George W. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity as well

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
This document protects heads of state and their assistants from legal issues resulting from a countries actions.

Right or wrong heads of states are protected.

Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq, he was not an elected leader under a free democratic process.

Why do you think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is spouting off about Israel, Mahmoud is the elected leader of Iran and he is protected by diplomatic Immunity.


First let me say: Noteworthy contribution! You bring up some valid points.

A question i have (not sure of answer) is wasn't Melosavich, who faced a tribunal, an elected official?



If you don't like your leadership run for office, get involved and change the world or shut up !


I agree, people should act. But, first they should be informed before they act, or their actions are actions which are uninformed, or a result of an opinion in which others have willingly or unwilling omitted certain facts.

In other words i agree people should get involved if they are to be viewed as having integrity, or otherwise be perceived as hypocrits by others who choose to judge them.

But, some people are still involved, but involved through information gathering, as they may feel they still don't know or have access to all the pertinent truths needed before they act in a more involved manner.

Make sense? Although i agree with your above quote, some people are still asking questions, and trying to understand.




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq, he was not an elected leader under a free democratic process.


He absolutely WAS the President of Iraq! Regardless how he came to be or whether you approve of it or not, that was his title. President. Of Iraq. As neformore said, he may not have been elected under a free democratic process, but that doesn't change his title.

Remember, the US is NOT in fact the leader of the world and we do NOT set the rules for everyone in the world to follow. I know it's easy to forget, but try to remember.



If you don't like your leadership run for office, get involved and change the world or shut up !


While you certainly have the right to tell people to shut up, we have every right not to.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by SIRR1

Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq, he was not an elected leader under a free democratic process.


Now....elected, maybe not, but then - and I hate to bring up this old chestnut - was Bush actually elected? Or did the supreme courts in the US make the decision whilst disregarding a whole load of evidence that something might just have been a teeny little bit amiss with the voting system?



The recounts show that Bush won, by a narrow margin, but if you have more you've still won. If there was strong enough proof otherwise, do you think Gore would have relented? He and Kerry knew they didn't have a leg to stand on to claim otherwise. This happened despite the Dems rounding up folks in busses and offering free cigarettes, etc... to go vote, and only their constituents had any issues with figuring out how the voting machines worked, which offers some insight into what types of constituents they in fact have.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
Diplomatic Immunity


Diplomatic Immunity protects Bush while he's president from OTHER countries taking legal action against him. But it does not protect him after his presidency is over or after a successful impeachment.

How this would work is that we would IMPEACH Bush first and then charge him with war crimes. We're not suggesting another country should prosecute Bush. We should.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!




Why is that anti-American? These people that took power and ran this gret nation nearly in the ground are un-American, it would be very American to put these rabid dogs down.


Show the world WE do not take it well when dictators get into power and ruin our country in the eyes of the world. After 9/11 we had the world finally with us once again. Good LEADERSHIP would have kept this alive. Our leaders had a different agenda now didnt they?



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Our leaders had a different agenda now didnt they?


Well, america's history of involvement in the region and america's actions and behaviors do seem to suggest so.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

He absolutely WAS the President of Iraq! Regardless how he came to be or whether you approve of it or not, that was his title. President. Of Iraq.


You are very much right BH, Saddam Was the President of Iraq

Recognized by the US and a friend of the US, until situations and government in the US changed and agendas made him enemy.

Less walk the memory lane.



"Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983


www.gwu.edu...

Yes it was a time when The president of Iraq was not a bad person at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!




Why is that anti-American? These people that took power and ran this gret nation nearly in the ground are un-American, it would be very American to put these rabid dogs down.


Show the world WE do not take it well when dictators get into power and ruin our country in the eyes of the world. After 9/11 we had the world finally with us once again. Good LEADERSHIP would have kept this alive. Our leaders had a different agenda now didnt they?



dic·ta·tor (dĭk'tā'tər, dĭk-tā'-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.

I don't think that President Bush meets the qualifications here. This website wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, if we were in fact under a tyrannical system.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV



dic·ta·tor (dĭk'tā'tər, dĭk-tā'-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.

I don't think that President Bush meets the qualifications here. This website wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, if we were in fact under a tyrannical system.


