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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
eudaimonia, you're welcome to your opinion here, and I will not attempt to agree or disagree with your point.

However, no US citizen can be held accountable to the International Criminal Court. The US, and a number of other countries, rescinded their signature of the Rome Statute and refuses to participate in or recognize the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, to attempt to force the US to recognize it, or to hold their citizens accountable to the ICC, is to impose another's will upon a sovereign nation, illegally. This is the same thing that many accuse the US of doing in Iraq, imposing foreign will upon another nation.

Therefore, you are making an illegal request, please drop yourself off at The Hague and turn yourself in




posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You know what I mean. I am speaking in general. You take a look at this thread and you see people who want the President of the United States of America hung! Just like the terrorist Saddam.
.........................


Why do you want to stop there?...why not hang all these people who keep lying, twisting the facts and exagerating on their hatred against anything Republican?...

Anyone who keeps exagerating and lying to the American public, and the world, which also leads to deaths of soldiers, since the dissent by these "Americans" have lowered the morale of our soldiers. A soldier with low morale, is a soldier that will not perform well, either on guard, or when battling insurgents which leads to soldiers dying in battle for low morale which these "Americans" have instilled... so your dissent has led soldiers to their death... not to mention it is very probable some soldiers have believed the lies some of you keep sprouting and have committed suicide...

So I say let's hang all these people who keep lying to the world and the American people and keep twisting the facts as they try to defend and spread their own political stance....

Any of you that keep lying to the American public want to be the first one to be hanged?...

BTW Benevolent, president Bush was not responsible for 9/11, again another lie...apparently these people can lie all they want without any restrictions but when they claim that "Americans were lied to" they want to start hanging people...


[edit on 31-12-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
George Bush should be arrested and charged over the 9/11 attacks, with Blair and Howard as accomplices.

Before you all scream 'where is the evidence', there is actually more evidence to implicate Bush's hand in the attack than otherwise. Sad but true.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Bush,Blair,Cheyne & many others are only "hood ornaments" doing the biddings of their hidden masters.Wich in my oppinion are the Anglo-American oligarchy who stops at nothing to achive their dream of total world domination.For crimes against all humanity they should all be put in prison where they would have to work hard (Building roads & Buildings,sowing all sorts of crops by hand.Nursing people who have been badly wounded in their created wars..etc.)as part of their punishment.Death sentence would be to compassionate to give these criminals.
I would leave the judgment to God almighty.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
why not hang all these people who keep lying, twisting the facts and exagerating on their hatred against anything Republican?...


The fact that you think this has anything to do with something as shallow and irrelevant as a political party shows how out of touch you are with what I (at least) am advocating.



Anyone who keeps exagerating and lying to the American public, and the world, which also leads to deaths of soldiers...


Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice... ALL of them have done just that. With 90% of Iraqis saying that they were better off BEFORE the invasion and December being the deadliest month for US soldiers in Iraq in 2 years, the fact that you blame those of us who want to bring the soldiers home (for their low morale) shows how out of touch your assumptions are about the cause of the soldiers' miserable existence. They're dying, they don't have what they need, they're not doing any good, the Iraqis were better off under the previous dictator. These are the reasons for the soldiers' low morale.

The soldiers KNOW we support them even though we don't support this insane illegal aggression and occupation of what once was a soverign nation. If they want us to support the reason we're there and just go along blindly supporting a president who obviously doen't give a rat's ass about them or this country, then that's just too bad. In fact, barely 1/3 of the troops themselves support what's going on in Iraq. How can they expect us to do what they can't?

There are a few people left here in the states who are so misguided and blind that they support their "team" regardless of how obviously they're failing in the Middle East, but that's their choice. We all have our choice. Soldiers included. If they'd rather kill themselves than face killing another innocent Iraqi woman or child, then they have my respect.



... so your dissent has led soldiers to their death...


That's so ridiculous! They're big boys and girls and made their decision to die for their country if need be. If they're depending on us to support this occupation, then they're in it for the wrong reasons. To blame the soldiers' deaths on the people who want them to come home -- now that's some twisted logic! That's about as lame as it gets. Sorry.

Talk to the people who sent them there. Your guilt trip falls flat because we are in NO WAY responsible for sending these men and women to their deaths.



