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.

 

Bush to rush bill to get Warcrime Immunity

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Bush to rush bill to get Warcrime Immunity


www.youtube.com

President Bush Passes a Bill giving himself and his whitehouse retroactive immunity for possible war crimes!
Don't you wish we could all do that? NO WAY I WOULD BE A CRIMINAL!
AMERICA WAKE UP and FIGHT BACK!! against the NEW WORLD ORDER!
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 20-1-2008 by drflux]




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
the quote above is from the actual youtube page. i didnt know where to post this but it is from a news source so i put it here. only another president can pardon and not the same president . This defies our constitution (seems like they havent cared much for it lately).

www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by drflux
 





Here is the video the OP wanted you all to see.

This is a very important video to watch.

However, this is only covering their tracks on the torture issue. Let's hope we can get them on something else.

SO many wartime and peacetime crimes by the whole cabal.

Wow. Dark to the soul Bushie.


[edit on 1/20/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This story is from 2006, how is this breaking news?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
SectionEight,

You are right. This isn't breaking news.

Its already been passed .


The US Senate has passed controversial legislation endorsing President George W Bush's proposals to interrogate and prosecute foreign terror suspects.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Jeeze, they really snuck that one by us didn't they?

Guess we should have voted on the Cafferty files, huh?



Maybe we can still nail'em on crimes against humanity...

Yeah us and who's army?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
This is hilarious.
It doesn't matter how many immunity bills Bush signs, it is not recognized by the international community who will try Bush for his crimes, hence, he's just giving himself a false sense of security.

Do you think Saddam could have held up a piece of paper during his trial and said "look, I gave myself immunity, the torture I did is OK!"

Don't make me laugh. Bush is going to be tried, and hung.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
stop fooling yourselfs!

If there was anything such as a "NWO" Bush wouldn't be rushing to pass that bill.

He knows He might have overstepped there...



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


johnsky,

As has been shown in the past, the international courts do not really do a whole lot, especially when they're run by the UN.

The security council consists of countries that are all doing equal 'bad' in the world and will not incriminate the others; nor can they as each has an equal vote.

It is up to the US people to stop our tyrant in his tracks; the foreign community can do nothing really.

I really wish what you say is true though...Cheney should be on the noose first IMHO.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
stop fooling yourselfs!

If there was anything such as a "NWO" Bush wouldn't be rushing to pass that bill.

He knows He might have overstepped there...

well I guess its official. there is no n.w.o.

what a relief, ok everyone go home, just shut down ats and
about 1 million other n.w.o type sites.
our work is done.
it was all just dumb conspiracy theories.
your government loves you, god will save you, and your checks in the mail.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


well bush can pardon anyone in our government and they wont be prosecuted. i dont think there is much the world can do unless there was some kind of international police. if bush himself didnt directly order the crimes then everyone at the white house gets away with crimes as long as they are pardoned, but i think that would be a last resort.

oh yeah, and sorry if this video is from 2 years ago i saw it was posted around two days ago



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
A) The bush family has been heavily involved in South America since Prescott Bush. There rumors of large land holdings in paraguay, military bases, research stations all on Bush family land.

B) Operation condor was an authentic military campaign of terror by right wing governments against the citizens of many south american nations, supported and some say organized by the US government in the 70' and 80's, Kissingers lasting legacy.

These actions dovetail with the semi secret military bases in South America...it is typical for war criminals to flee to South American Governments for protection, to set themselves up in private inaccesable ranches.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Yeah, this isn't exactly breaking but it did just become popular again (thanks digg). Bush is only protecting himself from the American people here. He had better hope that the country doesn't collapse, even though he seems to have laid a pretty good foundation for it to happen. Because, the only way he is getting tried for war crimes is if we get taken over by another power.

I don't see the UN getting together to take him to court. The entire world landscape will have to be vastly different for a foriegn country to take any action against him. So again, this is just to keep the American people from getting together and going after him. Based off of his approval ratings, I would say that he is probably wise in covering his you know what.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Its a technicalitydo you really expect to see your President or our Prime Minister or for that matter any major leader in Nato in the 'Hague'; unless their is a sudden change in the balance of power justice for war crimes is limited to the losing side (preferably those without nukes or womd).



