The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


And so I think that just about puts an end to this whole discussion. Because few other countries or organizations bend over backwards as far as the U.S. does to protect the rights of the accused.

Remember, more than a few countries (and more than a few ATS members it seems) consider a person guilty until proven innocent, rather than the way we do it here (except for Louisiana).




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

the suggestion is that bush be tried{sp?} in the US, so all rights the US grants any other citizen should apply. bush broke US law, bush should be prosecuted in the US.

do you think the laws of the US shouldn't apply to the president?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



do you think the laws of the US shouldn't apply to the president?


yes, but depends what crimes you are talking about. Remember, Congress gave immunity to a lot of things Bush was accused of. Giving immunity is kinda like saying that one is ok with what Bush did IMO.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
well then, the issue is weather or not the people, and the new president, of the US are okay with torture. like i said early on, i suspect they are.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I am not okay with torture. But, correct me if I am wrong, Congress gave immunity for this. Instead of giving immunity they should have went after these people if a crime was committed. If they had impeached Bush on this then they would have stood a better chance of getting Bush tried. They failed to do their job as described in the Constitution.

I value your opinion and understand your viewpoint but going after Bush will only mean that they will be gunning for Obama next. The time to do something was when it happened. Instead, Congress swept it under the carpet. Notice how 99% of Congress is quiet on the subject of Bush and torture.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by centurion1211
 




The fact is.... if we do not investigate and do not put those who tortured on trial, then all the other countries can go against the treaty also. In other words we will go to barbaric situations regarding all POWs.


OMG


What world do you live in? Tell me you don't know that what you're afraid isn't already happening in all the other countries, and that the U.S. is the least likely country to commit these so-called acts of torture.



What? 'Don't worry about it 'cuz we only torture alittle bit?'

How incredibly daft.

The United States of America one upon a time was respected for the moral standards it promoted and adhered to.

Now after 911 and all the attendant spin we are all so busy crapping our pants that such morality and ethics were thrown out the _

The time is long past for such standards to be reinstated in this nation, for the betterment of our nation.

The idea that we should not prosecute our leaders when they commit crimes for fear of 'binding their hands' in the future is sadly pathetic.

We have the rule of law for a reason and NO ONE is above it for very good reason.

If you think these acts should be ignored then don't cry about ANYTHING the government does that you precieve as illegal or wrong. You either apply the standards or you don't. Choosing where the rule applies and where it doesn't is ethical malady.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


thing is, if bush and co. were innocent then the idea of a trial wouldn't be daunting, if they were innocent their supporters would be saying, "yeah, get them in there, let's put this to bed once and for all".


This is soooo short-sighted and quite naive.

You simply can't have the leaders of the U.S. or any other major country put on trial. Doing so would forever handcuff those leaders from ever making a tough decision. And if obama agreed to it, he'd have to wonder when they were going to come after him and for what.

I agree with Flyers Fan. Won't happen, no matter how badly the anti-americans here - both foreign and domestic - salivate for it.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by centurion1211]


Hang Um IMO...
I suggest that this is what is wrong with neo con ideology... The double standards of "TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF" ----- " OH no you can't put Bush on trial he was the president".... The man broke inter national and domestic laws - I think the anti Americans who defend Bush care not for the red white and blue,rather. the G - O - P.


And finally

"you simply can't have the leaders of the U.S. or any other major country put on trial. Doing so would forever handcuff those leaders from ever making a tough decision"

This is the cheesiest excuse EVER...



Last week I heard of a cop who got life for shooting a perp in the back... Just today there was an officer involved shooting. Didn't "handcuff" the cop today now did it. The moral is don't shoot an unarmed man in the back, otherwise you'll be OK.

Take responsibility NEOCONS you shout it to high heaven only when it suits you.

Not much different then a feudal system you got going - two sets of rules for two perceived classes. GOD bless the GOP, oh,,, then AMERICA!!!


