It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Bush stand trial as a war criminal?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

The ones guilty of treason are those who destroy our Constitution, country, economy, troops.


REPLY: Well..... that leaves Bush out.


We have a mountain of reports that strongly indicate that this Administration was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction,


REPLY: How many times does this have to be mentioned? ..... WMD's were the LAST of many reasons to get rid of Saddam, as was detailed in his speeches.
"strongly indicate" ...... "reports" ..... no evidence or facts; just wishful thinking.

I may not be around to see it, but in future history Bush will be right up there with W. Churchill.


".... claims designed to conflate Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda..."


REPLY: So much for THAT source: (NON)'Truthout.org" Obviously they, and yourself, have never read "The Mother of All Connections", or you wouldn't repeat their BS.
Truthout and Moveon are wholly owned and operated by George Soros (criminal) and Peter Lewis, a marxist/Socialist, who owns "Progressive" insurance. Hmmmmm wonder why he called it that? (see the end of this post).

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN????? Plame was not "outed" by the administration. Don't you do ANY research at all? Just that statement, alone, shows you don't research anything, and just follow along with what the sites say that agree wth your views..... THAT'S what is meant by the word "Sheeple."

Cindy Sheehan is another barking moonbat, who's been a peace-nik since the early seventies..... it's not something she came up with since her son died. Her boy re-upped just to get away from her.


And just because the miltary records of his service "mysteriously" appeared and memos "mysteriously" come up after the allegations does not mean anything new.


REPLY: .. and if the records were not released at all, then the AWOL claim stands, and people would bitch: "where's the records?" So, now that they were released, as usual ........ it's not good enough.

Shadoweyes: Since you just go along, again without doing info checks, the Tompaine site you mentioned is crap. Why??? Their story: "White House Behind Bars" is based on non-factual info. Want proof??? That whole story is about the Geneva Convention ans prisoners of war, and their treatment according to the GC. Here's what blows the whole thing out of the water (underlines are mine):


Article 13
The present (Geneva) Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


All things underlined are descriptions are why terrorists and no-combatants DO NOT fall under the protection of the GC, which makes your link worthless, and all that it, and you, state in your post directly above. It stands, also, for those captured in time of war.


“The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility.” This means that neither the White House nor Congress may simply grant themselves—or others—immunity to get out of this problem.


REPLY: Is America signers of the Nuremberg Charter??? If not, then what you mentioned about it has no bearing on America or it's leaders.

By the way..... the TP website, on the top, mentions it has "progressive" news and info. "Progressive" is new-speak for COMMUNIST/COMMUNISM.

CECI: No.... he wasn't arrested. He paid the fine and went on his way..... with his sister driving them home.



[edit on 6-8-2006 by zappafan1]




posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Ceci,

Why did you defend a woman that committed a FELONY assault, and now want to put a man in jail for DUI?

Is that being fair?

And where is this "Evidence" you constantly speak of, that President Bush has committed any crime in office? And not some Liberal Partisan rag with political ties either. Show us the investigation and the evidence of conviction.

Why the double standard??

Semper



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Why did you defend a woman that committed a FELONY assault, and now want to put a man in jail for DUI?


On Cynthia McKinney, the only thing I could say is that she was tried by a jury of her peers and they decided not to indict.

Like you've said, the grand jury is not the last word on convictions.

Since you aren't satisfied by the ruling and that you are an officer of the law, arrest her and bring her in for charges. That is probably the only thing that will rectify the situation for you.

For George W. Bush: I never said I wanted to put him in prison. I said he should be in prison. But semantics is not the deal here. So, I'll just put some more cards on the table.

1)The Smoking Gun has his arrest record for the 1976 DUI Misdemeanor in Maine in which he pled guilty:


Bush Arrest in Maine

This is the 1976 Maine police document recording the arrest of George W. Bush for driving under the influence of alcohol. Bush, who was 30 at the time, was popped over the Labor Day weekend near his family's Kennebunkport summer home. Bush pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driving privileges briefly revoked in the state of Maine. The arrest record card was released November 2 by Kennebunkport police.


They also have the summary of his arrest by the Maine Department of Motor Vehicles.

2)An article from the USA Today mentions Mr. Bush's arrest records:


Bush's driving records disclosed

WASHINGTON — The White House disclosed information in documents Thursday showing that President Bush had been arrested once for a college prank and was cited for two automobile accidents and two speeding tickets before he enlisted in the National Guard.

The accidents and tickets were disclosed for the first time in response to questions about a portion of Bush's military record that had been blacked out when the file was made public during the 2000 presidential campaign.

The traffic violations are significant in the context of Bush's military career. At the time Bush enlisted in the Texas National Guard, the Air Force typically would have had to issue a waiver for an applicant who had multiple arrests or driving violations.


According to this article:

a)He was arrested for a prank. (the second mention of an arrest)

b)He was cited for automobile accidents

c)He had two traffic tickets.

3)Wikipedia talks about George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

4)What the evidence demonstrates that he has a problem with substance abuse that hasn't been treated through counseling or rehab. Which means he's a "dry drunk" with a bad driving record. Furthermore, if you add his dealings with the S and L scandal in the eighties, (as well as the BCCI), you've opened up another can of worms.


Is that being fair?


Of course not. But has Cynthia McKinney invaded Iraq, violated the Geneva Conventions and domestically spied on Americans? No.



And where is this "Evidence" you constantly speak of, that President Bush has committed any crime in office? And not some Liberal Partisan rag with political ties either. Show us the investigation and the evidence of conviction.


This entire thread has links to investigations and evidence concerning the culpability of Mr. Bush.

And from reading some of the links, I truly do think he has committed crimes in office.

1)He has jailed American citizens and foreign nationals indefinitely without legal contact.

2)He uses "signing statements" as form of rewriting law.

3)He breaks laws and then nullifies them so there is no illegality committed.

4)He has sponsored domestic spying and suppressed First and Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens without approval of a court of law.

5)He has sponsored state sanctioned torture and abuse of foreign nationals.

6)Hamdan (2006) and Rasul (2004) proved that he abused his executive powers through not allowing those detained a trial (the courts established that the U.S. was in the jurisdiction to try the Gitmo cases) and the illegal set up of military tribunals to try the Gitmo detainees.

That's enough reasons for now. I will definitely in a future post try to do my best to find some articles to help with this.


Why the double standard??


There isn't any. Mr. Bush actually has problems with the law due to his substance abuse. And he's been arrested for it. That doesn't even begin to cover the allegations of his coc aine abuse (which have never been fully accounted for).

However, I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing about Cynthia McKinney if she were a 'dry drunk'. The only guilty thing her critics can say about her is that she has a "bad attitude". And that is not an offense you can get arrested for.




[edit on 6-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

Shadoweyes: Since you just go along, again without doing info checks, the Tompaine site you mentioned is crap. Why??? Their story: "White House Behind Bars" is based on non-factual info. Want proof??? That whole story is about the Geneva Convention ans prisoners of war, and their treatment according to the GC. Here's what blows the whole thing out of the water (underlines are mine):


Blown out of the water??? NOT according to the Supreme Court ruling in Hamden...oh, let me guess, they are biased and partisan??? Progressive??? Whatever.



REPLY: Is America signers of the Nuremberg Charter??? If not, then what you mentioned about it has no bearing on America or it's leaders.



YES the U.S. signed the charter.
Gee, for someone who bragged of having studied politics for 35 years , how is it you don't know this??? Or did you not bother to read it because it doesn't support you?

Oh here, allow me. This link is from Yale.edu...gee, how communist is that?



Chater of the International Military Tribunal

I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Article 1.
In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.

Article 2.
The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.

Article 3.
Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its members of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate.

Article 4
(a) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum.

(b) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during the trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside.



[edit on 6-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You claim the war was not for our defense.. well that depends who you ask because I know that there would be a lot of people really pissed off if we suddenly got cut off from oil, or say our economy collapses. If the war was over oil and is now keeping the economy afloat then isn't it "legal" to aggressively destroy smaller nations to continue that economy for the survival of our way of life?


No more than it is to rob someone in the street to "protect your standard of living". If you're a hoodlum who thinks it's ok to do that, then fine. But just because the US, with 5% of the world's population, thinks it should be able to use its military might to continue to use 50% of the world's resources at its own knockdown price, doesn't make it right or legal according to the Geneva conventions.


Or lets assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat, if he himself truly thought it was a threat and acted on it and not just to act for acts sake then isn't that a legal context to war.. because he may really believe it? Who makes the facts?