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
This is what I understand, presently, about all this mess:

The right of a later President to pardon any crimes committed by a previous President would be limited only to the laws of the US; such as any reason for impeachment and that sort of thing.

And even though I personally feel betrayed (treason) by the dishonesty and fear-mongering that we have been dealt in the recent years...the constitution actually only defines one crime in detail and that is treason. According to that definition there doesn't seem to be any true grounds for charging Bush with that particular crime.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


See Article III for the full explanation of both treason and just cause for impeachment for other crimes.

Now...when Bush asked Congress to allow him to declare war on Iraq, it was done totally on the basis of Hussein having WMD's with supposedly also having intentions of using these in warfare against other countries. And so Congress approved it and war was declared.

The problem with the WMD justification is, first of all, the fact that there has been no internationally official definition made in regard to what exactly is a 'weapon of mass destruction.'

From Wiki:


The most widely used definition is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole.


And while nerve and mustard gas might certainly be classified as such - they also might not be considered WMD by almost the same possibility. And it has to do, also, with the way they are used and in what sort of situation:


An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves" [22]. The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.


I'm not sure if it has been conclusively proven that Hussein did use those agents on his own people; especially on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. I have found a lot of information which seems to imply that he did and I have to admit that I didn't follow the details of his trial other than knowing the basic crime being the destruction of a certain village which went against his authority...but it wasn't the Kurds so I'm thinking not even Iraq brought the charge against him for using possibly-defined WMD's against his own people.

And so even though that is heinous and inexcusable I do not know of any legal reason to justify what could only be seen as an intention of the US to police the government of another country for things which took place only within that other country's borders.

Another Wiki link; this one about Chemical Weapons, specifically. It says, toward the bottom, that there was a specific treaty written for the purpose of eliminating those types of weapons, but it says:


Iraq has not signed the treaty. Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed under a United Nations reduction program after the 1991 Gulf War. Approximately five hundred degraded chemical munitions have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a report of the US National Ground Intelligence Center. These weapons contained sarin and mustard agents but were so badly corroded that they could not have been used as originally intended.


So there was no international justification for the original reason for declaring war, either, since Iraq wasn't even a party to the treaty. And even so, it still would not be any other country's duty to act as enforcer in such a way. Treaties are instruments in which the ability to control or regulate something is based mainly upon the voluntary agreement of all who agree to the terms of the treaty to comply with the instructions and guidelines laid out by the treaty, itself. That isn't always the case; after the World Wars, not all countries were exactly willing participants and most likely forced to sign through threat of deadly force...but that is the exception, not the rule.


The final ruling from Congress, on the subject of WMD's in Iraq, was published on March 31, 2005. FULL report is 3.3 mb in PDF format!


Here is a excerpt from the 'overview' page:


On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.


Here is a link to a 2002 article in which Bush gives a detailed justification speech for the need to see Hussein as a threat to National Security. I find this particular statement very interesting:


And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.


Well, as much as that might have hurt...it isn't anything that justifies war!

SO...to sum up: since our own Congress has officially invalidated the original reason that Bush declared war on Iraq, that means that regardless of OPINIONS (and all the patriotic fervor we can all muster), what it seems we are left with is a 'war of aggression' which the US waged upon another country, thereby disrupted peace on a major scale which has affected more than just the two countries technically involved.

And a 'war of aggression' is defined as a war crime according to the Nuremberg Principles; which, ironically enough, arose out of the trials of the surviving Nazis after WWII! Those principles were defined in 1950 and Principle VI is a pretty clear yet simple definition of 'war crime.' And that which is stated in Principles III and IV is what Bush would need to find immunity from in the case of being brought up on these charges. And so there is NOTHING he can say or do or make a law while in office can grant him impunity for what has already been done.

My only question is WHO has the authority to bring up such charges in a situation of international law? That is the only thing I haven't looked into, really, but I am thinking that surely any other head of state whose country has membership in the UN could request a hearing...and perhaps it might only need to be a citizen of a UN nation or perhaps a citizen of Iraq, itself.

