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.

 

Call to pursue Bush, Rumsfeld for torture

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Call to pursue Bush, Rumsfeld for torture


www.news.com.au

THE UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US today to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television today.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
How much protection will Bush receive from prosecution?

I have a feeling that he'll get away with it all. Maybe there will be some back-room deals that we will never know about but I doubt that bringing ex-pResidents to 'justice' is ever going to gain much momentum.

Besides, it's an opinion coming from the UN, like they've got a real voice or power anyway...

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

[edit on 21-1-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Who cares about what the UN thinks?

The Bush years are over. They need to move on...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Who cares about what the UN thinks?

I agree. The UN is a joke.



The Bush years are over. They need to move on...

I disagree.

Bush and Rumsfeld should face the consequences for the decisions that they made, whilst in office. Then again, silly me... as if they made their own decisions.

You shouldn't sweep crimes like that under a rug, just because a new pResident has taken over.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
They shouldn't face any consequences. Not you, nor anyone else, myself included, are in the position to understand how hard they worked holding the highest political office in the country. They had to do what they had to do. They absolutely demolished terrorism. Yeah, some prisoners were tortured. And they should be given the chance to sue. But war crimes? That's going too far.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



They should be accountable for what they did.
If not, then, why go after Nazi officers or East European dictators, and war criminals?

I truly hope that they at least get their day in an international court.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Who cares about what the UN thinks?

I agree. The UN is a joke.

Yes. They are. I would like for them to be charged with their war crimes.




The Bush years are over. They need to move on...

I disagree.

Bush and Rumsfeld should face the consequences for the decisions that they made, whilst in office. Then again, silly me... as if they made their own decisions.
I don't think they should be charged for warring against other nations. Many Presidents do that and they aren't charged for it. They should be charged for their domestic surveillence program they did which they allowed the warantless wiretapping of regular US citizens.



You shouldn't sweep crimes like that under a rug, just because a new pResident has taken over.

Of course not, but the UN is not one to talk.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
They shouldn't face any consequences. Not you, nor anyone else, myself included, are in the position to understand how hard they worked holding the highest political office in the country. They had to do what they had to do. They absolutely demolished terrorism. Yeah, some prisoners were tortured. And they should be given the chance to sue. But war crimes? That's going too far.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]


I disagree, if this government were run uncorrupted, it would be you, me, and every citizen to make these judgements. The government should fear the people.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by haika
 


From what I've read and learned, the decision that was made to go to war with Iraq was based on faulty intelligence. So... I'm just saying that it's open to interpretation as to whether he committed war crimes or not. I'm however open to trying him for crimes against the nation with his domestic policy failures.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
jeez ... what are you going to do? impeach / prosecute every president you have from here on in?

what freaking madness. who's going to put their hand up to lead you all if you keep pulling this crap?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
jeez ... what are you going to do? impeach / prosecute every president you have from here on in?

what freaking madness. who's going to put their hand up to lead you all if you keep pulling this crap?


Hopefully noone, hopefully we will lead ourselves.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LeTan
 


bwahahaha ... and some of you would jollywell deserve that too!



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Guys, this article is about torture; not Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or any of the unjust wars waged in the past eight years.

Should the former President and vice-President be prosecuted for allowing the torturing of some arguably innocent people? I'm thinking these are issues of national security that the U.N. just can't intervene in. Think about what opening such a case would imply. It would set a precedent for all future state leaders. Can you all really be that cynical? You realize they are all aware of the consequences of their actions. You must realize that they are also aware that their term in office only lasts eight years at most. It's not like they go in there saying "Let's trash the place up. One or two terms is like a hundred years from now, who cares!"

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
reply to post by LeTan
 


bwahahaha ... and some of you would jollywell deserve that too!


I don't quite understand what you mean, I'll respond to it based on what i think. Of course the people deserve to lead themselves, the government is there to work for the people, not to lead them. At least if we lead outselves we have no others to blame for our own mistakes. I couldn't sleep at night knowing that I called for a carpet bomb on a civilian town, but I'll only think for 4 minutes a day about how my tax dollars are arming those bombs.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Who cares about what the UN thinks?

The Bush years are over. They need to move on...

I wonder would you be of the same opinion regarding the Nuremberg trials? After all, the war was over,... time to move on and all that.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
Guys, this article is about torture; not Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or any of the unjust wars waged in the past eight years.

Should the former President and vice-President be prosecuted for allowing the torturing of some arguably innocent people? I'm thinking these are issues of national security that the U.N. just can't intervene in. Think about what opening such a case would imply. It would set a precedent for all future state leaders. Can you all really be that cynical? You realize they are all aware of the consequences of their actions. You must realize that they are also aware that their term in office only lasts eight years at most. It's not like they go in there saying "Let's trash the place up. One or two terms is like a hundred years from now, who cares!"

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]


No, I don't think the UN has the right to intervene, it is up to the citizens of the state. As for setting a precedent for all future leaders, this is a good thing, It will give future leaders incentive to do something right and listen to people over politicians and bankers. Torture scares the hell out of me, In heightened states of pain you can make a man admit anything you want. My dad was tortured in Vietnam when the South fell to the communists. He was tied to a pillar with honey smeared all over his feet and they put fire ants over them. It is a ruthless unecessary act that should be punished as a war crime.

edited for spelling errors.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by LeTan]

[edit on 21-1-2009 by LeTan]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Manawydan
 


While I don't agree with Bush's policies I think that if we failed to act it would show that we were weak. I think we should move beyond this... we should investigate their actions but prosecuting someone who's tried to keep us safe the best way they could to the best of their ability? Maybe Bush failed the first four years at the Iraq war but Bush improves with his Presidency significantly the second campaign... you can't just keep trying people who you don't like for war crimes.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Accusations of such a serious nature must be investigated to determine merit.

If the accusations are found to have merit the charges must be filed and a court or tribunal formed to determine guilt or innocence.

If my fellow country members were to make accusation of being tortured by, or with the consent of the leaders of a foreign nation I would demand an investigation regardless who ordered the torture or why the torture was inflicted.

The who and why of it would only (if at all) have a baring on the severity of the sentence if a guilty verdict was rendered.

There are (IMHO) few, if any, acts as barbaric, inhuman and heinous as the torture of a living being.

BTW a quick google search of (bush war crimes guilty tribunal) returned some interesting results.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
Not you, nor anyone else, myself included, are in the position to understand how hard they worked holding the highest political office in the country.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they CHOOSE to obtain those positions? NONE of them were forced to run for their elected positions, right?

If they can't manage to do their job that they CHOSE to do, LEGALLY, then they should be prosecuted for their criminal failures.



They had to do what they had to do. They absolutely demolished terrorism. Yeah, some prisoners were tortured. And they should be given the chance to sue. But war crimes? That's going too far.

They were obviously not capable of doing the jobs that they chose to do. They were incompetent and broke laws. They'll get away with it too.

Why is war crimes going too far? They captured prisoners, in a war and tortured them. Do you work from a different definition of what a war crime is?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
They shouldn't face any consequences. Not you, nor anyone else, myself included, are in the position to understand how hard they worked holding the highest political office in the country. They had to do what they had to do. They absolutely demolished terrorism. Yeah, some prisoners were tortured. And they should be given the chance to sue. But war crimes? That's going too far.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by cognoscente]


lol

they multiplied the number of willing terrorists by ten


[edit on 21-1-2009 by ergoli]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join