That is a good point. We are all very passionate on this thread, for one reason or another, but we do have to realize we are very lucky to have the privilage to be here posting, and sharing our thoughts with each other.





posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by number1hammer

The President of the United States dropped the ball in new orleans. Plain and simple. They knew a catastrophic storm was coming to the gulf coast region. And they were totally unprepared for the devastation that came. If you as teh president of the united states cant get the # done that needs to be done to get MORE than enough help to the gulf coast. You need to be held accountable. Now obviously you dont need the gallows. But he is the president. he should take accountability for the problem. not pass it on down the line. Most individual states do not have the funds, goods, services needed to take care of something that catastrophic.


.... i have noticed that most, if not all people that make claims like you, know nothing of U.S. law... The president cannot just take power from the governor of Luisiana, or the mayor of N.O., well actually it is within the law that he can, but if they both say no to any help that could have been provided, the only thing he could have done is "wrestle the power from them"... i am pretty sure you and others like yourself would have agreed to that.....




Originally posted by number1hammer
That is why we pay federal taxes. I think natural disasters fall under that. There should have been more than enough helicoptors roaming the waters. More than enough mobile hospitals. More than enough clean water. More than enough buses.
More than enough food to eat. more than enough of everything that was goign to be needed to make that situation the best it could be. And he simply did not make sure that got done. You cannot argue that. People were straned in flood waters for weeks. Sitting on top of their houses for weeks. That is not exceptable.



....in case of emergencies like what happened during Katrina the "state government is the one to take care of all that, the president can call for a state emergency, or the governor/Mayor and ask/offer help from other states....but if the Mayor/Governor say no...there is nothing the president can do except wrestle the power from them....which is within the law...but I am sure people like yourself would have used that to even make more claims...

Learn the laws of the land before you start making claims....


In the United States, the head of the executive branch has the authority to declare a state of emergency. The President of the United States, a governor of a state, or even a local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is relatively rare at the federal level, but quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters. Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules.
............
The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related.

en.wikipedia.org...

In State emergencies most of the times it is either the governor or the Mayor of the affected areas who declare a state of emergency... The State branch of FEMA takes over and starts making all the preparations needed. If there is a conflict of opinion, as there was, and the Governor of Luisiana and the mayor of N.O. didn't want for any help when it was offered, the only thing the president could have done is taken the power by force, as in Martial Law.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
...............
Yes it was a time when The president of Iraq was not a bad person at all.


The problem is that back then he wasn't planning on terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Marg, making comments like that only shows your contempt towards the administration.

The U.S. government is not and has not "declared war against all despots".... but Saddam's regime was found by several countries, and most of the world to have broken the sanctions he was given after the first gulf war, and most countries agreed that he had WMD....

I find it ironic that now we have arm chair generals making claims that "it could have been done better"..... of course it could...it is called hindsight......


[edit on 4-1-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
You will not talk badly about the Fuhrer! Agit is not double-plus good! I am more equal than Agit!

I am sick and tired of these braincell-lacking redneck countryboys yelling anti-american at anyone being critical of those in power. Do yourself a favor, pick up the Consitution and Bill of Rights and read it.

Agit, even though if things keep going the way they are going you'll probably be imprisoned, thanks for not being afraid to speak your mind and expose more people to the truth of war crimes. I'm a huge fan of you Agit, I respect you more than you'll probably ever know.

p.s. i'm still upset... what is un-American is taking your leaders advice/statements/actions HOOK LINE AND SINKER. Doesn't your soul hurt? Oh yeah, just put another tactical laser on your M4 and some tan slides and you'll fit in fine- it's all good- kill them hadjis! Cmon people...

If it weren't for a small group of England's population being "Un-English" we wouldn't have America!

Welcome to the Global Police State. Medication time... wankers.






[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If it weren't for a small group of England's population being "Un-English" we wouldn't have America!

[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

What you trying to imply?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
At the very least, i don't think Bush will go down as one of the most loved or good presidents in American history or history in general for that matter...

Personally, i would like to see him put behind bars, but with all the injustice that has been done recently i feel disheartened that rules and justice will ever be applied to everyone...There are war criminals all over the world who are just dying of old age right now because its taking so long to get anything sorted.
I was personally shocked to see Saddam killed, a part of me felt that it couldn't happen, but actually seeing and acknowledging that it has happened has re-kindled the fires in my heart to stand and speak up more for my beliefs. Nothing in this world will ever change unless we actually go out there and change them ourselves- as much as we are dominated by figures like Bush and Blair in our daily lives, they depend on us for their power when it comes down to it.