[edit on 27-1-2009 by The Bald Champion]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


i guess the fact that congress were so spineless as to sweep it under the carpet is the reason that those far sighted founding fathers were clever enough to make the judiciary a separate arm of government.


EDIT: and i hope "they" are gunning for obama, because that's the kind of change that's required. if obama does anything illegal or wrong he should be on trial too.

corruption is corruption no matter who does it.

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This is ridiculous if it is true. Lets see we confined them and waterboarded them. They on the other hand cut the heads off of our people they captured and video taped it. So why in the heck should George Bush and Don Rumsfeld go to prison. Its called war its not supposed to be a nice game. If Reagan signed that treaty it must have had something worthwhile in it for the USA or his alzheimers was already kicking in.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Keep dreaming about Bush going on trial. Not going to happen.

If you read the executive order that Obama signed that 'un-did' the torture executive orders of Bush, all Obama's executive order does is make it secret.

If Bush goes on Trial then Obama needs to go on trial. Along with his advisers and everybody else equal in position to the people being prosecuted fromt he Bush admin.

Obama is president now, he did not order an immediate stop to all military operations so there for he has inherited this mess. Simple as that.

His executive order about torture states that he still maintains the authority to authorize torture just under classified conditions. Which means he can still order torture in secret and nobody will no about it.

It's as simple as that.

Treaties don't override the constitution. The bill of rights in the constitution are inalienable rights granted by a higher power than man, that can not be taken away.

Simple as that. Bush gets prosecuted might as well throw Clinton up there too, and then Obama.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by pieman
 



People have tried, our govt. does not listen to us. Yes, look at the bailout - millions called their govt. officals to try and stop it. The problem with that, is Bush threatened Martial Law, unless the Congress passed it. It shows you, what Bush did - threaten others in govt.

So now, Bush can no longer threaten anything, and the U.S. is "required" to prosecute those involved in torture, due to the treaty signed in the 80s, we should see something happen.


The current stimulus package is at $1.15 trillion that Obama wants to pass. Just what do you think Obama would do if the vote were held up by House or Senate Republicans? Do you honestly believe he would do no less?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
If you read the executive order that Obama signed that 'un-did' the torture executive orders of Bush, all Obama's executive order does is make it secret.
link me to the text please.



Obama is president now, he did not order an immediate stop to all military operations so there for he has inherited this mess. Simple as that.
so either he orders all the soldiers to put own their guns and run away or he is as complicate as bush.


Treaties don't override the constitution. The bill of rights in the constitution are inalienable rights granted by a higher power than man, that can not be taken away.


if you read the whole thread you might be aware that a treaty becomes law because of the constatution, not in spite of it.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

What? 'Don't worry about it 'cuz we only torture alittle bit?'

How incredibly daft.

The United States of America one upon a time was respected for the moral standards it promoted and adhered to.

Now after 911 and all the attendant spin we are all so busy crapping our pants that such morality and ethics were thrown out the _

The time is long past for such standards to be reinstated in this nation, for the betterment of our nation.

The idea that we should not prosecute our leaders when they commit crimes for fear of 'binding their hands' in the future is sadly pathetic.

We have the rule of law for a reason and NO ONE is above it for very good reason.

If you think these acts should be ignored then don't cry about ANYTHING the government does that you precieve as illegal or wrong. You either apply the standards or you don't. Choosing where the rule applies and where it doesn't is ethical malady.



You know what? We tried it your way prior to Bush's administration and what did it get us? During the Clinton administration, Al Qaida came to power and several American targets were attacked, culminating with the twin towers at the beginning of Bush's administration.

So Bush changed the rules and brought down the hammer. And for the next seven years we haven't had a SINGLE terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

And now you say we ought to go soft again, well WAH WAH WAH let's just give all the terrorists a free pass why don't we? Let's give them a lifetime supply of Oreo cookies and a free Candyland boardgame to take back to the Middle East when we free them and then pray they don't return to a life of terrorism, plotting to destroy the U.S. again.

