Should Bush Face War Crimes Trial

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
la2

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
During a hearing for malaysian officials, the UK enviy walked out as the government there used the hearing to accuse UK and US policies of killing more innocent people than Saddam had.

Even though this is a bit far fetched, Kofi Annan has said he feels the US occupation and invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Shouldnt Bush face the war Crime tribunal. Guantanamo is illegal, occupation of iraq is illegal, threats to Iran are illegal.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES MUST THIS MAN DISREGARD INTERNATIONAL LAW BEFORE HE IS HELD ACOUNTABLE?




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I say impeach him, get him out of office, and get him on trial. War crimes for starters, and treason for shredding the Constitution.

Of course that'd be hard will all the Bush yes-men in office....



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

If you scoll down about 1/2 way, you'll find this:

Legality of the invasion

U.S. Law

Quote:
Under the United States Constitution, presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation, although under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president can send troops to a country without congress's consent for 60-90 days. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected. Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily, and Congress delegated its war powers to the President; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

I am not sure, but didn't Congress decide to spend even more of MY MONEY (taxpayers' $$) to occupy Iraq in 2004?

If so, I want a refund. If no one else does, I'll be happy to take it all.

I think the fact that Congress gave the President the power to declare war is unconstitutional. I doubt any politician would agree with me of course.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I say impeach him, get him out of office, and get him on trial. War crimes for starters, and treason for shredding the Constitution.


I think you're going to have a very hard time actually proving that he's guilty of anything, in the legal sense.

Impeachment isn't something easy to even get started, let alone successfully get under way.

War Crimes of what nature?

You're going to need specifics



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It is unconstitutional. Notice how they twist things around...we're not really at war, we're doing something else.

It doesn't hide the fact that a) we ARE at war and b) it's unconstitutional.

People need to start actually READING the Constitution!



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily, and Congress delegated its war powers to the President; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.


It would appear that if it's not a "war", it's not really shredding the Constitution, no matter how many ways we mere mortals try to spin it.

This administration might be many things - but stupid ain't one of them. They've made sure every "i" is dotted, every "t" is crossed.

So....no, if legally we're not at war, then there's no crime (in that instance, at least) been committed.

No matter what you (Amethyst), I, or anyone else has to say about it.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
According to this headline, Germany has already caved.

Rumsfeld Won't Be Tried in German Court
www.yubanet.com...


The court decided against a petition from a group of lawyers and human rights organizations called the Republican Lawyers Association, which was representing 17 alleged torture victims. The Stuttgart court said Nehm adequately evaluated the case and approved his refusal of it in February. At the time, Nehm said it was not up to a third state to prosecute the charges, as they are already being investigated in the United States.


Now it's up to the good people of the US to seek justice in this abomination.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
bush should be put on trial for war crimes, and tied to a missile on an F-18 and shot into a building as his execution



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
in an international court?? God, I hope not!!

let's see, Rumsfield, Cheney, and who else amoung the old timers would be involved? okay, let's let them be tried in an international court, and imprisoned in a prison overseas....umm....how many of us really think that even the Europeans might want to know some of the crap these guys know enough to use a little torture themselves? I think they'd be assassinated long before they got onto foreign soil.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
First, the congress voted for this, based on lies from Bush&Co. So them voting for anything is null and void since it was based on false pretenses.

Second, according to Bush&Co we are not at war we are just sending in US Troops, Tanks, Planes, Helicopters, and War Ships to kill as many civillians as possible, completely different.

Third, look at siggy, as long as this happens nothing will be done to the Gods the republicans worship.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Trying world leaders in an international court...to effectly ursurp control over the sovereignty of nations...whose bright idea is this?

No me no think so...me no think.

No matter how much you hate Bush or the war on terror, to try him in an international court while he is a sitting president of the United States is a kin to trying to overthrow our democratically elected government.
NO THANK YOU.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
If this*was* to happen ( which I seriously doubt ), every president in the last 100 years would have to be put on trial!