Why should we assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat when all the evidence suggests otherwise, that he and his evil henchmen had to "stovepipe" intelligence and pervert the normal reviews and caveats on same in order to come up with even the flimsy justifications for war that they managed to procure?

Here is a link to a documentary that fully illustrates the duplicitous manoeuvrings that got the US and UK into this appalling war.


The stupidest thing I ever heard of was putting rules into war.


Really? I can think of other, stupider things, some of which have surfaced in this thread.


Honestly, no one follows them, well except the Swiss but they don't actually fight wars because they prefer to put man power into keeping stolen plunder safe.


Actually, even the Nazis used to obey the conventions of war, by and large, in particular with regard to the treatment of POWs. It's just the US and Israel that have lately decided they've become outmoded, and the US in particular that has decided that wholesale torture is a good idea. The rest of the world holds these countries and policies in contempt.


War has and forever will be an event where the true animal side of our selves is revealed, kill, kill, kill and try not to be killed.


Actually, it takes quite a lot of training to turn the average soldier into someone who can kill without compunction, as was discovered in WWI and WWII. Many soldiers would fire to miss, it was discovered, and training had to be developed to get around this problem. As one of the most celebratred US generals, Smedley D. Butler, said, "War is a Racket". And one in which the soldiers are victims as surely as are the innocent civilians.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

What the evidence demonstrates that he has a problem with substance abuse that hasn't been treated through counseling or rehab. Which means he's a "dry drunk" with a bad driving record.


REPLY: What evidence? The "Wiki" story gives conflicting views on what some consider a "problem." (Why would people cite Wiki in the first place?)

Tens of thousands of people quit substance abuse each year with no problems or residual effects.


1)He has jailed American citizens and foreign nationals indefinitely without legal contact.

2)He uses "signing statements" as form of rewriting law.

3)He breaks laws and then nullifies them so there is no illegality committed.

4)He has sponsored domestic spying and suppressed First and Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens without approval of a court of law.

5)He has sponsored state sanctioned torture and abuse of foreign nationals.

6)Hamdan (2006) and Rasul (2004) proved that he abused his executive powers through not allowing those detained a trial (the courts established that the U.S. was in the jurisdiction to try the Gitmo cases) and the illegal set up of military tribunals to try the Gitmo detainees.


REPLY:
1)Enemy combatants have no right to be in criminal courts, and their right to access to attorneys is debateable, at least according to the Geneva Convention.

2)Not yet found to be unconstitutional, and have no weight under the law.

3)Nullifying the law after the fact would be actionable.

4)If this were true the left would still be pressing the issue. He acted in accordance with the FISA rules. Not to emntion that FISA, itself, could be considered uncontitutional.

5)Virtually all enemy combatants/terrorists do not fall under the protections of the GC, as has been shown time and again.

6)The decision of the Supreme Court was in direct contradiction to their own legal precedent, concerning detainees, instituted during the Roosevelt administration.


Mr. Bush actually has problems with the law due to his substance abuse. And he's been arrested for it. That doesn't even begin to cover the allegations of his coc aine abuse (which have never been fully accounted for).

REPLY: No correlation to past substance abuse and his actions in office have been proven; it's all speculation, even using your own link.

Ahhhhh .... "allegations". It was a certainty that ex-pres. Pantload had his nose rebuilt from Cocaine use. I sure wish I had been on ATS to see what was said during his administration. Chappaquidick Fats gets drunk every day, yet no-one complains as to how that affects HIS performance. (Yes... I know this is not about him, but the fact remains).

Bush was never "put in jail" as the word "arrest" might imply.


Cynthia McKinney....... was tried by a jury of her peers and they decided not to indict.

REPLY: No.... there never was a trial; it never made it that far; unfortunately



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Blown out of the water??? NOT according to the Supreme Court ruling in Hamden


REPLY: As has been mentioned, the Hamden ruling flies in the face of legal precedent set forth by the Supreme Court, itself. Contrary to what you (and the Supreme Court, itself) might believe, they can only make recommendations as it might pertain to a given issue. They cannot change law or decisions made by others.


For someone who bragged of having studied politics for 35 years , how is it you don't know this???


REPLY: Do YOU remember every single thing you've learned over the years? In any case, the Nuremberg Charter does not come before our own soverignty or duties of the president under the Constitution.


Article 3.

Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel.


REPLY: A defendent or his attorney cannot challenge the Tribunal (the accusers)??? Doesn't sound fair to me.

