Bush to rush bill to get Warcrime Immunity, page 1

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]

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)

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]

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.

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?

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.

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

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]

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]

reply to post by eyewitness86

---

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

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 4 days ago with 74 member flags

Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 2 days ago with 74 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 11 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 7 days ago with 41 member flags

Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 14 days ago with 37 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: