Citizen's Arrest of Alleged War Criminal George W. Bush in Canada

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by December_Rain

 

As I stated earlier those sources are quoting the flawed lancing report and the Iraqi "Ministry of Health"

The links I mentioned in my above post also cites reference to the Iraqi officials who were sponsored by illegal war invaders.

Let's not forget who was aiding those insurgents which by the way haven't yet received the credit they deserve for their part of the death and destruction in Iraq.

Who was aiding? Ermm how does aiding comes into this discussion? If there was no illegal war there wouldn't have been any aid!! That's common sense right!! Similarly like how US aided AL Qaeda and Taliban against Soviet Union in Afghanistan!!

reply to post by December_Rain



I have read Kofi's statement, However if wars are illegal why did the UN authorize the Korean War? Or how about the First gulf war? Oh what about Somali or the Countless other wars? The Rwanda massacre? So you see Kofi's statement was political short memories around here and at the UN. What do you think about his blatant disrespect for international law now?

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by December_Rain

 

I have read Kofi's statement, However if wars are illegal why did the UN authorize the Korean War? Or how about the First gulf war? Oh what about Somali or the Countless other wars? The Rwanda massacre? So you see Kofi's statement was political short memories around here and at the UN. What do you think about his blatant disrespect for international law now?

Start a new thread asking why UN approved wars in other countries I am sure people will respond to you. This thread has only to do with Bush - Canada Law- Afghanistan - Iraq. Thanks for posting.

reply to post by December_Rain


No they are all linked together, you throw accusations around that the war is illegal, I counter and show you they are not illegal, You throw Kofi's bogus statement out there about the Iraq war being illegal and all wars being illegal, I counter with the UN authorizing direct force in many wars fought after its inception... Face it the war in Iraq was legal, and what the Canadian did (while it took guts) was illegal as it was pointed out by another member of the board.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by December_Rain

 

No they are all linked together,

Make a new thread linking all wars together and if you suceed in that you can repeat this claim here.

you throw accusations around that the war is illegal,

No throw I repeated the claim that UN General Kofi Annan said during his term and proved with UN resolution why it was.

I counter and show you they are not illegal,

I already told you your "counters" have already been discussed before, I gave you links where I have discussed in detail why your "counters" are redundant.

You throw Kofi's bogus statement out there about the Iraq war being illegal

Are you implying UN General statement was bogus as per International Law. Clearly not.

and all wars being illegal,

Nowhere I said all wars are illegal. Re read...try to comprehend, then re read it again and think if that doesnt work repeat the process.

I counter with the UN authorizing direct force in many wars fought after its inception...

Irrelevant , see previous point

Face it the war in Iraq was legal

Not as per International law as stated by US general.

and what the Canadian did (while it took guts) was illegal as it was pointed out by another member of the board.

That can be discussed and it is what this thread is for.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by December_Rain]

Originally posted by Bushido Kanji
George Bush is only a War Criminal because he became the leader of the United States on unpopular terns initially, which started the 'hate GWB' binge that everyone seems to love to OD on. He is not a war criminal until he is proven guilty in a high court of law, which will never happen. And why is that? Because he is not a war criminal. He just went to war.

Why he went to war is debatable, and the torturing of alleged terrorists is pretty convicting, but no one has done so in a court of law. So to all of you war criminal whiners out there, keep it to yourself until he shows up in court.

Good luck getting him there. It isn't like Nuremberg. GWB hasn't lost a war.

Obama will though.

Is he a war criminal too? No, he is a socialist.

People just cannot be pleased. Hate all authority. Anarchy will please you, no? Probably not, you would complain about something else I wager.

Anyway, I would like to see how this turns out for him in the end. The activist, and GWB.

you disgrace yourself and your screen name, along with the 2 lines underneath it along with your fancy avatar; if you had any humility, you would change all of that to just say 'incendiary sand-vagina'. im willing to bet you know nothing of Japanese culture.

the beginning of your first sentence is wrong, ending it in irrelevance. bush didnt become president on 'unpopular terns(sic)'; no, he became president on probably illegal terms.

your second sentence begins in ignorance and ends in denial and hysteria, and if you really want me to address the rest of your post ill be glad to, but i can sum it up for you: more of the same.