Here's the kicker: ".... an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis."

Who are the members of the European Axis???

Bulgaria; Croatia; Finland; Hungary; Italy; Romania; Slovakia; Switzerland (Non-aligned Neutral) and Japan.

So, quite clearly, America does not fall under the "jurisdiction" of the M.T.


Why should we assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat when all the evidence suggests otherwise,


REPLY: This has been proven not to be true at all, especially when it comes to the Al Queda/Saddam connection(s):


A year later, we still cannot begin to offer a "definitive" picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein's operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.


From: [link] www.findarticles.com...


Actually, even the Nazis used to obey the conventions of war, by and large, in particular with regard to the treatment of POWs.


REPLY: That is the single most outrageous thing I've ever seen, heard or read:


Soviet prisoners of war were the first victims of the Nazi policy of mass starvation in the east. In August 1941, the German army set a ration of just 2,200 calories per day for working Soviet prisoners of war. Even this was not enough to sustain life for long, but in practice the POWs received much less than the official ration. Many Soviet prisoners of war received at most a ration of only 700 calories a day. Within a few weeks the result of this "subsistence" ration, as the German army termed it, was death by starvation.

By the end of 1941, epidemics (especially typhoid and dysentery) emerged as the main cause of death. In October 1941 alone, almost 5,000 Soviet POWs died each day. The onset of winter accelerated the mass death of Soviet POWs, because so many had little or no protection from the cold.


From: [link] www.ushmm.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1


1)He has jailed American citizens and foreign nationals indefinitely without legal contact.

2)He uses "signing statements" as form of rewriting law.

3)He breaks laws and then nullifies them so there is no illegality committed.

4)He has sponsored domestic spying and suppressed First and Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens without approval of a court of law.

5)He has sponsored state sanctioned torture and abuse of foreign nationals.

6)Hamdan (2006) and Rasul (2004) proved that he abused his executive powers through not allowing those detained a trial (the courts established that the U.S. was in the jurisdiction to try the Gitmo cases) and the illegal set up of military tribunals to try the Gitmo detainees.


REPLY:
1)Enemy combatants have no right to be in criminal courts, and their right to access to attorneys is debateable, at least according to the Geneva Convention.

2)Not yet found to be unconstitutional, and have no weight under the law.

3)Nullifying the law after the fact would be actionable.

4)If this were true the left would still be pressing the issue. He acted in accordance with the FISA rules. Not to emntion that FISA, itself, could be considered uncontitutional.

5)Virtually all enemy combatants/terrorists do not fall under the protections of the GC, as has been shown time and again.

6)The decision of the Supreme Court was in direct contradiction to their own legal precedent, concerning detainees, instituted during the Roosevelt administration.


Not that you'll read them, but I'm sure others on this thread will.

The limits of presidential power

Is Bush trying to dodge the gallows?

The madness of King George

.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
From: [link] www.findarticles.com...


You're kidding me, right?
One of the FEW links you actually provide and it's from the weekly standard????
You provide a link from a source that is owned by one of the ORIGINAL signers of the PNAC agenda, and think it is credible? Did you really think the readers of this thread wouldn't know about the connection? Like spreading disinformation, do you?

Talk about biased and partisan.

.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You claim the war was not for our defense.. well that depends who you ask because I know that there would be a lot of people really pissed off if we suddenly got cut off from oil, or say our economy collapses. If the war was over oil and is now keeping the economy afloat then isn't it "legal" to aggressively destroy smaller nations to continue that economy for the survival of our way of life?


No more than it is to rob someone in the street to "protect your standard of living". If you're a hoodlum who thinks it's ok to do that, then fine. But just because the US, with 5% of the world's population, thinks it should be able to use its military might to continue to use 50% of the world's resources at its own knockdown price, doesn't make it right or legal according to the Geneva conventions.


Or lets assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat, if he himself truly thought it was a threat and acted on it and not just to act for acts sake then isn't that a legal context to war.. because he may really believe it? Who makes the facts?


Why should we assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat when all the evidence suggests otherwise, that he and his evil henchmen had to "stovepipe" intelligence and pervert the normal reviews and caveats on same in order to come up with even the flimsy justifications for war that they managed to procure?

Here is a link to a documentary that fully illustrates the duplicitous manoeuvrings that got the US and UK into this appalling war.


