It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:58 PM
Thanks for looking at the other links- looks like we've finally got a debate on ATS hahah! Nice!

Can't wait to read your next post.

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:56 AM

Originally posted by GT100FV
Can you show me major news sources that provide evidence that George Bush Sr. sold Iraq WMD?

It wasn't Bush Snr it was the Regan adminsitration.

Please, stop being so naieve and swallowing the whole "America can do no wrong" thing. The US propped up the Shah of Iran who had a human rights record that was close to that of the recently executed Saddam Hussein. When the Shah was overthrown the US then backed Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, took Iraq off its prohibited countries list for exports and shoved a whole load of nasties Saddam Husseins way to help him out.

And of course, they may not have been pre-made nasties but we aren't talking about monkeys and typewriters here, because the expertise as to how to turn the raw material into the real deal was also supplied.

Want visual proof? Put this into Google - Rumsfeld + Saddam. Look at the pictures, read the articles. Its all there and its all true.

As for WMD's, apart from some very rusty and undeployable artillery shells that may at one stage in the past - but certainly not post 1991 - have been capable of carrying Sarin, what has been found in Iraq - and please answer this one clearly without trying to fudge the issue - that presented a clear and imminent danger to the United States of America?

Incidentally - while we're on the subject of Rumsfeld, guess who was a non-executive director of the company that supllied the technology for North Korea's "weapons grade" producing nuclear power plant? No cheating now......

[edit on 8/0107/07 by neformore]

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:46 AM
Here is one for bush

Iraq war was for oil - confirmed

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

Tell me where you can link me to Saddam preparing to attack the US prior to the invasion.

Already done that...... giving evidence from other countries which have nothing to do with the United States.....

Originally posted by marg6043
Show me the bombs he had prepare the terrorist groups of Iraqis getting ready to strike our nation.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?.... There are quite a few members that apparently have no idea on how to make a concise argument....and you are one of them...

Let me put it this way.... Give me the bank accounts, and all receipts of where "all this money from the oil from Iraq is getting into the banks of president Bush, or Cheney"....

Originally posted by marg6043
Excuse me Muaddib, but you knew that a long time ago, Is my constitutional right to criticize my Nations elected leaders when they deviate from their role as leaders to protect their private interest and going on a war path with a nation for profits for the private interest they serve.

Oh yes, it is your right, but it is also my right to point to all the exagerations which people like yourself like to make just because you do have a political agenda in mind....

You see, the problem with people like yourself is that you think you know what is best for the country, and apparently you can't fanthom that other people would think differently.

Originally posted by marg6043
Are you afraid of the government? because I am not.

Where have i said I was afraid of the government?.... I am not afraid of the government Marg....

Originally posted by marg6043
Is very clear that Saddam was once considered a friend of the US when it was to the best interest of the government that rule our nation, they didn't care about what he was doing to his people but as long as he was a friend and did what US wanted he was OK.

Yeah, well Saddam's intentions changed, pretty sure with the help of people in power in countries like Russia.... and case you haven't noticed...we have also changed leaders...

Anyways, people do change, and so do the policies of countries. Saddam was helping and funding terrorism, including terrorists who have attacked the U.S....and then we have countries like Spain and "Russia" giving evidence not only of this but that Saddam was planning more attacks on U.S. soil.... If anyone was using Saddam, it is clear that it was Russia, among some other countries, because they want to be a world power and to do that the U.S. has to be discredited and has to lose friends, which is exactly what has been happening.

Originally posted by marg6043
Our nation's leaders and government has a record of supporting, despots, feudal monarchies and totalitarian governments as long as the nations they rule are friendly of the US.
Are you going to denied that?

Has the United States made mistakes?..... YES...... EVERY COUNTRY MAKES MISTAKES.... but does it help to "keep making more mistakes, like letting Saddam Hussein loose and do all the things he had been doing"?..... It does not.....

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes if our elected government wanted to take Iraq it should not have lie and should have come clean on the purpose of the invasion.

Because how many times it has to be told that Saddam didn't have MWDs, and he was not an Al-qaida member.

BTW, it is WMD, MWD is something else. I have worked as an MWD Engineer, and it has nothing to do with WMD.

And tell us many times do we have to quote what other people said about wmd in Iraq before the war started?... Including leaders from other countries who depended on their on intelligence agencies which had nothing to do with the United States?