*BEING FOUND GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY* is not *always* an accurate assessment. as a matter of fact, it seems the more money or influence an individual has, the less likely a conviction in court is going to be accurate, or have even a smacking of justice.

did you know that Stanley G. Hilton filed a lawsuit on behalf of 400 9/11 victims family members against top administrative officials in 2004?

the suit charges that administration officials "all conspired with the government of Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11/01 to knowingly finance, encourage, recruit, permit, and aid and abet certain individuals to carry out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in order to orchestrate a contrived, stylized and artificial second Pearl Harbor event for the purpose of galvanizing public support for their military adventure agenda in the Middle East, and in order to persuade congress to enact their repressive patriot acts 1 and 2 for the purpose of suppressing political dissent inside the U.S."

and guess what? the case ultimately was thrown out by US District Court of North Carolina Judge Susan Illston citing the 'Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity', which has nothing to do with the facts of the case but rather an old English contention that the 'sovereign[King]' is exempt from lawsuits.

let that sink in.

a little more.

a little more.

there.

how does that sound to you? does that sound like righteous, unwavering ground on which to form an opinion that no high-profile administrative official IS guilty of war-crimes until they are FOUND guilty by a court of law? no, it doesnt, but im willing you didnt consider this tidbit, most likely because you didnt know about it, which leads me to believe that you dont know a whole lot about much pertaining to 9/11.

which, in the end, after typing all this out, i have come to accept as rather apparent. i mean really, who could have an opinion such as yours if that person had actually done some god damned research? if that person ACTUALLY had an IOTA of the depth or intellect you project to have. its simple really... that person doesnt. they are just pretending.

just faking.

Interesting thread, I must say it would be amusing to see all the armchair Generals, Barrack room lawyers and nonsense spreaders crawl out from under their rocks if the subject matter were not so serious. First off the bat let me fill you in a little on me, I served with an Intelligence unit in Germany during the Cold War and also served with 3 Commando brigade in Iraq and Turkey during and after the first Gulf conflict. We would receive weekly briefings on International law and the Geneva Conventions in Germany and occasional GC briefings in Iraq. My memory is not what it used to be but I hope my opinion and the the information I can provide will count towards getting to the truth of the Allies legality in the wars currently being waged in the Middle East.
First, it is my understanding that under International Law a country can only invade another country under a direct threat to their own country, hence the push to connect 9/11 to OBL and OBL to Afghanistan and of course the WMD in Iraq. These two accusations, used as justification for the two invasions, have never been proven so under International Law both invasions are illegal. Bush, his administration, any number of military leaders and many individuals within the lower ranks can be rightly accused of war crimes. Until they have they day in court however they only stand accused.
Secondly, under the Geneva Conventions torture is illegal, as is the use of mercenaries, the targeting of civilians and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction). To put this into context for you we were barred from cleaning our bayonets with any oil, chemical or substance that could cause infection to wounds inflicted on the enemy. This is the basics and builds right up to the use of hollow point rounds, modifying rounds, DU, white phosphorous etc. Every tiny aspect of war is covered and there are clear rules of engagement to follow. I dont want to bog down this thread with the evidence that the majority of the crimes listed under the conventions have been broken during both these conflicts, if you are interested there is plenty out there for you to research.
Lastly for those professing a knowledge of torture being an useful tool in acquiring knowledge of enemy intel. It is not. I have received training on resistance to interrogation by the Joint Forces Interrogation Unit of HM Forces and they stressed time and time again it was useless, unless you needed scapegoats to justify a politically sensitive mission.
So where does that leave us? Well we could say alls fair in love and war and we shouldn't expect any war to not have its mistakes, however the definition of a hypocrite is someone who doesn't apply to themselves what they apply to others. That being the case I hope all those apologists and supporters will admit they are hypocrites and agree not to complain if the dog turns to bite them. However in my opinion Bush is guilty, along with about 90% of the worlds institutions of authority of war crimes, I salute this gentleman along with anyone else with the courage to stand against these people and wish them well. I also propose, with the state of our economies at the moment, we have a global economy not based on war but based on peace and we can start with the investigation of every war criminal in the present and decent, honest courts set up to try them. Just think of the employment it will generate and the cancers we can cut out of our societies!

[edit on 9-3-2010 by SOXMIS]

reply to post by December_Rain



Your back peddling now, Kofi made an accusation ( which according to the charter is true) But I don’t see you people going after the UN for allowing Wars to go on for the last 60 years. If Bush is a war criminal that makes Obama and Kofi a criminal for allowing it to happen and being the current commander in chief.