The stupidest thing I ever heard of was putting rules into war.


Really? I can think of other, stupider things, some of which have surfaced in this thread.


Honestly, no one follows them, well except the Swiss but they don't actually fight wars because they prefer to put man power into keeping stolen plunder safe.


Actually, even the Nazis used to obey the conventions of war, by and large, in particular with regard to the treatment of POWs. It's just the US and Israel that have lately decided they've become outmoded, and the US in particular that has decided that wholesale torture is a good idea. The rest of the world holds these countries and policies in contempt.


War has and forever will be an event where the true animal side of our selves is revealed, kill, kill, kill and try not to be killed.


Actually, it takes quite a lot of training to turn the average soldier into someone who can kill without compunction, as was discovered in WWI and WWII. Many soldiers would fire to miss, it was discovered, and training had to be developed to get around this problem. As one of the most celebratred US generals, Smedley D. Butler, said, "War is a Racket". And one in which the soldiers are victims as surely as are the innocent civilians.



S'pose il be a hoodlum then that recognizes my nation as an empire that needs resources to remain on top. The strong will do what they can, and the weak will suffer what they must.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I just want to know, what there is to do about this world/country/administration...I mean, we're pretty much on the brink of another WorldWar...Hundreds of thousands of americans at the age of draft, if they choose to re-instate it. There's no need for another World War especially with all the destructive technology we have now and for what cause?. To quote someone:

"There's never been a good war or a Bad peace"



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snazuolu
why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

What had he done about his people? When he began wars where were you? There is no justice about his crimes and ignorance blinds your eyes...


Ox

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I dont think this is much of a war crime.. But it could be construed as a crime against the USA.. This is a video of a man who says he is a software write and was asked to write a program that could be used in electronic voting machines. It appears to be some sort of hearing where he is being questioned by Congressmen/Women.

He states that Former Speaker of the House of Florida and current Congressman Tom Feeney paid him to write the software in question that would change votes and win an election 51% - 49%.. Give it a watch

Source



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

by ShadowEyes:

You're kidding me, right?
One of the FEW links you actually provide and it's from the weekly standard????
You provide a link from a source that is owned by one of the ORIGINAL signers of the PNAC agenda, and think it is credible? Did you really think the readers of this thread wouldn't know about the connection? Like spreading disinformation, do you?.


REPLY: The article linked to is on hundreds of sites (want a list), and has no bearing on the validity of the information it contained. So, because you didn't like the info, it's disinformation? You may consider the source biased, but the relevant info (Al-Queda/Saddam) certainly is. My link(s) are news sources.... your's are blogs or personal websites; big difference.

Below from: billfisher.blogspot.com:
"President Bush signed the acts into law, but then issued statements saying in effect he would not enforce the laws when doing so might jeopardize national security."

"While the White House maintains that President Bush's signing statements are not intended to allow the administration to ignore the law, many of his statements declare his belief that parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional."

REPLY: No problems there......



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
I dont think this is much of a war crime.. But it could be construed as a crime against the USA.. This is a video of a man who says he is a software write and was asked to write a program that could be used in electronic voting machines. It appears to be some sort of hearing where he is being questioned by Congressmen/Women.

He states that Former Speaker of the House of Florida and current Congressman Tom Feeney paid him to write the software in question that would change votes and win an election 51% - 49%.. Give it a watch

Source


Its funny you mention that software, because 2 years ago in my high school, they had us take a "fake" election, with all these democratic or liberal questions. That software was/must've been what your are talking about because they told us it was new and thats what we used. Of course, there we're all the bush-ite junior & senior classmen in there while taking it, trying to persuade you to vote pro-bush. If the found out you liked Kerry or didn't want to vote for bush, they keyed your car, broke into your locker and vandalized it, etc... I just pretty much choose the "I really dont care about this" answers...


[edit on 7-8-2006 by AllinTheMind89]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

Why should we assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat when all the evidence suggests otherwise,


REPLY: This has been proven not to be true at all, especially when it comes to the Al Queda/Saddam connection(s):



Ummm, no.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report there was no credible link between Saddam and Al QUEDA.

Bush eventually admitted it too, on t.v. and I TAPED IT. However, since I can't put that tape on this thread, here are several links.

BTW, bush knew there was no link before he launch his war of choice, but continued to lie.

