The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:22 PM by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by cal7man
reply to post by pieman

"The torture of human beings" those are strong words used in defense of people who would kill you in an instant, not all of them, but you have to admit a percentage of these detainees are guilty of terror against innocent lives. This is just like the age old arguement of capitol punishment, to end the life of somebody who has taken lives.
When does it stop, when do we stand up for ourselves instead of turning the other cheek. God said killing is a sin, but not in defense against adversaries inclined to doing such. It's a hard topic to debate because of the numerous gray areas intertwined within. Who to torture, who not to? Being ex-military and having alot of friends & relatives still involved with that kind of makes me bias towards certain methods of intelligence gathering, not saying its humane, but trying to deter loss of life is our ultimate goal, not torturing people for the hell of it.

How do you know?
The only way to be sure someone is a murderer or who might murder again is in a court of law during a trial. Have these people been tried?

Maybe the government was covering their own asses and has no evidence. How do YOU KNOW what people are guilty of? Why should we trust people who have lied to us repeatedly?

Didn't you read about the NSA whistleblower who said that BushCo was spying on EVERYONE? They lied about that.

Didn't you read about Abu Ghraib tortures? They told us it was a few bad apples -- right after they said nobody was being harmed.

If you knew a DAMN THING about intelligence gathering, then maybe you might listen to every top intelligence gatherer who has been on the record saying "it doesn't work."

You are trusting people, who have done nothing but work in the shadows, that they have done the right thing. Pay not attention to all the no-bid contractors filling steamer trunks with cash.

Here's how you can be sure that someone isn't duping you into harming someone who is innocent; support the rule of law and don't torture. Stop basing every decision on an episode of 24 where gouging out someone's eye saves everyone in California from a really big bomb. A what if scenario justifies a bunch of crooks raping and torturing thousands of people. Did you notice that we found no WMDs? Oops!

Did you even notice that all the justifications for even being in Iraq were found to be lies? Oops!

Why exactly, is the guy in Abu Ghraib needing torture, when there IS NO THREAT TO AMERICA, this person is not Saddam Hussein (and the Saudis have a worse record on human rights, by the way), and beyond that, there has been no proof that we gathered any intelligence this way.

Wow, lots of faith to give something with no merit, no ethics, no proof, no justification. Maybe some people like torture -- they have a secret dark pleasure, that enjoys torture. Maybe you some don't LIKE these people. They have a lot of fears of OTHERS that they can't rationalize but they feel better when they can hurt the OTHER. I can't answer that. I just can't find any logical reason to support it.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:23 PM by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by EvilAxis
I share your misgivings about the UN PhyberDragon, but Manfred Nowak was not suggesting America hand over the keys to foreigners as centurion1211 seems to think. He called for America to try Rumsfeld.

I suggest that living in "the real world" as centurion puts it, while hoping for a better world, we should be encouraged by such news (not that it makes much difference what we feel about it).

This is an important distinction.

However, I do think that the Hague, or the World Courts in Spain, will step in, if America does not try Rumsfeld. At least I hope they do.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:28 PM by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by ninja jedi

the US is one of the worlds top super powers. why would we hand over one of our former leaders to a bunch whining third world countries.

Do you think Americans attitude of `exceptionalism` has enhanced or diminished the institution ?

Originally posted by ninja jedi

..but for me i believe the enitre UN is a joke and is completely useless.

It is ...... if it has become a club of "untouchables" .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Robert H. Jackson.
Chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

..........

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:28 PM by Question

I say take him!
We'll gladly turn him in, while they're at it, they should take all the corrupt senators and representatives as well that voted for this farce of a war.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:35 PM by Darky6K

reply to post by questioningall

The government doesn't listen? Yeah, most are NWO puppets, when are the American people going to hold them accountable? As long as the tvs and cell phones work, nobody will care

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 08:54 PM by cal7man

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

I was not replying to YOU, so go attack someone else with your High school analysis of this situation, as i stated in my post it is hard to say who to question and who not to. And you accuse me of assumption but all of your arguements are just that, assumptions!! The only thing concrete about you is that you HATE our Government. period. Go assume on somebody elses post, not mine!!

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:03 PM by impaired

reply to post by pieman

wow... touche`. You got a point there....
But still. We may be sheep, we may not be. Either way - Our governent and military are stacked and there is only so much that us "spineless" americans can do. Some of us have our own personal problems.
But for the stronger-than-me, they tried in forms of yes, protesting and stuff. That's all that Americans who are on the civilian side can do. WE DON'T RUN THIS COUNTRY. THEY DO. Also, they're ALWAYS gonna be one step ahead of us. That's a fact. NWO, 2012, FEMA death camps, Economy crumbling-and-martial-law-ensuing - whatever conspiracy theory it is or even reality (like the economy once again).
What can most of us do, but watch?

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:06 PM by Darky6K

reply to post by impaired

You know what's going to happen

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 09:29 PM by JoanTheBlind

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

VaA,

I find your opinions interesting.