My total point on this you give the Canadian thumbs up for breaking Canadian laws, but smack W down for going to war illegal, even though I have proven over and over again that the wars were not illegal but sanctioned by the UN, US, G.B, and several other governments.
The UN has blood on its hands just like America does, you want to try W fine, But bring in Kofi and Obama, Putin, Blair, and every other country that went to war or supplied armies or factions during a war... The fact is every nations hands are bloody.... You are being blinded by your hatred for Bush to see the truth….

Don’t get me wrong I don’t like Bush and I applaud your effort but your being one-sided on this, be equal opportunity.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Your back peddling now, Kofi made an accusation ( which according to the charter is true) But I don’t see you people going after the UN for allowing Wars to go on for the last 60 years. If Bush is a war criminal that makes Obama and Kofi a criminal for allowing it to happen and being the current commander in chief.


My total point on this you give the Canadian thumbs up for breaking Canadian laws, but smack W down for going to war illegal, even though I have proven over and over again that the wars were not illegal but sanctioned by the UN, US, G.B, and several other governments.
The UN has blood on its hands just like America does, you want to try W fine, But bring in Kofi and Obama, Putin, Blair, and every other country that went to war or supplied armies or factions during a war... The fact is every nations hands are bloody.... You are being blinded by your hatred for Bush to see the truth….

Don’t get me wrong I don’t like Bush and I applaud your effort but your being one-sided on this, be equal opportunity.

i dont see a problem doing any of this...

but we have to start somewhere.

what better place than here?

what better time than now?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
GWB is a war criminal, endorsed torture along with Dick Cheney, etc.

In your fantasy world perhaps, however in the real world courts decide guilt or innocence - and we can see how you hate that fact!

Unfortunantly in this real world half the courts are too corrupt and the other half are too scared to bring this man to justice.

But even if what you say is true, it still does not give any of you the right to claim anyone else is a criminal.

Turn it around. What if someone else decides just on their whim to declare YOU a criminal.

See the slippery slope you are creating just because you hate Bush?

this isnt just on a whim.


this is because he is a war-criminal being protected as though he were...

the president.

which he was. so he both. and thats a problem.

reply to post by 814ck0u7


The whole lot of them need to be tried for crimes against humanity, I am down for that, But you cant take one down with out going after all of them...

Originally posted by rotorwing

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
GWB is a war criminal, endorsed torture along with Dick Cheney, etc.

In your fantasy world perhaps, however in the real world courts decide guilt or innocence - and we can see how you hate that fact!

Unfortunantly in this real world half the courts are too corrupt and the other half are too scared to bring this man to justice.

But even if what you say is true, it still does not give any of you the right to claim anyone else is a criminal.

Turn it around. What if someone else decides just on their whim to declare YOU a criminal.

See the slippery slope you are creating just because you hate Bush?

I find this an interesting exchange...GW is not a criminal. That aside, as centurion explains...eloquently I might add...this is a darn blind box canyon you are flying down. There is no return from this if it goes forward. No leader of any kind im any country will ever be safe to make any decision again.

that quote was eloquent to you? thanks for the insight, ill try to type really slow for you.

this seems to be a version of the same argument used against rights to gay marriage "if gays get married then people will marry animals"

so if one, or maybe, hopefully all, corrupt politician gets tried and sentenced because they are a criminal, then you deduct that leaders will become less effective?

how about they all become more righteous.

I don't have time to read the whole thread until later, but I hope they are including 911 in the charges.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Brother there going to play dumb, They know W, will never be arrested, and here is why. The Iraqi War was never illegal it was sanctioned By the US Congress and The security Consul... Now if you don’t believe me will read these for yourself.


UN Security Council Resolutions 1441 . en.wikipedia.org...

And From the Horse’s mouth itself.
www.un.org...


Now because I don’t bow to any organization that isn’t American and I believe the UN it’s just some dumb rubber stamp to keep the politicians and third world nations happy.. I give to The US congress authorization for war on Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.c-span.org...
www.sourcewatch.org...

Now I know some of you goof balls are not going to be happy about this and will then go on and say that Bush and the CIA lied about the WMDs. Because you have a short memory I give you this.

From Russia archive.newsmax.com...

Now here is a list of US leaders that went on to say Saddam Had WMDs from Ted Kennedy to Al Gore... Also at the bottom his a blurb of other nations Intel reports where mixed signals were sent.

wiki.answers.com...