One more thing Marg...noone ever said "Saddam was a member of Al Qaeda". What has been said, including by Hillary Clinton when her husband was in office and when president Bush was in that Saddam has helped, has provided refuge to terrorists including to Al Qaeda members.

Originally posted by marg6043
If our president was smart he would have made a good job of that invasion, but guess what, when you do things for the wrong reasons and thousands of death are the result of your stupidity and mistakes . . .

We pay in this life for what we do to others.

And bush will go into history as a failure as a war wagging president.

Even his father was smarter than him.


Are you out of your mind?....

I guess according to you WWI and WWII went excellent with no errors or mistakes....

No war "goes excellent or perfectly"... Noone can tell the outcome of any battle or war before hand...nomatter how well it is planned....

Again, all I see are "arm chair generals claiming they could have done it better"..... and again it is called hindsight...

Let me give you a hand so you can understand what hindsight is.

understanding the nature of an event after it has happened; "hindsight is always better than foresight"

Wake up and smell the roses Marg... or should I say "smell reality for a change".

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Muaddib]

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:32 AM
Wow, where to start.

Hidden Agenda.

Reasonable agenda most people in the middle and lower management of the government can agree with that masks the true intention that is hidden.

This is what this entire issue revoles around. Will this cease the hositlity on this thread now?

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:41 AM
Both Bush and Blair should be charged with crimes against humanity. And all those ones, whose have figured out this entire "War on Terror" nonsense.

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:14 AM

Originally posted by df1
Frankly I'm surprised that partisan supporters of the administration have the hubris to even bring up the subject of Iraq's WMDs. Any WMDs that Saddam ever had were provided by Bush I, Rumsfeld & Cheney and any evidence that Saddam still had WMDs prior to the current invasion of Iraq was fabricated to justify executing plans made by PNAC even before Bush II was elected.

Oh yeah, we forgot, the mighty df1 knows it all and has all the evidence to back this up.... i wonder why the Chinese, or the French, or even the Russians have not come up with this "incriminating evidence that only df1 and his followers have"....
Somebody was talking about hubris?....

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Muaddib]

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:55 AM
Fasten your seat belts boys and girls - here we go!

Firstly, let us define war crimes;

War crimes

§ 2441. War crimes

  • (a) Offense. — Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

  • (b) Circumstances. — The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

  • (c) Definition. — As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
    (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
    (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
    (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
    (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

And there is a very extensive list of links linked in the post, mentioned above.

Let us move on;

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings

Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so.

The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

Well even the White House lawyers think, that White House officials do break international laws in their pursuit of the terrible terrorists.


Bush's Crimes

Since George W. Bush came to power, he has systematically flouted international agreements that the US had previously signed up to. While previous US administrations might not be able to claim much better records, it is clear that Bush is not even making an attempt to stick to these numerous treaties, laws and obligations:

Well that is quite an extensive list of violations, for which somebody must be accounted for. If this was the list of violations concerning a so-called Axis of Evil state - like Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Cuba, some people would jump to the roof, while screaming "HANG THESE TERRORISTS!" or something similar like that. But since we are talking about the Skull&Bonesman Bush and his fellow neo-con hawks, nothing shall happen anyway.

But let us examine what else is there, shall we?

Prosecute George W. Bush for War Crimes

George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.

  • Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.
  • Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.
  • At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.
  • George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.

Certainly an interesting read.

But HEY! Behold - Bush admitted to war crimes already!

Bush confesses to war crimes

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.

So what does Bush do?

Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty

The Bush administration has pulled out of the treaty to establish the International Criminal Court -- a move that is both unprecedented and foolhardy.

The Bush administration Monday formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies.

"Driven by unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions, the United States has hit a new nadir of isolationism and exceptionalism," said William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International's U.S. section (AIUSA).

Ah yes, the good old "Unsigning" - I mean, that is a very smart move I must admit, since you can not be held accountable for all the crimes, you have committed under the International Criminal Court laws, which should of course be in effect for everybody, that's why they are called INTERNATIONAL. Same thing Milosevic did, Saddam and other dick-tators, who were caught and held responsible for their war crimes - but of course died in the enormous Kafkanian process.

So, can Bush be prosecuted?