It is interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.

Bush went before the UN and accused Saddam of torture an not adhereing to UN Security Council dictates.

Now the UN is showing up and saying "Yo, hey it looks like some torture went down, and you've got to get your butt to a UN tribunal ASAP."

It would be a touch of irony if Bush, in this lifetime, gets to play the very same role as Sadam did. It will be interesting if when push comes to shove if Bush will give exactly the same answer that Saddam gave the UN:

Eat my shorts!

An interesting drama to be sure.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:07 PM by XTexan

You know, I'm not sure if they're guilty or not... though I do lean towards thinking that they are. But it seems to me like they are being accused of a crime, and so logically, they should be tried for it.

It really irritates me to see these comments saying that we own the UN or we foot most of their bill, or they HQ in New York so they should just shut up... I mean seriously is that the face we want to show to the world? We're accused of war crimes here and you people want to tell the very organization that we pay for and run to ignore what we might have done? That is absolutely ridiculous. If we are not willing to allow ourselves to be investigated for war crimes why should anyone else?

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves. If we can't obey and fall under the very rules that we instituted then we don't deserve to continue on.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:18 PM by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
Originally posted by ninja jedi

the US is one of the worlds top super powers. why would we hand over one of our former leaders to a bunch whining third world countries.

Do you think Americans attitude of `exceptionalism` has enhanced or diminished the institution ?

Originally posted by ninja jedi

..but for me i believe the enitre UN is a joke and is completely useless.

It is ...... if it has become a club of "untouchables" .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.

Robert H. Jackson.
Chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

..........

You know which group of people has diminished, ridiculed and accused the UN of misdeeds the most? Why NeoCons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh and the like. Exactly the people who want the US to abuse its power, don't respect or eve like Democracy, and would be better off if there were NO INTERNATIONAL check on power.

We have the world banks, the WTO and a few multinationals to fill the gap. Me, I'd rather have the UN, which at least has to answer to political folks who have to answer to citizens in some country at some point.

The UN was developed to reduce wars. If it can check the power of countries like the US and China to wage unilateral warfare it has served its purpose.

We've undermined its usefulness -- a self-fulfilling prophesy of the tyrants in our nation.

You know what would reduce acts of terror? Prosperity and a voice for the powerless in the world.

The last shred of UN mandate for US occupation in Iraq is about to expire -- the initial ruling after the first Gulf War. So, Obama is going to have to pull out or the US will be a rogue state. In a real sense, after all justifications for the war proved to be lies -- we are.

The UN is imperfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:27 PM by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by cal7man
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

I was not replying to YOU, so go attack someone else with your High school analysis of this situation, as i stated in my post it is hard to say who to question and who not to. And you accuse me of assumption but all of your arguements are just that, assumptions!! The only thing concrete about you is that you HATE our Government. period. Go assume on somebody elses post, not mine!!

I'm not coming down on you.

I'm a big proponent of "government" that is Good. We didn't have that under Bush because they've been doing a good job of making it not function for the people.

Military people swear to defend the Constitution -- is that right? They also swear to the military code of honor. There should be no damn ambiguity in that -- we tried people for the same damn things at Nuremberg and having ORDERS is no excuse.

Waterboarding, used to be called water torture -- and people have been tried for that.

It doesn't fracking matter WHAT we suspect the Iraqis did or didn't do or the "situation." I think I made my point that you can "assume" they did all these bad things. But it proved not to be the case. It doesn't change a damn thing if the Iraqis were proved to in possession of WMDs. That would have been a government decision and we still go back to the military code of conduct.

And I'm not using "high school opinions" -- torture doesn't help your buddies in the field. But it sure does justify people using them as targets.

Sorry if this is unsettling -- I don't accuse you of anything. I'm just stating my opinion that there is no purpose or justification for torture. It's used to manipulate people and destroy them -- never a goal of a Good Government.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 10:42 PM by skeptic_al

reply to post by questioningall

A team of Wild Horses will not be able to drag Bush off to court,
and rummy...He'll get a rare mysterious Illness preventing from
goining. Cheney, well he has a head start on the other two
already with the fake wheelchair act.

I'm thinking, they might get wrist slap, I can't imagine anything
more than that. I'm just Skeptical about everything.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:24 PM by lunarminer

Which court are we talking about?

If it is the ICJ, The International Court of Justice, the rulings are binding but the participation is optional. So, if the US does not consent to a trial then no trial will occure.

If it is the ICC, The International Criminal Court, the US is not a participant and therefore not subject to its rulings.

This is a serious question and it will be interesting to hear the answer.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:31 PM by lunarminer

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

First, check your language you are very close to violating the rules of decorum.

Second, how many people were subjected to waterboarding. The last official number that I read was 3. That is hardly on par with the Nuremburg trials.

You will probably respond with any number is too many. Well, I for one think that 3000 dead Americans trumps 3 tortured terrorists, but hey that's just me.