Other people have mentioned that if Bush was taken away he would only be replaced by another puppet- this may be true and relatively likely...We supposedly live under a democracy, but in reality we're probably living under something quite different, like a false sense of security.
(I wonder how things will change in the upcoming years as China continues to become ever more powerful as we scramble around in our war games trying to grab oil? I wouldn't expect mercy from China if they ever had any reason to be merciful to us- perhaps we should be watching our backs a bit more and try to make more peace with other countries than create anymore enemies than what we already have...)



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If it weren't for a small group of England's population being "Un-English" we wouldn't have America!

[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

What you trying to imply?




There is absolutely no room for implying anything. I believe you should re-read my post four times and then ask yourself what I mean in the grand scheme of things.

If you aren't probing me and are asking a sincere question because you don't understand, then sorry
However I doubt that, you're a writer with a lot of points and clearly aren't stupid... so for that comment you made: my words wouldn't do justice to convey how I feel about people that say those types of things. Understand this though, I don't get intimidated by anyone. You put up a stop that catches most people, I throw down the hammer. You will never ever beat a being like me by making statements designed to create apologies and retreat in argument. What I am on ATS is nothing but a shadow of what I am really like in life. I wish this debate was in real life; you'd never forget my name.

Just because someone is in a position of power that does not make them absolutely right in every action and decision they make in their career. Our country started by not putting up with tyranical rule by the English and we created the greatest country in the world.

If you need more clarification of "not putting up" ok.

JaguarMike suggests you speak out against tyranny and choose freedom. The pen is mightier than the sword. Always has been, always will be.

Do you really want a repeat of Nazi Germany?

Do you really want our world to turn into a page in Orwell's 1984? Godforbid a Brave New World?

This is beyond conspiracy theory. Do your own research; at this point it is fact.

You can speak up for freedom, or one day be silenced forever. Your choice. Take it over leave it. Violence doesn't solve anything- remember that. Ghandi was far more powerful than any person rebelling from a negative system of Government.

DevilWasp, if you were being sincere I apologize. If you weren't, I have nothing to say to you anymore.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
.....The UN passed resolutions requiring Saddam to turn over WMD, or prove they'd been destroyed. He didn't(and they're likely in Syria and Iran, if not buried somewhere in Iraq).


If he didn't have any to hand over and he didn't have any to destroy ther would have been no proof - That is where we are, there is STILL no proof!! I am not saying the man was innocent of other attrocities but see above - no proof. So why invade? OIL - hmmmm... use the WMD argument as a reason.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Saddam was silenced becuase he held trade secrets as a result of being in business with our military industrial complex. He was a murderer and a #ing horrible person yes, but at the level he played most are. When you play with billions and trillions and you're a horrible person people turn into cattle and lunch is served.

Bush should be tried under congress for impeachment on his NSA spy program, invading a country under false pretenses, and lying to the American people. No more, no less. The man should not be harmed whatsoever in my opinion. I'd think in our country we can resort to more ethical ways of punishing people who do wrong. Jail time/fines/no possibility for careers... oh wait Halliburton and Saudia Arabia... what a mess...



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Saddam was silenced becuase he held trade secrets as a result of being in business with our military industrial complex. He was a murderer and a #ing horrible person yes, but at the level he played most are. When you play with billions and trillions and you're a horrible person people turn into cattle and lunch is served.

Bush should be tried under congress for impeachment on his NSA spy program, invading a country under false pretenses, and lying to the American people. No more, no less. The man should not be harmed whatsoever in my opinion. I'd think in our country we can resort to more ethical ways of punishing people who do wrong. Jail time/fines/no possibility for careers... oh wait Halliburton and Saudia Arabia... what a mess...


Last time I checked the US military industrial complex had no involvement in selling Iraq anything - all their military hardware is entirely soviet. US firms sold civilian equipment which in the 80s was determined to be used as "dual use" (Such an example was Iraqi medical facilities purchasing Anthrax for antibiotic research but really was weaponizing the anthrax) and so the US cracked down on those companies.

(Mod Edit: Removed Personal Attack - Do Not Attack Your Fellow Members)

[edit on 5-1-2007 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Oh really?

www.counterpunch.org...

video: www.youtube.com...

funny video: www.youtube.com...


I win.





[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Oh really?

www.counterpunch.org...

video: www.youtube.com...

funny video: www.youtube.com...


I win.





[edit on 4-1-2007 by jaguarmike]


Really?

Research why Donald Rumsfeld was there that day - he was there to tell Saddam for his actions all civilian aid is cut off.

OHHH BURN...

Get out of here please.





top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join