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

Well there you have it - clear breach of law. But what shall happen? I am sure that fellow members will get upset and write what a big anti-american I am, but do not be disctracted by that - it is their only weapon, to divert the attention from the post to the author of it.


posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:07 PM
Common......... I hate to get into political debate, but "Bad" as he may be is in no way comparable to Sadddam. However I did like your post because it gets people thinking. We have to do our best to keep our tracking of politicians on point I like that you think outside the Box and aren't afraid to say whats on your mind. Good Post!

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:42 PM
You have voted Souljah for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thumbs up Soaljah,
I like it when legistlated laws SHOW this haneous act as reality, instead of someone swallowing the BS thats fed.

People talk warcrimes, they start stating you have to be in comparison to previous entrents.

IE Saddam, Hitler.

I dont agree, just because Bush didnt slaughter millions of a race in chambers, or start gassing towns and invading neighbours doesnt mean he is any less guilty of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

To me, when you create a false war, utilisiing the pain caused by a certain event simply to make money... your no BETTER than Saddam or Hitler.

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 04:03 PM
Last night, while suffering from an extreme case of insomnia....
I finally realised something.
I was wrong.

I have always believed GW deliberaetly sat on his hands and allowed sept11 to occue, so the public would follow him in any military adventure he planned..

He didnt allowed 911 to happen so the public would folllow, because the public DIDNT.

He allowed 911 happen, to ensure CONGRESS would back his war on IRAQ.

He knew Congress wouldnt allowed the invasion unless something dramatic waranted military intervention.
Bush wanted to get into IRAQ long before sept11...

And he knew if he went in, WITHOUT congress, it would effecitvley turn out to be a WARCRIME.


thats it.....

Sept11 was allowed to happen soley to ensure congress would back his war plan.

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:41 PM
Yet again another remarkable cognition from Agit. Thanks!

What you just created should be stickied in itself.

Muaddib: Care to take on someone your own size? Answer my response to yours.

To everyone else: the question is, what is next?

[edit on 10-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:54 PM
Thumbs up JM

Whats next?

Bush desploys more troops.
The US Fatality count continue's to Rise.
The Civil war increases.
Thousands more Innocent Iraqi's die.
The US becomes MORE split on the guilt of war crimes against Bush and Co
Iran continues to REFUSE nuclear containment.
The US Economy continues to deplete due to Iraq.
Israel continues to enforce unrealistic demands on Palestine
And im guessing a few more minor pockets of bombings in various places around the ME.

And after a few months when it becomes obvious the troop surge hasnt worked... Im truley interested to see what the president says on camera.

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:09 PM
Bush will go into history as he man that took a sovereign nation destroy it, had the leader assasinated and then gave the nations natural resources to it's partners in crime.

Yes he needs to be brought to justice.

IMPEACH HIM !!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM
I don't know if anyone has committed war crimes, but I do think Bush is criminally negligent in performing his duties as leader of the United States.

First and foremost he sold us a war based on inaccurate intelligence. I believe it is the responsibility of the President to have verifiable and undeniable evidence of a Clear and Present Danger to the United States before committing our troops lives and countries national resources to a war.

His failure in doing so should at the least be impeachable and at most put him behind bars for the loss of American Soldiers lives his policies and war have caused. This is criminal negligence on his part in my opinion.

His policy decisions also caused the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi civilians. We will never know the true death count over there.

The United States and the Iraqi population would not have suffered so greatly as we do now had we let Saddam die of old age and never invaded.

No American leader or military man other than Bush and the Congress that voted to allow this war are responsible.

Our Congress is also guilty of negligence in not impeaching him and certainly for not correcting the mistakes once they were known.

The military has accomplished its mission extremely effectively, but today they stand as targets without a clear mission.

Bush, if he himself was right in calling Iran and North Korea a danger to the United States, is also criminally negligent in attacking Iraq instead of spending Americas resources on preventing North Korea and Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. In this he is also criminally negligent to the American people in my opinion if he was right. I have no way of knowing if his propaganda is correct, or not but he does. If he is right then he has severely failed the country here as well.

These are my opinions and I wish our congress would take some action to reverse our countries ill course.

Bush is probably the most useless most damaging leader we have ever had.

His actions in Afghanistan after 911 in my opinion were the correct ones to take but he has grossly failed and lacked good judgment since then.

