions that President Bush is a war criminal or committed crimes against humanity doesn't count as evidence!

* 2 U.

The world is not happy we refused to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention and if they try anyone for warcrimes in the near future they will be using that Convention.

We were supposed to have our chemical weapons destroyed by a certain date. We failed and begged for a 5 year extension. We failed to comply even after the 5 year extension and just asked for another one.

We also are refusing to comply by ceasing to make certain deadly biologicals and just told the Convention we need to make them for "industrial manufacturing". The world isn't happy about it.

At the Convention the loudest speaking country that was condemning us for failing to abide by the Convention was Iran. Hence why we're REALLY after them. The world responded by giving Iran higher powers at the Convention.

You ain't seeing it in the news but you can read all the countries statements on the Chemical Conventions Website. It ain't looking good for us. We are looking very bad to the world right now.

Wikileaks: The evidence needed to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice for crimes against human

WHY did you decide it was evidence against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Rice ... but not on Obama, Biden, Clinton etc etc ...?? The Bush administration may have gone in, BUT the Obama administration carried on and even escalated in Afghanistan. If you want to try to prosecute one bunch, then you've gotta' prosecute the other bunch as well. Two sides of the same coin.

reply to post by FlyersFan


It is amazing to me how people still have their blinders on after 100,000 iraqi's dead the majority civilians and untold not to mention the crippled children and the destruction of Iraqs environment by depleted uranium ammunition and God knows what else.

There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. None at all. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 in 2001 (there's plenty of evidence Bush was behind that as well).

Obama inherited this mess and I am fearful that when the republicans regain control, it'll be off to the races, look out Iran, lookout Pakistan and goodbye to what's left of the middle class in the United States.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
It is amazing to me how people still have their blinders on ..

OY :shk: Back atchya.

Obama inherited this mess ...

That bird don't fly anymore. He dove in. He approved overseas torture. He surged.
He made the war in Afghanistan bigger. If ya'll want to fry the Bush Administration then
you have to fry the Obama one as well. He's not an innocent who is trying to straighten things out.
He's embraced it all.

Attempting to excuse Obama from any blame for whatever may, or may not be happening in the Afghan/Iraqi Wars is a bit silly, don't you think?

He's had two years plus of time to effect change. Remember that? "change" was the mantra. I'm not seeing any.

Blame the previous regime all you wish, but save some for the currant one, too...or those blinders fit you just as well as the others you accuse of wearing them.

Originally posted by Astraios

Originally posted by ArcAngel
Unfortunately, no.



Perhaps this is the reason the United States has quietly approved an Internet off switch ....

If they turn my internet off, there will be dire consequences.

you'll change your mood on facebook to 'angry'?

second

Originally posted by seagull
Attempting to excuse Obama from any blame for whatever may, or may not be happening in the Afghan/Iraqi Wars is a bit silly, don't you think?

He's had two years plus of time to effect change. Remember that? "change" was the mantra. I'm not seeing any.

Blame the previous regime all you wish, but save some for the currant one, too...or those blinders fit you just as well as the others you accuse of wearing them.

Is that s reference to something specific, or am I supposed to infer that you think once Bush left office, all his crimes were absolved?

reply to post by justadood


Y'all are making the accusations, not I. War criminals? If war itself is a crime, isn't a "war criminal" counter intuitive?

I've always thought "rules" in war are sort of oxymoronic...

War is bad. War is evil. War should be avoided by any means necessary. Not sanitized by "rules". fight it by every means at your disposal in order to win. Thereby, in reality, minimizing the causulties.

When a nation state wages war, the object, or so I've always believed, is to kill/maim, and otherwise incapacitate the bad-guy. Innocents get hurt. That is a horrible fact of war. If you don't like it, and by "you", I mean everyone, including me; don't wage a war, find another way.

War itself is a crime. A crime against humanity in general. That being the case...let's put ourselves on trial, too. To pick and choose who gets blamed, or credit, too, I suppose; is the height of hypocrisy.

reply to post by ArcAngel


But you have forgotten the words of the poet...

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss - Pete Townsend from "Won't Get Fooled Again"

As true to today as when it was written. Clinton, Bush Sr & W, Obama, etc... despite all the hub-bub there is really not enough difference between them to make a difference.

For ages the new boss has been the old boss in a new wrapper. That is why a trial won't come to pass.

If the new boss punishes the old boss - then he too risks being punished when he becomes the old boss.

Despite all the rhetoric, posturing and hot air - those in power protect each other.

Obama didn't inherit anything................he was elected because he wanted to do it. Big difference. Obama is just as guilty as the rest and should face a harsher penalty. If it can be proven it was all a lie and he has not only continued it, but escalated it, he's actually worse than President Bush.