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.

 

Red Cross Finds Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
As strongly as I personally feel on this subject, I have to look at this for what it is and think about who is making these accusations.


From John Foster Dulles' book, The American Red Cross, in the first half of the 20th century, the Red Cross was "viewed as a virtual arm of the government." I have no doubt in my mind that the Red Cross while meaning well by nearly the entirety of its workers, still cannot be trusted in the upper echelons for honesty. Any group that had early doings involved with what is now known as the "Elites" cannot be trusted that far, especially in matters such as this when there is more than a few sources that implicate the Red Cross being used as a cover for the meetings of powerful men with the Bolsheviks right before the takeover.

What is their purpose, why would the incriminate someone like this? Everything happens for a reason, and with all these big groups, the people at the top have their motivations.

*Edit - Mindin' my commas.

[edit on 7/14/08 by niteboy82]




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Remember 9/11....Were all you guys sympathetic to all of these terrorist right after 9/11... Majority of Americans wanted revenge big time and had cruel ideas how they wanted to do it. I don't justify Bush actions but then again I will never know how many lives were saved because of the information the government received. I will never know what barbaric things these terrorist had committed in the past. I will never know many things because a lot has to do with National security. All I know is that after 9/11 Americans wanted the blood of those responsible. It wasn't till the anti-war thing started that people started bringing up torture and everything else. We don't have the pressure of trying to decide how to best protect our Nation. All we can do is guess and play Monday morning quarterback.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Remember 9/11....Were all you guys sympathetic to all of these terrorist right after 9/11...


I have maybe only once read on this site someone actually saying they felt badly for those terrorists and I don't even think that member posts here anymore. "You're either with us or against us." Scary how some can cling to absolutist ideologies in such a manner.



Majority of Americans wanted revenge big time and had cruel ideas how they wanted to do it.


And there lies the problem with revenge, or as I prefer to call it "bloodlust." I don't know why we would even want to remember the hateful feelings we felt, times like that shows humanity at its lowest. I prefer to look at the cause and fix it, instead of politically coating it to my preference and then running amok with it.


I don't justify Bush actions but then again I will never know how many lives were saved because of the information the government received.


You won't know. You also will never know how many lives were lost that didn't need to be. There is always the flip-side to the coin, and nothing is certain.


It wasn't till the anti-war thing started that people started bringing up torture and everything else. We don't have the pressure of trying to decide how to best protect our Nation. All we can do is guess and play Monday morning quarterback.


Firstly, are you saying that 100% of America was pro-war at some point? Also I strongly doubt that most people even that support the current occupation of Iraq would call themselves "pro-war." I cannot speak for them, but I would guess that they felt this invasion was needed and felt the correct course of action was taken. "Pro-war" gives the connotation that war is consistently desired by those taking the label.

And while you may be content playing "Monday morning quarterback," the government that I have little faith in is still the government that I try to stay involved with. If not for the constituents that elect these people, we would truly have a dictatorship, and I for one do not plan to make that any easier for those that desire it.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


This kind of falls in line with this link where he pushed to have himself and his administration absolved of any and all war crimes committed. I don't know if many remember this but I think it is very valid. This means he can't be tried here but hopefully the international community will not stand idly by like our passive congress.

Bush pushes for immunity to war crimes

And for those Pro-Bush people on this site. Ask yourselves this: Why would this president need to have a bill like this passed if he and his administration were innocent of WAR CRIMES?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 



Firstly, are you saying that 100% of America was pro-war at some point? Also I strongly doubt that most people even that support the current occupation of Iraq would call themselves "pro-war." I cannot speak for them, but I would guess that they felt this invasion was needed and felt the correct course of action was taken. "Pro-war" gives the connotation that war is consistently desired by those taking the label.


I have to give you props for this observation. It is understanding such as this which is lacking many times in debate.

The flip-side of the coin is also true - anti-war does not equate to appeasement.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 



Originally posted by dariousg


And for those Pro-Bush people on this site. Ask yourselves this: Why would this president need to have a bill like this passed if he and his administration were innocent of WAR CRIMES?


It's not a good idea to frame a question like that, since it implies that anyone who attempts to answer you is "Pro-Bush".

However...

Maybe to ward off costly and malicious litigation?

In every war, there are accusations of war crimes. The international community can try someone in absentia, but they cannot come onshore and extradite those it accuses.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Remember 9/11....Were all you guys sympathetic to all of these terrorist right after 9/11... Majority of Americans wanted revenge big time and had cruel ideas how they wanted to do it. I don't justify Bush actions but then again I will never know how many lives were saved because of the information the government received. I will never know what barbaric things these terrorist had committed in the past. I will never know many things because a lot has to do with National security. All I know is that after 9/11 Americans wanted the blood of those responsible. It wasn't till the anti-war thing started that people started bringing up torture and everything else. We don't have the pressure of trying to decide how to best protect our Nation. All we can do is guess and play Monday morning quarterback.