As far as him knowing that 911 was going to happen, I think you guys are fairly insane =). I have no way of knowing that but you do

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Xeven]

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:10 PM
No that's actually the correct response I look for. If you haven't done any study on the subject, denying it is natural. Again, if you said the fairies in your living room told you Bush did it...

I'd recommend a few movies... for one- 9/11 Mysteries, America: Freedom to Fascism, and finally... Loose Change 2. Alex Jones also does a remarkable job exposes it all. After you've watched those videos, watch the other sides. There are a few vidoes catering to other side of the argument. Good luck.

I also believe that something truly bad is going to happen in the middle east before the new troop surge has a chance to make an effect (as for timelines, it's anyones best guess). I predict Israel will attack Iran and then it will be a sack-fest with different nations in the area scared to death and pushing buttons. This does not look good.

p.s. as for war crimes alligations, there are plenty. What stands out is Bush is the first President in American history to openly state that he tortures suspects without trials. Last time I checked, there is legislation in place for secret trials in the US with secret laws... the supreme court just exposed a secret law the other day about showing ID at the airport. If you think it does not apply to you, think again. Time is running out, and slavery is what awaits.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by jaguarmike]

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:17 PM
Couple of points that came to mind after reading some of the last few posts-

A- There's a distinction between how uniformed soldiers must be dealt with, and how insurgents/terrorists/etc... can be dealt with under the Geneva conventions. Non uniformed combatants don't have all of the protections a soldier would.

B- The armistice at the end of Desert Storm was conditional, and any violation by Saddam could result in resumption of hostilities(so that whole unlawful war of aggression theory goes down the toilet there).

C- Failure to sign onto an agreement(i.e. Kyoto) isn't something one can be charged with. It's not criminal to say "no, we're not going to participate in that."

D- Not democratically elected? You do realize that we live in Federal Republic, and not a Democracy. He was elected under the rules of our constitution(i.e. if you win enough electoral votes, you get to be the president), and by popular vote as well in term 2. It was close, but 51% to 49% is still a win. In 2008, you get a chance to vote for someone you'll like better, and if enough other folks agree with you, then your candidate will win.

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by GT100FV
B- The armistice at the end of Desert Storm was conditional, and any violation by Saddam could result in resumption of hostilities(so that whole unlawful war of aggression theory goes down the toilet there).

Conditional on what exactly? Because the UN inspectors found nothing, and Iraq was complying - albeit reluctantly.

And wasn't it the Bush administration that tried to discredit Hans Blix so badly to refute his claims that he couldn't find anything? As I recall Blix wanted more time, but Bush's government said no so the UN observers pulled out in order to protect themselves.

Furthermore - the premise used for the justification of the invasion by the US and others was that there was a violation of the conditional status of the ceasefire in '91 and that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States and other countries - as no WMD's that were/are viable weapons have been found there is direct evidence that the premise that is was a "lawful" war has been flushed right down the toilet.

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:09 AM
I honestly have to admit that I would rather have a president that bangs his assistants, secretaries, helpers, agents and all the latter mentioned personnel’s wifes, grandmothers and mothers in the oval office, on the floor, desk and other places of horizontal refreshment AND can boast a surplus in the economy etc etc than to have someone totally screw up the country based on lies and then when Bush leaves the office the next president with be left to clean up the crap. Get Mrs Clinton in office!! And Monica if necessary – it seems to help the economy!!
BUT just get rid of the bush!!

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by neformore
Furthermore - the premise used for the justification of the invasion by the US and others was that there was a violation of the conditional status of the ceasefire in '91 and that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States and other countries - as no WMD's that were/are viable weapons have been found there is direct evidence that the premise that is was a "lawful" war has been flushed right down the toilet.

Really?.... so where are your protests against what people like the prime minister of France, Chirac, and the president of Russia, Putin, have said about wmd in Iraq before the war?....

What about the fact that Putin and the Russian intelligence agencies among others giving intelligence to the U.S. that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and U.S. interests?....

Why do you, and your crew, remain quiet about that?.....

Why not ask for sending to prison "the Clintons" who were saying the same thing...even when they were in office and they were the ones who saw all the intelligence......

[edit on 12-1-2007 by Muaddib]

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in