Now I should state that While I think the Government Mainly the Intel community, lied about Saddams WMD program, I should also note that WMDs were not the only reason we went in there see UN Order 1441. Should we have gone into to Iraq... No Saddam was a good buffer for Iran... But we are there ( I fought there) we should finish the mission and leave Iraq... Not like Vietnam were the Politicians lost the war but the Military won it... War Sucks only those who have fought and the families destroyed by it no better than anyone else… It also sucks to fight it then lose it because the politicians get in the way. Ask Hitlers Generals or General Westmorland.

Now as far as the Canadian good job eh... Next time sue in court or something, but since Bush is powerful nothing will come of it no since in getting your panties in a bundle and getting arrested run for office and get him that way.

the legalization or enabling of this war does not MAKE it legal.

we were told iraq had WMD's and now we have been there almost 10 years and found nothing.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

The whole lot of them need to be tried for crimes against humanity, I am down for that, But you cant take one down with out going after all of them...

like i said i see no problem with any of that.

none at all.

reply to post by 814ck0u7


Oh yes there was WMD in Iraq, But not the large amount that Bush Claimed there was, I think like 300 Canister of Nerve Gas were found and maybe even small amounts of mustards gas. Now Mind you these were buried in the desert and left over from the Iran-Iraq war. I should also note that WMDs were not the sole reasoning for the war, I should also point out he was not allowed to have medium to long ranger weapons or advance military weapons, which he did... Also he wasn’t allowed to have Scuds, which he did... And lets not forget the French Marrige airplanes that were buried in the desert.... There were many justifications for war with Iraq, WMDs were the main part...

In short Saddam played a deadly cat and mouse game with the US, he was receiving money from governments in the middle east to not use those weapons, if it came out that he didn’t have any the money would not come in... Also he may have had to deal with a Shia/Kurd Uprising. To understand a madman you most think like a mad man.

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

The whole lot of them need to be tried for crimes against humanity, I am down for that, But you cant take one down with out going after all of them...

like i said i see no problem with any of that.

none at all.

Nor do I but I dont think you should go after one and not the others.

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

the legalization or enabling of this war does not MAKE it legal.

we were told iraq had WMD's and now we have been there almost 10 years and found nothing.

Good!

We have a constitutional law scholar here.

Please provide sources for your legal opinions, especially this one: "the legalization or enabling of this war does not MAKE it legal".

We all want to understand that, too.

Thanks (in advance).

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

Oh yes there was WMD in Iraq, But not the large amount that Bush Claimed there was, I think like 300 Canister of Nerve Gas were found and maybe even small amounts of mustards gas. Now Mind you these were buried in the desert and left over from the Iran-Iraq war. I should also note that WMDs were not the sole reasoning for the war, I should also point out he was not allowed to have medium to long ranger weapons or advance military weapons, which he did... Also he wasn’t allowed to have Scuds, which he did... And lets not forget the French Marrige airplanes that were buried in the desert.... There were many justifications for war with Iraq, WMDs were the main part...

In short Saddam played a deadly cat and mouse game with the US, he was receiving money from governments in the middle east to not use those weapons, if it came out that he didn’t have any the money would not come in... Also he may have had to deal with a Shia/Kurd Uprising. To understand a madman you most think like a mad man.

let me toss a quote at you from your heaviest quoted source, wikipedia:

By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17]

that pretty much throws the brakes on EVERYTHING you just posted.

so you want us to consider UN laws and regulations, but ONLY when it comes to the defense of bush?


surely not.

lets see a credible link for your claims of canisters of gas found there.

using your logic, there were many justifications for the holocaust.....

amiright?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

the legalization or enabling of this war does not MAKE it legal.

we were told iraq had WMD's and now we have been there almost 10 years and found nothing.

Good!

We have a constitutional law scholar here.

Please provide sources for your legal opinions, especially this one: "the legalization or enabling of this war does not MAKE it legal".

We all want to understand that, too.

Thanks (in advance).

i dont know who or what 'we all' is, other than attempt to make yourself sound more authoritative, but i dont know where you got the impression i was a constitutional law scholar, and although i am not, i must thank you, that sounds like quite the haughty position.

no no, you see, congress authorized the use of force against iraq *after* Bush encountered dissent at the UN, because 'resolution 1441' was stated at the time to not contain military provisions, thought it is oft cited as a justification for war.

please dont ask me to educate you.