Why did most Americans want revenge? Because this administration SAID THAT THESE GUYS DID IT AND HAVE YET TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF! Of course we were pissed off and wanted some action. This administration to this event and ran with it all the way to Baghdad. Why there? What did Iraq have to do with 911? NOTHING! It has been a constant stream of lies from this administration and yet you still them by making statements like this. I don't get it. If your significant other lied to you over and over and over and you caught them would you trust them still? Well, our significant counterpart (our government) has been caught lying to us over and over and over. I have ZERO trust in them.

Best protect our nation? Have you not seen the studies performed by the government agencies that have tested our defenses? They focused on infiltrating airport security at many of our major airports. How many times did they get caught? I can't recall the exact number but I know it was less than 2 times out of more than 30 attempts. In other words, our security is not much better than it was before 911. Yet there have been NO ATTACKS ON US since then. Just amazing how that happens. Yes, they are thinking of the best way to defend us by stripping away our rights one by one and gaining the ability to spy on ANYONE they DEEM as a threat to this nation. Who would that be by chance? Just terrorists? Who defines what a terrorist is? You see, it's a vague description for a reason! So they can monitor ANYONE THEY DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE! Now it's a law.

People who sit here and defend this administration confuse the hell out of me.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
So now what?

What does this mean? Another hand raised against the Bush administration wont mean a thing, imo.
Not unless the Red Cross can actually, and has the power to bring him down???



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It is about time this happened. The hole administration has been pissing me off since 911. I found the way they handled that to be suspisious, and look at things now! The faster they are punished for this, the better.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dariousg
 



Originally posted by dariousg


And for those Pro-Bush people on this site. Ask yourselves this: Why would this president need to have a bill like this passed if he and his administration were innocent of WAR CRIMES?


It's not a good idea to frame a question like that, since it implies that anyone who attempts to answer you is "Pro-Bush".

However...

Maybe to ward off costly and malicious litigation?

In every war, there are accusations of war crimes. The international community can try someone in absentia, but they cannot come onshore and extradite those it accuses.


I understand this. But that is supposed to be inherint with the office of the President of the United States. It's already supposed to be in place. Why create a separate order on this scale?

I agree, I shouldn't have worded that question in that way. But I did want to hear from Bush supporters on why. It's not a typical action of a president. Even one during a time of war. It's why new president's generally pardon the exiting president.

However, for the administration there should be no such protection. Why? Because they are supposed to be there as advisors to the president. In this case, as many rats jump ship and spill the beans, it appears that they were willing participants in the decisions and actions. Should they get a free ride too? See what I am trying to get at?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
At the risk of being called a "neo-con apologist" or something as equally ridiculous by knee-jerks, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate*, specific to this report.

The evidence compiled by the Red Cross is what? It is the word of those held in Guantanamo. I cannot help but to think these are not the most credible of sources.

I would like to see the methodology of the report. How did they determine which prisoners and stories were credible and which were not? And I would like to see the exact wording of the report; there is a vast difference if the report concluded definitively there was torture, or if they used wording such as, "If these reports are true..."

(*Oh, how ironic, considering who I'm "defending.")



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Found the direct embed on youtube. Everyone should listen to what Jonathon Turley has to say about this. This guy is a constitutional lawyer and an expert. He basically says that the administration has hired crooked lawyers and shills who will cook up any amendments and their "own takes" on what is and is not legal...


Again, playing Devil's Advocate: Is that essentially what Turley is doing, presenting his own view on what is legal and illegal? Is that what every single constitutional lawyer would do? Ask a room of 100 Constitutional lawyers a question about the Constitution and you may get 100 different answers, and every single one will say their view is the only true interpretation. He is labeling them as crooked and shills because they don't agree with his interpretation.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know there was a minimum requirement to charge a U.S. president for warcrimes. Lets say the firebombing of the Japanese cities under FDR and Truman along with usage of the atomic bombs. The bombings of Cambodia, Vietnam under Johnson and Nixon. Charge Clinton for the bombings of the Chinese embassy and Serbia and Kosovo and Iraq, etc. Should I go on? Why this particular President but not others? What is your requirement to be charge of warcrimes. Hell if Obama is President and a wedding was bombed, no doubt I tend to make sure he pays for his crimes since he is Commander in Chief and is responsible for the conduct of fighting a war.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Hmmm, seems as if perhaps these guys aren't walking around quite so smugly as they once were...International tribunals may well be on the schedule for them...


Worries About War Crimes Heat up in The Whitehouse

So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to "never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."


Full Article

www.alternet.org...



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I am continuously amused by those who find every method within their powers of reason to minimize the notion that the president and his administration should , or can be, 'permitted' to face trail fro war crimes.