People like you just DON'T GET IT and you NEVER WILL. Terrorists don't want to kill us because we tortured them or bombed them or invaded some foreign country - they hated us LONG before those things ever happened! They hate us because our country is the polar opposite of theirs - we believe in freedom and equality of our women, for example. We teach our women to read and write and we treat them as equals. They, for the most part, DO NOT. That's just one example of how their extremists hate us based on their own religion. We believe in the freedom to choose your religion even if it means rejecting God. That's another example. We believe that people of all races, skin colors, religions, etc. have the right to marry - they don't. So no matter how soft we go on them and for how long, they will always want to kill everyone in the U.S. until we are either all dead, or all Muslim.

Pity you, an intelligent individual that you are, cannot see that.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by sos37]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


thing is, if bush and co. were innocent then the idea of a trial wouldn't be daunting, if they were innocent their supporters would be saying, "yeah, get them in there, let's put this to bed once and for all". the truth is, every one knows they tortured and you guys don't care.

so, it's not going to happen, i know this, there wasn't enough moral backbone in the US to stop the torture and it isn't as though anyone expects there to be enough moral backbone in the US to bring those responsible to trial.

it'll just go to prove what most of the world suspects, that the US is the land of the sheep and home of the spineless.

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]


Those that feel Bush & Co. are innocent aren't even going to dignify this by putting themselves in the situation in the first place.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
never mind, obvious comment.

[edit on 27/1/09 by pieman]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
... culminating with the twin towers at the beginning of Bush's administration. ...


that's some scary logic right there alone. it wasn't clinton who ignored the briefing with the alarming title.

as for the "no attacks since" argument? wow...let's contrast that with the 225+ years of no attacks on our mainland, eh? and let's not give credit where credit is due...to our crack law enforcement and intel agencies who managed quite well before bush and will continue to do so after him...despite the blight he saddled them with.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Due to the fact a treaty was signed and the UN special Rep on torture has said, the U.S. is required to bring them to trial.

He obviously knows what he is talking about - since he is the UN person on torture. He knows the laws and he says in the video "there is evidence" - with that - the U.S. will not be able to get around it.

By not bringing them to trial - then we are setting a standard of torture - and lets make a bet........ Lets just say.... one of our guys is caught by Russia for spying or something - and he is tortured - do you not think the U.S. will cry foul and be up in arms over it?

Of course we would...but Russia could just respond, OH, we are doing what you do and have condoned doing and since you broke the laws first and never did anything about it, we too can break the law ---- and I dare you to try and do anything about it.

Do you see where this is going..... if we do not do something... then we can never in the future accuse another country of doing it.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by questioningall I think there are lots of people sweating right now.

As well they might. Let's not forget, there remain a lot of people who figure still that the sun shines out of the collective Bush Admin's patoot. If the big guys...and gal...are suddenly accepted as the criminals they may well be...well then, that's gotta give the party faithful something to think about as they're warming their pews.

Drooling? No...but payback can be savoured just the same.

An edit to address Centurian's remark "I agree with Flyers Fan. Won't happen, no matter how badly the anti-americans here - both foreign and domestic - salivate for it."
Dude...you have to come to grips with the fact that is not anti-American, and it never was, to be disgusted by the Bushies!

[edit on 27-1-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]


You don't have to be pro-Bush, to feel that this would be a terrible precedent. Every administration would end in impeachment and prosecution by political opponents, and would end up pardoning themselves.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


You do understand that a President has the authority to do away with previous executive orders, and that we can withdraw from treaties, right?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 



He obviously knows what he is talking about - since he is the UN person on torture. He knows the laws and he says in the video "there is evidence" - with that - the U.S. will not be able to get around it.


Lawyers know the law as well yet they lose cases all the time. And just because somebody says there is evidence doesn't mean it is concrete evidence. Furthermore, you are are taking the word of a guy because of his title/position. That would be like me saying that Congress knows what they are doing because they are Congressmen/women.

The US gets around the UN anytime it wants.





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join