I really don't care what was done to Ramsey Yusef, Kalid Sheik Mohammed, or others who participated in the first WTC attack or the 9/11 attack. They are terrorists and conducted terroristic acts, so they are not eligible for humanitarian treatment in my opinion.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:45 PM by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

First, check your language you are very close to violating the rules of decorum.

Second, how many people were subjected to waterboarding. The last official number that I read was 3. That is hardly on par with the Nuremburg trials.

You will probably respond with any number is too many. Well, I for one think that 3000 dead Americans trumps 3 tortured terrorists, but hey that's just me.

I really don't care what was done to Ramsey Yusef, Kalid Sheik Mohammed, or others who participated in the first WTC attack or the 9/11 attack. They are terrorists and conducted terroristic acts, so they are not eligible for humanitarian treatment in my opinion.

No real court in the land accepts a tortured confession. We've had a few now, that were turned into vegetables. We have to go on the word of a kangaroo court from a corrupt administration that has hindered investigations into 9/11 to believe what happened.

Maybe they are guilty. But it doesn't dignify our courts, or end the terrorism to act this way. It is also wrong.

You might be able to rationalize punishments -- but first you have to prove guilt. And in the eyes of the world, that's pretty suspect.

Half the country doesn't think that much of what Bush does was legitimate and most of the world either. So where does that put things?

I imagine people like Rumsfeld see themselves as the last bastions of honor, guts and glory. And anyone with sanity around them think these people are old blowhards, who were never right about much, and excuse all the failures in their lives based upon that one bigger missile someone didn't let them launch.

Yeah, the US would have been successful in Iraq "if only." How do we measure success? Now its down to "less violence than 6 months ago." Great, success therefore, is measured by not having gone there.

I've been talking about tortures in Iraq. But it slipped to these two alleged "masterminds of al qaeda."

I'm supposed to count these people in Gulags who have been harmed who had nothing to do with the attacks on the WTC? We should have gone after Sweden for Pearl Harbor I suppose -- it's all justified. But then again, where is everyone's patriotism? People who admit any of this went on were "helping the enemy."

First it wasn't happening. Then it was but a few bad apples. Then we found more apples -- perhaps a tree, but it wasn't policy. There is probably an orchard, but you know, nobody seems to be advertising that.

And yet, there are people now rationalizing the NEED for the torture. Why then, were they trying to hide it if this were such a noble search for justice?

I feel bad for anyone who went from "we would never do that" to " we only did it to really bad people."

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:50 PM by TheAgentNineteen

I hardly find Standing on a Milk Crate, with a Hood on, to be "Torture". I have been through far worse in my life, and it seems absolutely ludicrous to call an action "Torture" when many Working Americans go through more stress in an Average Work Day.

On Another Note, in case you failed to notice, the United States IS the United Nations. The United Nations is nothing without the United States, and it is in fact a Complete Joke without such.

As for the turning over of a United States President, I care little who the President is in fact, and whether or not I agree with their Administrative Policies, but I will never condone the handing over of an American Leader/Representative/Constituent to a Foreign Entity for "Criminal Charges", or any related matter. We can handle our own Problems, and the last thing the quibbling weaklings at the United Nations need to do, is to instruct us on handing over a "Suspect" when they failed to even demand such of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, or any like malfeasants. WE, the United States, are the ones that had to effect the Investigation, Arrest, and Trial of Saddam Hussein, all while the United Nations sat on their rumps debating the "Legalities" of such.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:55 PM by Anonymous ATS

I think that what we all need to remember is the fact that the IMF, the UN, and the United Estates of America are all part and parcel of the same package. It is all so much bigger than any one country or international organization. Most Americans and/or other patriots from other countries don't really remember this most basic and fundemental fact. If you are talking about the U.S., you are also talking about the U.N. You are talking about the IMF. It is all a part of the same thing, so when one speaks of the fact that the US doesn't know that the UN is doing "this thing", don't fool yourselves. It is false, and they are all the the same and all have the same goals. Same for the IMF. Anyone who thinks that the IMF is in any way, shape, or form independent and objective is completely lost and not educated in the ways of the world. Please find out what is really going on.

reply posted on 27-1-2009 @ 11:58 PM by ludaChris

Originally posted by questioningall

You have to watch the video, it IS against the law in the U.S., due to the fact that Reagan signed a treaty, that makes it International law and U.S. law.

Well, not so fast, as much as I would like to see those two brought to justice for their crimes. The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to enter into ANY agreements with other nations. They do it anyways because they can get away with it. But I bet if they did try to bring them to trial under this treaty, they'd head for cover under the constitution like they love it all the sudden.

Treaties Plain and Simple

[edit on 1/27/2009 by ludaChris]

reply posted on 28-1-2009 @ 12:08 AM by dooper

I think it's time for the US to pull out of the UN anyway. Save us a ton of money, and these yapping dogs can go play elsewhere.