I find myself in the ironic position of agreeing that they should not face an international body for prosecution. While others think they need face no prosecution whatsoever, I believe that the American Justice system must exercise this authority unilaterally, or we are abdicating our right to claim that 'we' the American people can control over our governing servants. I would not like to see our 'political' excuses used to justify giving more power to the notion that we need 'supranational' authority to conduct our own legal affairs for us.

As to the legitimacy of the claims of the Red Cross as cited by the subject book in the OP, I can't say I know whether it is international or American Red Cross making the assertions. But I do know that it can not be allowed to be a matter of political convenience who's investigation we deem 'worthy'. The allegations must be completely and directly investigated. That is the POINT of a fair and impartial judicial system.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


I agree with you about the government taking away our rights. I don't condone anything nor am I saying America was 100% pro war. All I am saying is the fact. Majority of Americans wanted the culprits to pay and to pay heavily. Yes, we probably have been lied to, but I seriously doubt that this is the first or last administration that will lie to us. And I don't care how much money you spend on security, there will always be gaps in the system. It is a human prone system. A pair of boobs could probably beat our system.

As for Iraq, all I can say is that Bush did not act alone. Congress second the motion to go to war. They also passed FISA, Patriot Act, and other similar acts. Should we put them up for crime wars also?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Is there another source for this "story"?

I'd like to know which "Red Cross" said this. Was it the American Red Cross? Or the very biased International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement?



Here's another source that also mentions what Red Cross orgaization it was right in the title of the article,

International Committee of the Red Cross: Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes


Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001.

The book says that the International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were “categorically” torture, which is illegal under both American and international law.



And here's a report (the report/video is over 6 minutes long!) on MSNBC about the Red Cross findings/report.

Countdown: War Crimes Prosecutions Possible


Pretty good Report!

Found this an interesting little quote.
Book Cites Secret Red Cross Report of C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives - NY Times


Bernard Barrett of the International Committee of the Red Cross declined to comment on the book except to say that the committee “regrets that any information has been attributed to us” because it believes its work is more effective when confidential.

He did confirm that committee personnel “are regularly visiting” the high-level Qaeda prisoners, now at Guantánamo Bay. "We have an ongoing confidential dialogue with members of the U.S. intelligence community, and we would share any observations or recommendations with them.”

*****SKIP*****


Ms. Mayer acknowledges that Red Cross investigators based their account largely on interviews with the prisoners. But she writes that several C.I.A. officers she spoke with confirmed parts of the Red Cross description.



I would have thought the Red Cross would have wanted word to get out quickly if they found torture going on anywhere so that it could be stopped!

Also seems kinda funny they would give the report to the CIA, the agency that is actually doing the torturing! And why keep a "dialogue" going with the the agency doing the torturing instead of an agency or organization that would put international pressure on the "torturers" to stop torturing?

That just doesn't make sense to me!

[edit on 7/14/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
glad to see the neo-con apologists all over this thread , deriding the source as biased or rubbish - i have noticed an increase in new neo-con members recently ; is it a full moon or something that these rabid dogs come out to play?

www.redcross.org...


The American Red Cross accomplishes this goal by working within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement—the world’s largest humanitarian network with more than 180 Red Cross and Red Crescent national societies and more than 100 million volunteers. In all our work, we abide by the seven fundamental principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality.


if by saying the `international red cross` is biased - then you are saying ALL red cross/red crescent is biased.

its like saying that the boy scouts of america are pure whilst the parent movement - the world wide scout association is a rotten animal.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by jam321





And there lies the problem with revenge, or as I prefer to call it "bloodlust." I don't know why we would even want to remember the hateful feelings we felt, times like that shows humanity at its lowest. I prefer to look at the cause and fix it, instead of politically coating it to my preference and then running amok with it.


We want to remember because there are people that are out to destroy America because they hate what we represent. We want to remember because those People who died on 9/11 did not asked to be killed. And since you like to look at the cause and fix, tell me what is the cause and what is your solution? I don't coat anything, coating is when you prefer not to remember and act like there is really no entity out there to get us. When in reality there is danger all around. Yes, we are probably to blame for a lot of that danger that confronts us but some of it is based on a difference of ideology. They believe we should live one way and we prefer to live the American way. There is no better way. Hoorah!!!!!!




Firstly, are you saying that 100% of America was pro-war at some point? Also I strongly doubt that most people even that support the current occupation of Iraq would call themselves "pro-war." I cannot speak for them, but I would guess that they felt this invasion was needed and felt the correct course of action was taken. "Pro-war" gives the connotation that war is consistently desired by those taking the label.



Majority wanted action taken. I will agree that people support the troops, not necessarily the war. I never said everybody was pro-war.

sorry messed up on quote and everything got mixed together.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by jam321]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by jam321]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


Thank you for that link. The International Red Cross - that is what I suspected.

The credibility of the OP has just gone down the toilet.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join