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
Trying world leaders in an international court...to effectly ursurp control over the sovereignty of nations...whose bright idea is this?

No me no think so...me no think.

No matter how much you hate Bush or the war on terror, to try him in an international court while he is a sitting president of the United States is a kin to trying to overthrow our democratically elected government.
NO THANK YOU.


simple act of invading a sovereign nation (regardless of the dictatorship that runs it and the atrocities he committed) is against international law. Now factor in ignoring the Geneva Convention and you have quite a strong case. At the very least he should be impeached!

Oh and that whole "Democratically Elected Government” crack...there's no way you can prove that he was "elected" without the help of subterfuge.

Questions questions questions



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
It does point to one of the ultimate limitations of "collective security" type of institutions, though. The strongest elements tend to disregard them when they deem it in their national interest to do so...Reagan's mining of Nicaraguan harbors comes immediately to mind, but there have been others, and from both sides of the aisle (i think...research time
)



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razgriz
bush should be put on trial for war crimes, and tied to a missile on an F-18 and shot into a building as his execution


As much as this might appeal to certain people, I doubt it would happen. However, Bush being put on trial for war crimes really could happen if someone or some people could get together and find enough evidence on him.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
In the words of my witty friend.. "Will someone give Bush a ***** already!"

Of course the whole rotten cabal could and should stand trial for war crimes. I never in a million years thought I would think/feel that way about a US president. But then again, I never thought I would see a US administration behave so abominably and illegally.

The case has been made. For anyone with eyes to see. BushCo. (the whole cabal) should be impeached first. I won't hold my breath for that. I certainly won't hold my breath for a war crimes tribunal.

As for one who believes there is a heaven and a hell, I believe a much more robust court awaits these evil-doing clowns on the other side.

Mod Edit: Please keep it clean. Thanks

[edit on 1/2/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
International law is not real law. Its a moral concept where countries try to adhere too because if they don't there might be some sanctions or whatever. You can call the invasion of Iraqi illegal, or Guatameo illegal all you want, and say we are violating this treaty or whatever, but in the end of the day a treaty is just a piece of paper that can be rewritten. And bush tried in a international court? I don't think so, especially since our constitution says no american citizen will be tried by a foreign court. and unfortunately bush is an american, so if there was ever a war trial it would have to be held here in the US. Unless we give Texas back to mexico, I have to admit thats not a bad idea at all.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Texas justice.. how fitting.

I think the Bush Cabal should be tried by their own perverse style of "justice." Nothing would be more satisfying.

'Course, if it were up to tha kid.. they'd be kicked out the door of chopper into the streets of Falluja, one by wretched one and left to fend for themselves. They wouldn't make it far..



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by la2
HOW MANY MORE TIMES MUST THIS MAN DISREGARD INTERNATIONAL LAW BEFORE HE IS HELD ACOUNTABLE?


I don't think it is in America's best interests to put Bush on trial. Many times when this man opened his mouth it became a disgrace to the nation. Perhaps, putting Clinton on trial was a mistake since it made the rest of the world think less of America's integrity, showed its vulnerability. And Clinton did not commit any crime; he only lied on the matter not related to the state affairs. How silly is that now we have Bush partially because of the show trial that was forced on Clinton? Bush, on another hand, committed numerous crimes and he lied a number of times. I don't think it is possible to do anything about that, nor, again, it is in America's best interests to pursue that.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached. He believed himself to be above the law. He proved that by lying to a grand jury. Irregardless of what he lied about, he lied. That is committing a crime.

No one is above the law.

George W. Bush also deserves impeachment. He lied to the congress and to the people of the United States in his State of the Union speech. Remember those 16 little words, anyone? It's in the record.

My fellow Republicans have a terrible case of amnesia. They are unwilling to live by the same standards and conduct they demand of the Democrats. It's wrong and its shameful.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join