They Knew

It's time to play beat the bully

No sex, but plenty of lies

Twenty things we now know four years after 9/11

We know that given the extreme nature of the neo-con agenda, the Bush Administration had their work cut out for them in fomenting support for an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Therefore, among the first move by Rumsfeld following 9/11 was to somehow try to connect Saddam to the terror attacks. The various intelligence agencies reported to Rumsfeld that there was no Iraq connection to 9/11, that it was an al-Qaida operation, but that was merely a bothersome impediment. Since the CIA and the other intelligence agencies would not, or could not, supply the intelligence needed to justify a war on Iraq, Rumsfeld set up his own rump intelligence agency, the Office of Special Plans, stocked it with political appointees of the PNAC persuasion, and soon was stovepiping cherry-picked raw intel straight to Cheney and others in the White House. Shortly thereafter, Cheney, Rice and others in the White House Iraq Group went big-time with the WMD scare and the melding of Saddam Hussein with the events of 9/11.

We know (thanks to the Downing Street Memos) that both the U.S. and U.K. were well aware that Iraq was a military paper tiger, with no significant WMD stockpiles or link to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, the major thrust of Bush&Co.'s justification for going to war was based on these non-existent weapons and 9/11 links.


.removed link that no longer worked

[edit on 7-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

[edit on 7-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

An Anthology of the Best Political Opinion and Commentary From the Progressive Internet


REPLY: I can't help it if you refuse to read the facts, much of which has come out from audio tapes and transcriptions of confiscated papers during the war; much of which has yet to be completed.

The headline, above, from one of your links, pretty much says it all. Remember, "Progressive" is a catch word for "Communism." So, if most of your links present this kind of data, and you base your beliefs in that, then good luck becoming aware about anything of value, or even remotely resembling reasonable discussion.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

An Anthology of the Best Political Opinion and Commentary From the Progressive Internet


REPLY: I can't help it if you refuse to read the facts, much of which has come out from audio tapes and transcriptions of confiscated papers during the war; much of which has yet to be completed.

The headline, above, from one of your links, pretty much says it all. Remember, "Progressive" is a catch word for "Communism." So, if most of your links present this kind of data, and you base your beliefs in that, then good luck becoming aware about anything of value, or even remotely resembling reasonable discussion.


Well now, when it comes to what I saw and taped myself, and the 9/11 Commision Report, as opposed to just your opinion (once again you provide no links), then I'll take the sure bet, that being the former.

You said, "much of which has yet to be completed." Oh let me guess, they're not done forging them yet. This administration is SO corrupt, dirty, and dishonest, that only a fool would swallow anything they have to say, unless one can prove it for oneself. They have no credibility left. They've told too many lies.

Communism?

That's the second time you've used that tired, worn out neocon talking point, which is well known to be the standard fall back on, when a neocon can't come up with anything else to say.

Got news for you, these are not the times of McCarthy and that old Communism 'bogey-man' just doesn't get the reaction it once did...it's lost its zing. And you certainly can't hide behind it for cover.
.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   

by ShadowEyes:
Communism?

That's the second time you've used that tired, worn out neocon talking point, which is well known to be the standard fall back on, when a neocon can't come up with anything else to say.

Got news for you, these are not the times of McCarthy and that old Communism 'bogey-man' just doesn't get the reaction it once did...it's lost its zing. And you certainly can't hide behind it for cover.


REPLY: Communism is an American "talking point", and is as relevant now as it was 50 years ago. Obviously you haven't noticed it is alive and well here in America.

[link] en.wikipedia.org...

[link] www.cpusa.org...

It's not surprising that they've voted Left for the last 20 years or so. By the way, McCArthy was right.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

by ShadowEyes:
Communism?

That's the second time you've used that tired, worn out neocon talking point, which is well known to be the standard fall back on, when a neocon can't come up with anything else to say.

Got news for you, these are not the times of McCarthy and that old Communism 'bogey-man' just doesn't get the reaction it once did...it's lost its zing. And you certainly can't hide behind it for cover.


REPLY: Communism is an American "talking point", and is as relevant now as it was 50 years ago. Obviously you haven't noticed it is alive and well here in America.


Only if you drink the koolaide or get your news from Faux Propaganda.

In the real world, communism doesn't concern the people anywhere near as much as bush trying to destroy this country does.

You really need to get out more and talk to people who ARE NOT paid by the government for their opinion.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join