BTW Benevolent, president Bush was not responsible for 9/11,


Keep telling yourself that. He was sitting in the highest seat in the nation. He knew about it. He didn't even try to stop it. He's responsible for his part in letting (and perhaps encouraging) it to happen. He should have protected those people but he had other priorities.



apparently these people can lie all they want without any restrictions but when they claim that "Americans were lied to" they want to start hanging people...


A. I'm not lying.
B. I'm not the President of what was once the most powerful and proud country in the world.

When a private citizen says something (true or not) nobody dies. It's very different than when the person elected to protect us and uphold the Constitution of the US and has the most powerful position in the WORLD purposefully lies to the entire world and his lies lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent people dying.

If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it to you.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
You know what I mean. I am speaking in general. You take a look at this thread and you see people who want the President of the United States of America hung! Just like the terrorist Saddam. You can be anti-bush, but if you want him raped, tortured, and hung, you are anti-american. You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!

I am not condemning the site, but when you make a thread and 8 out of 10 atsers think Bush should be hung (and they are not joking), you have a generally anti-american site.



I think Bush is un-American and anti-America. He actually called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper". That right there is treason, he took an oath to support the Constituiton when he took office. But the fact that he murdered 3,000 innocents on 911, adds a major reason for him to be tried.
It's also about as anti-American as you can get.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

because this illegia war,

Our government approved of the war. It was voted on and approved. It is not illegal. Oh .. and don't bother trying to throw the UN into this. The corrupt UN security council accepted millions in bribes to vote against war in Iraq. They have no moral or legal authority.

Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.


Hitler approved the Holocaust. Nuff said.

I'm not saying Bush should also be hung. It would be nice revenge for the rest of the world. But I would just prefer that he be held accountable in general.

If the US is such a morally superior and free country, how could they approve a form of medieval torture like HANGING? Here in Canada we don't have the death penalty any more, and I'm fairly sure more US States don't than do. There have been numerous studies showing that it actually makes the problem worse. So why would you hang someone? Just to make a statement? And don't say that the US didn't do it, the Iraqis did, because the US handed him over and defended the jail while they did it. If they wanted to take the higher ground, they could have. The main reason Bush should be hanged is that he seems to love the "Eye for an eye" methodology.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.

This site is anti-american!



LOL..I love this retort. It is the retort of the ill-informed.
This retort itself is breeding anti-americanism..
You defend Bush then...There have been excellant points made in this thread..Take them and defend them..Defend Bush! See if you can do it! Instead of blindly insulting...



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Americans who died in Iraq are military personel.. soldiers .. not civilians.


fundly enough i was talking about the 3000 innocent civilians he ALLOWED to die in sept11..

how else do you explain the enormous amount of intel PRIOR to the attack, he 'fortunately' misunderstood, didnt see or just plain ignored.

And your saying because 'your' governemnt approved the war, its not illegial?

No wonder the world hates you.. you decide if its 'legal' to invade and occupy people regardless of wether the proof you put forward has any shred of truth.

Bush deserves to hang, from every part of his body.


[edit on 30-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]


Man you are full of BS. Always spouting off with never a link to back you up.

He was responsible for 9-11? You are now a joke as far as I am concerned.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The fact that the US is involved in a military conflict in iraq without a specific declaration of war by congress is clearly unconstitutional. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution spells out the requirement for waging and declaring war. It spells out quite clearly that only congress has the power to declare war. The fact that the us is militarily engaged in iraq with the tacit approval of congress does not make the situation legal, it only serves to prove that our government has been taken over by criminals that have no regard for the constitution. And the faux patriots sycophants that support this act of treason are no better than the criminals they support.

Both congress and the executive branch need to be held accountable for both crimes against all of humanity, as well as, crimes against the american people specifically.
.


You DO NOT want congress declaring war, unless you have an immediate needfor supplies and materials. War Tax, rationing - anyone?

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold "WAR" the list goes on - where are the war decs there?

We didn't declare war on the country, and you cannot delcare war on a man.



[edit on 31-12-2006 by crisko]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Somehow this video seems relevant, if only to show a view by those with a different opinion than the OP.