I would not be surprised, at all, if President Ahmadinejad of Iran pursues such a course. GW Sr's administration DID face charges of war crimes following the Gulf War - report here...and the verdict here - GUILTY of 19 crimes! An international 'slap on the wrist!' Yet because of THAT, it makes this last war in Iraq seem even more condemnable in that same court. But then again...what would they do?

[continued]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
[conclusion]

They hung all the Germans who didn't save their cyanide capsules post-haste. Later on, many who sat in judgment expressed regret over the outcome. Perhaps that led to general reluctance to do the same thing again...except of course in the case of Saddam, himself.


What is 'right' and 'true' is something that applies equally in the case of every human being on this Earth, whether they be christian, muslim, iranian, gay, skin-head, serial killer, my favorite martian, or even a purple-polka-dotted-people-eater!

Bush ends his speech of October 2002 in this manner:


We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.


It is IMPOSSIBLE to secure peace with violence!

And as time passes, it is more and more likely that it will end up being that the majority of the casualties, all-tolled, from the war in Iraq, will exceed even the number of people killed by Saddam's regime!

We have not aided the people of Iraq beyond ridding them of their oppressor and his two sons (which I personally WOULD define as WMD's - but that's just my personal opinion which is really not relevant
)
...

...their country is totally in shambles and there is no peace there at all and the only thing which is seems to be increasing is the terrible degradation of the reputation of our Military and their image abroad, as seen through the eyes of those we supposedly 'rescued.'

That is something which, to ME, is a crime in and of itself!

Our soldiers deserve to be honored whether or not the war is justified or if it is a popular idea or a hated idea...they serve for reasons far above political drama.

They serve and they often die....gladly...for strangers of foreign lands...
what is damn near unforgivable in this situation is the possibility of that most dear sacrifice being not for TRUTH but for LIES.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by drflux

i dont think there is much the world can do unless there was some kind of international police.



There is an international police agency, it's called Interpol.

INTERPOL


About INTERPOL

INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 186 member countries. It exists to help create a safer world by supporting law enforcement agencies worldwide to combat crime.

INTERPOL has four core functions, which provide:

* Secure global police communications
* Data services and databases for police
* Operational Police Support Services
* Training and Development



Interpol - Wikipedia


The International Criminal Police Organization, better known by its telegraphic address Interpol, is an organization facilitating international police cooperation. It was established as the International Criminal Police Commission in 1923 and adopted its telegraphic address as its name in 1956. It should not be confused with the International Police, which takes on an active uniformed role in policing war-torn countries.



So, there is an international police agency, but they won't end up doing anything either, the only way I see Bush being tried for war crimes is if he enters a country who wants to try him for the crimes.

What are the odds of him going to a country who wants to put him on trial.


[edit on 21/1/08 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The Bush/Cheney cabal knows that they deserve to either hang or sit in a cell for the rest of the miserable lives. The crimes against humanity these scum have brought to bear on the planet cannot be washed away by some bill in a corrupt congress, no way. They deserve to be hauled to the Hauge and tried, and if convicted, executed, and I would volunteer to pull the switch myself. With glee.

We have seen the rule of law trashed and the protections we have enjoyed for centuries crushed under the jack boots of a phony terrorism scare and a media that is so corrupt and controlled that 1984 is peanuts compared to what they have in store for us soon. When Bush and his gang LIED and fabricated false evidence for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., they knew they were playing for keeps. The big money attracts the sharks, and they have no cares about nicities like human life and such. Dollars, thats their God. Or now, Euros or Swiss francs or any other stable currency: Ours is trashed beyone repair.

Bush and gang have committed so many high crimes, and so many uncounted misdemeanors, that it is not a matter of finding enough evidence, it is a matter of getting that evidence to the public, and a court.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incarnated
stop fooling yourselfs!

If there was anything such as a "NWO" Bush wouldn't be rushing to pass that bill.


That is just about the dumbest statement I have ever read on any forum anywhere...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


GOD to Bush and crew =
G for Gold
O for Oil
D for Drugs




top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join