I agree, this about international law and tribunals. They used it in the nurmeburg trials to hang the nazis from the neck that they caught, and they need to catch these nazis now. Its not just torture either. Their use of DU weaponry has destroyed this entire planet, and whole regions for 4.5 billion years, and there is only more and more mounting evidence of the horror story of what the nano dust does when its exploded from bullets and bombs, and tanks.
Its bonded globally with our atmosphere, and is so tiny that unlike naturally occuring elements, where most of the isotopes pass through the urine, this nano dust stays in the body, bonds on a dna level, and subjects the victim to millions and millions of nuclear events each year.

We're all victims, and we're all breathing in thousands of nano dust particles with every breath we take. The two Bushes and Clinton destroyed the world. The Un declared DU weaponry weapons of mass destruction. Internationally Bush is an extreme war criminal and has not only the torture of a some people on his hands, but the destruction of our planet. He must go down. But there are others that must also face consequences.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by mystiq]

The UN

Must be a slow news day.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

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]

You're wrong on both counts.

If Clinton was so adept at protecting U.S. interests then how did the U.S.S. Cole succumb to attack by Al Qaida? How did Hezbollah manage to destroy the Khobar Towers and kill 19 marines? Did Clinton's warning adequately underscore the danger of Al Qaida to the United States, and if so why wasn't he doing more to bring them under control during his administration?

As for an attack on U.S. soil prior to 9/11? There was a bombing in 1993 on the same World trade center towers! It didn't bring them down, but geez, that happened on Clinton's watch and Al Qaida was suspected of involvement of that attack as well!

As for domestic terrorism, there was the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 196 people, which was done in retaliation for the disaster at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Clearly an anti-government action. Seems like government intelligence would have been all over that one.

Originally posted by mystiq
I agree, this about international law and tribunals. They used it in the nurmeburg trials to hang the nazis from the neck that they caught, and they need to catch these nazis now. Its not just torture either. Their use of DU weaponry has destroyed this entire planet, and whole regions for 4.5 billion years, and there is only more and more mounting evidence of the horror story of what the nano dust does when its exploded from bullets and bombs, and tanks.
Its bonded globally with our atmosphere, and is so tiny that unlike naturally occuring elements, where most of the isotopes pass through the urine, this nano dust stays in the body, bonds on a dna level, and subjects the victim to millions and millions of nuclear events each year.

We're all victims, and we're all breathing in thousands of nano dust particles with every breath we take. The two Bushes and Clinton destroyed the world. The Un declared DU weaponry weapons of mass destruction. Internationally Bush is an extreme war criminal and has not only the torture of a some people on his hands, but the destruction of our planet. He must go down. But there are others that must also face consequences.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by mystiq]

You're under the assumption/misconception that the UN supercedes national sovereignty. Unless you happen to be the leader of a country that has been beaten in war, and forced to agree to terms, International law doesn't take precedence over a Sovereign Government. We're bound to treaties that we agree to, and we're also free to pull out of treaties. DU has not destroyed the Earth. We'd all be dead were that the case.

What about Israel ? Don't they need to be taken before a tribunal ? Rat bastards get away with using white phosphorus munitions..... oh no biggy

[edit on 12/18/84 by Alferd Packer]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Either it's ok or not. If it's ok, then it's also ok for Americans to be tortured. If not, then Americans are not allowed to do it either. Looks pretty simple to me.

Well, what is torture? Is it something which causes physical damage? Or does it also include negative mental repercussions?

Water-boarding causes no physical or mental damage. There's no physical pain. There is fear - the kind of fear you get when you feel you are suffocating. Then it's over. That's it.

With that definition, I could extend "torture" to many things. What about jail? Most people would feel a Hell of a lot more fear at the idea of going to jail and being made someone's bitch then they would at the idea of not being able to breath for a few seconds... What about when they send you to the "hole"? Many people have lasting mental damage from that. Some people go crazy. Is that not torture?
Just think about it.

Originally posted by sos37
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.

What one possibly two attacks on US soil during Clinton, one I think, possibly none, I can't remember for sure. Perhaps you could show us?

As to 911, Bush was WARNED repeatedly and his response was to FIRE the man warning him, don't try to pass that off on Clinton.

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.

Compared to what? What is it exactly you are trying to say? Torture = safety?

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.

This is just plain drivel. Never did I say ANYTHING that equated to this in the slightest. Trying to reduce my point to absurdity but trying to equate it to crap like this is really quite WEAK on your part mate. How about we talk about what I said rather than this fantasy you have created here for us?


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.


Do you know when the USA became a major enemy of the Middle East? Hmmm, maybe the 1970's and Israel? Your perspective is warped mate. Where do you get your information from?

It just occurred to me that anyone who is for this is for "The New World Order" and considers the UN the World Government. You can't have it both ways. Either we are sovereign or we are not. Either you are for World Government and against Sovereignty or you are not.

So, how many here support the "New World Order" and want the UN to have that power? Raise your hands

I was going to post the members of the Human Rights Commission, but they have not updated the list since 2005. I guess they don't want us to know which countries are represented on it Countries like the Sudan, China and Congo were on it in 2005. Shining examples of Human Rights all. Are their leaders being put on trial for their crimes against humanity? Of course not Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the world it would seem.



[edit on 1/27/2009 by Blaine91555]

i also agree it will never happen but imho America could and would restore its integrity if they did bring these torturers to justice , respect from the rest of the world would be gained, balls in you're court Obama .. make us proud

Originally posted by Alferd Packer
What about Israel ? Don't they need to be taken before a tribunal ? Rat bastards get away with using white phosphorus munitions..... oh no biggy

[edit on 12/18/84 by Alferd Packer]

WP munitions aren't illegal.

Most of ya are smart enough to know not to hold your collective breath.

Ain't gonna happen.

There would probably be a good possibility that a number of world leaders and politicians would go down as well. They're gonna protect themselves.

Nothing to see here. Move along.