Bush Was Right



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
90% of Iraqis feel they were better under Saddam? Who took this poll?
1/3 of US Soldiers are against the war? More BS.
Every intel agency in the world said the same thing as Bush before the war, as did Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and even France.
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).
Trying to convict someone based on your opinions, assumptions, gut feelings, etc.. is BS. If there was hard evidence of criminality, the democrats would impeach Bush, as they can't stand him. There is no such thing as zero defect mentalities with regards to foreign policy. It's easy to use hindsight and critique, it's quite another when faced with tough decisions, and you are the one that has to make that tough decision.
Quoting other folks opinions isn't evidence, so spare me the Prisonplanet BS. You take random info and put it together to make a case for whatever opinion you hold, and then claim it to be fact. BS.
Where's the evidence of all the folks getting rich, and why isn't it being reported on 24/7 by the democrats?

These attitudes are huge morale boosters for those against western civilization. The biggest danger to western civilization is implosion due to self loathing and fickleness.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
90% of Iraqis feel they were better under Saddam? Who took this poll?


The Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) took the poll.



The Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) is an independent think tank in Baghdad.


Next question?



1/3 of US Soldiers are against the war?


This poll was taken by the Military Times



On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers. The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.


Edited to add:

Originally posted by GT100FV
Quoting other folks opinions isn't evidence, so spare me the Prisonplanet BS.


No one here has quoted people's opinions OR linked to Prison Planet. What are you referring to?


[edit on 31-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The fact that the US is involved in a military conflict in iraq without a specific declaration of war by congress is clearly unconstitutional. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution spells out the requirement for waging and declaring war. It spells out quite clearly that only congress has the power to declare war. The fact that the us is militarily engaged in iraq with the tacit approval of congress does not make the situation legal, it only serves to prove that our government has been taken over by criminals that have no regard for the constitution. And the faux patriots sycophants that support this act of treason are no better than the criminals they support.

Both congress and the executive branch need to be held accountable for both crimes against all of humanity, as well as, crimes against the american people specifically.
.


WOW...df1 lying to the American public....i think someone needs to be hanged...


House Vote 455: Oct 10, 2002 (107th Congress)
H. J. Res. 114[107]: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Vote On Passage)
Passed: On Passage: H J RES 114 To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

www.govtrack.us...

I guess an authorization passed by Congress to use military force against Iraq is not a declaration of war according to df1....

Are you lying and decieving the American public and the world knowingly df1?... WHERE IS THE ROPE???.... err...humm...sorry with all these people asking for hangings for what they claim to be lies and deception just got me in a roll....



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   


The Americans who died in Iraq are military personel.. soldiers .. not civilians.


9/11.




Why? They don't want to. The insurgent terrorists do; Saddams tribe in Tikrit does because their illegal income was cut off when Saddam got busted; but the Iraqis in general don't.


Are you kidding? Bush and his croonies killed over 200.000 iraqis during and after the war and over 500.000 BEFORE the war because of the sanctions on medications. The US owe them AT LEAST that.




Our government approved of the war. It was voted on and approved. It is not illegal. Oh .. and don't bother trying to throw the UN into this. The corrupt UN security council accepted millions in bribes to vote against war in Iraq. They have no moral or legal authority.

Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.


So what? It was based on lies, they admitted it was lies, they continue to say that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq even if it's total BS. They engineer the fear, and you deny everything.



You claim that his actions killed at least 'hundreds of thousands' .. at least 200,000 Iraqi civilians? BULL. There have been threads here claiming that and all have been totally debunked.

Yeah debunked, by the neo-cons fascists like you seems to be.




Ya'll enjoy your Bush-hate-fest.

Thanks, fascist.




The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.

This site is anti-american!

We don't joke about being responsable for your crimes. When you commit crimes, you're guilty, even if you're the pope.




You can be anti-bush, but if you want him raped, tortured, and hung, you are anti-american. You can debate all you feel like, but when you call for the President of America to be hung, IT IS ANTI-AMERICAN!

Who is anti-american? Those who protects the murderers (Bush Co.) and like torture (in Guantanamo), do wars based on lies(Iraq), fund terrorists organisation (Al-Qaeda) do peace with terrorist organisations (PKK), protect those who breach the constitution(Bush Co. NSA) ? Or those who want the criminals to be accountable to their crimes and want liberty, freedom and peace?




The office of president of the United States deserves a great amount of respect. The person in that office has to earn it.


Are you kidding? DESERVES A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT??? For what? For protecting you from the evil terrorists he created? HELL. HE EARN IT?? ARE YOU KIDDING? Stop being in denial.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by GT100FV
90% of Iraqis feel they were better under Saddam? Who took this poll?


The Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) took the poll.



The Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) is an independent think tank in Baghdad.


Next question?



1/3 of US Soldiers are against the war?


This poll was taken by the Military Times



On Nov. 13, we mailed questionnaires to 6,000 people drawn at random from our list of active-duty subscribers. The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.


Edited to add:

Originally posted by GT100FV
Quoting other folks opinions isn't evidence, so spare me the Prisonplanet BS.


No one here has quoted people's opinions OR linked to Prison Planet. What are you referring to?


[edit on 31-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]


I can say this from personal experience- any polls that were conducted in Iraq, weren't of a wide cross section of the country, and certainly not 90% of the country. Perhaps 90% of those polled felt that way.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The fact that you think this has anything to do with something as shallow and irrelevant as a political party shows how out of touch you are with what I (at least) am advocating.


Right......



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice... ALL of them have done just that. With 90% of Iraqis saying that they were better off BEFORE the invasion


Perhaps you should do your own research and find out exactly how many Iraqis are really saying this...


The findings emerged after house-to-house interviews conducted by the ICRSS during the third week of November. About 2,000 people from Baghdad (82 percent), Anbar and Najaf (9 percent each) were randomly asked to express their opinion. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were women.

Excerpted from.
www.upi.com...

Baghdad has "almost" 4 million Iraqis out of the 26 million Iraqis that live in Iraq...

Why is it that the "liberal media" is not making a real poll and asking where most Iraqis really live?.....

That link is clearly being used as a political tool and it is twisting the facts... Most Iraqis don't live in Baghdad....... In what is now Kurdistan, i should say Iraqi Kurdistan be cause in the Kurdistan region there are 25-26 million Kurds, well mostly Kurds there are many ethnicities in that area, in Iraqi Kurdistan alone there are 5.5 million Iraqi Kurds more people than in Baghdad and remember that 60-65% of Iraqis in Baghdad are Shiites and Saddam was Sunni, the Shiites were being oppressed by Saddam's minority, Sunnis, which were 30-35% of the population of Baghdad...




Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That's so ridiculous! They're big boys and girls and made their decision to die for their country if need be. If they're depending on us to support this occupation, then they're in it for the wrong reasons. To blame the soldiers' deaths on the people who want them to come home -- now that's some twisted logic! That's about as lame as it gets. Sorry.


I was trying to make a point Heretic... your claims are based on lies and deceptions which you want to accept, hence if anything is "as lame as it gets" is this claim to have president Bush go to the ICC. First of all even before president Bush was in office the United States has never acknowledged the ICC... another fact which you and some others apparently don't know about...


[edit on 31-12-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I guess an authorization passed by Congress to use military force against Iraq is not a declaration of war according to df1....


And according to the US Constitution as well. It's NOT a declaration of war. We have not formally declared war on Iraq. Iraq (like Vietnam) is a military engagement authorized by Congress, not a declared war.

I thought you would know this stuff, Mauddib, but you can read about it
here.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
lol... from wiki itself...


A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.

Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.

In public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.
.................


and this part is interesting...


Authorized use of force
Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.

Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, Congress authorized the use of force rather than putting forth a declaration of war. As noted above, there is a dispute over the constitutionality of this legislative procedure.

en.wikipedia.org...

What were you saying?

You and df1 want to claim it is unconstitutional?...go ahead, but it is well within the rights of any state to do so, and in case you didn't know authorization to use force for military engagement against another country is a declaration of war.... unless you thought all they were going to do was slap each other in the face and go home...




[edit on 31-12-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Do note the part that says

In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.


Since international bodies have invited themselves to "regulate" declarations of war, independent states can only do so by "authorizing the use of force" hence circunventing the "international bodies" which often want to stop conflicts because they have vested interests, in the case of Iraq the vested interests were illegal... Perhaps you heard of the Oil For Food scandal? Every country that was against the war in Iraq was part of that scandal...

Is it in the Constitution of the United States that international bodies can regulate declarations of war made by the United States?....

[edit on 31-12-2006 by Muaddib]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join