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

reply to post by 814ck0u7


Umm no it doesn’t break anything that was march 2003m I was there in March I saw them and read the reports.... Remember the big stink about it? We found Saddam Supposed Chemical weapons trailers and there was nothing there? The media went crazy over that and the Nerve gas pushed under the rug because the Military didn’t want to embarrass the President anymore.

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

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.

Simple.

You posted something that sounded very much like a legal opinion with no sources or credentials to back it up.

Let me educate you.

Anyone can post their opinions here. Just don't pretend that your opinions are automatically facts.

The facts are - whether you approve of them or not - that Congress DOES make the laws here in the U.S. so, if Congress passes a law authorizing something, it IS a law when signed by the president, or his veto is overrriden.

You'll have to find another reason to prosecute - or should I say persecute - Bush.

[edit on 3/9/2010 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

Umm no it doesn’t break anything that was march 2003m I was there in March I saw them and read the reports.... Remember the big stink about it? We found Saddam Supposed Chemical weapons trailers and there was nothing there? The media went crazy over that and the Nerve gas pushed under the rug because the Military didn’t want to embarrass the President anymore.

please, dont be offended if i dont believe a story you reiterate with no evidence, as for the gas, ill look it up myself

all im saying is, you point at 'resolution 1441' as though it carries weight.... this shows it doesnt.

this shows that none of the accusations carry weight.

the war was legally and morally unjustifiable, in my opinion, and the longer one 'thinks about it' the more apparent it becomes.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

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.

Simple.

You posted something that sounded very much like a legal opinion with no sources or credentials to back it up.

Let me educate you.

Anyone can post their opinions here. Just don't pretend that your opinions are automatically facts.

The facts are - whether you approve of them or not - that Congress DOES make the laws here in the U.S. so, if Congress passes a law authorizing something, it IS a law when signed by the president, or his veto is overrriden.

You'll have to find another reason to prosecute - or should I say persecute - Bush.

[edit on 3/9/2010 by centurion1211]

you cant quote a post of mine that sounds like legal opinion without credentials to back it up.

thank you for the semi-informative but completely useless waste of time about congress.

i dont hate the sinner, i hate the sin.

also, centurion, the post you responded to wasnt my opinion, its just what happened...

you dont have to like it, i wasnt asking you to.

but the one that seems to be pretending is you, or rather not you, but people who support the OS.

that is all

reply to post by 814ck0u7


No you are wrong the War may have been immoral but it was legal, You say UN Resolution 1441 isn’t correct.. Fine Gotcha but that still does not change the fact that THE AMERICAN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ACTION. Regardless of if you like it or not, the authorized it, war was made.

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?

The UN and the world community said that the Iraq war and invasion needed a second resolution to get a green light from the Security Council otherwise it would be a breach of the UN charter and International Law because the Security Council had the ownership of earlier resolutions.

Well! the Security Council said there was not enough reason for a war and refused the request for a second resolution.

But GWB & Blair didn't give damn about that and went ahead with it anyway without a second resolution - despite that they were warned by their top legal advisors that this would be Illegal according to International Law and the existing UN charter.

Therefore the Iraq war & invasion was/is illegal.

And now Governments in Europe have started hearings and Inquiries into the Iraq war

The recent British Inquiry:
www.iraqinquiry.org.uk...

Finally, a British Inquiry into the Iraq War

www.time.com...


[edit on 9-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Chevalerous


You are right about that part, but the war is not illegal due to the fact that the US Congress was the approving authority to the war. The UN is a rubber stamp thats all they are there for. They have no real authority, lets say the try to indict certain government officials or ex presidents (and even current ones.) Te US or G.B could simple remove there countries from the UN and any treaty it sees fit to... Therefore my statement still stands the US Congress authorized the war and it was not illegal. The EU countries are rattling the pens, but nothing will happen.. Because they protect there own.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

No you are wrong the War may have been immoral but it was legal, You say UN Resolution 1441 isn’t correct.. Fine Gotcha but that still does not change the fact that THE AMERICAN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ACTION. Regardless of if you like it or not, the authorized it, war was made.

The American Congress had several conditions but they were never met by the GWB administration.

The authorisation for violence had several conditions to be filled before GWB could launch the war.

One such condition was that there would be clear evidences about WMD in Iraq - that has since then been proved wrong and been refuted both by the world community and GWB himself who also often joked about it at dinner parties with the press.

The Iraq War is Illegal

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited

whatreallyhappened.com...


But later 3 judges of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit gave Bush the green light in the end anyway, apparently?

Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003), was a court case challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was challenged by "a coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening. They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."

en.wikipedia.org...

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully-developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 9-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Unity_99
His illegal war broke the geneva convention.

Care to point out exactly which convention/paragraph his war broke?
en.wikipedia.org...

From your provided link:

Grave Breaches
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
• willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

Extraordinary rendition fits that last description pretty well, don't you think? Next up that list, I think the raids by US military on the museums of Iraq is a pretty classic example of that one. And I'll bet the adolescent goat herders who got interred at Abu Graib would claim they were taken as civilian hostages. My guess is that they would also claim they were denied the right to a fair trail as well.

The Geneva Conventions Today

Although warfare has changed dramatically since the Geneva Conventions of 1949, they are still considered the cornerstone of contemporary International Humanitarian Law.[10] They protect combatants who find themselves hors de combat, and they protect civilians caught up in the zone of war. These treaties came into play for all recent international armed conflicts, including the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the 2008 War in Georgia.

So, like so many others here, I have to ask: do you even read the links you post?

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

The UN is a rubber stamp thats all they are there for. They have no real authority, lets say the try to indict certain government officials or ex presidents (and even current ones.)

No they are not simply only a rubberstamp!

It's a bit more complicated than that! - the US has signed International multilateral treaties & agreements since the Nürnberg Treaty 1945-

Treaties like the UN charter - Geneva Convention - The Hague treaties for the War Crimes Tribunal etc.

And if the US broke those treaties, the others have now a legal dilemma to solve, otherwise those treaties would be worthless for the other countries.

They have decided that State officials have immunity under international law while serving in office.

But if some of these countries decide that someone needs to be arrested for example war crimes or crimes against the humanity after serving in office - they can technically arrest that someone if that person travels to one such country under Universal jurisdiction, because that is the duty of each country who has signed those treaties. Under international law, authorities in Europe are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged criminal is on European soil.

And Canada has also signed those same treaties.


Chile's Pinochet was one such example:

General Augusto Pinochet was indicted for human rights violations on 10 October 1998 by Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón. He was arrested in London and finally released by the British government in March 2000. Authorized to freely return to his native Chile, he was there first indicted by the judge Juan Guzmán Tapia, and charged of a number of crimes, before dying on 10 December 2006

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Chevalerous


Right they went after a third world nations Leader... Do you honestly think America would Hand over anyone from the Bush Administration? Even if the Hague came down with Arrest warrants, At this point in our country it would not happen. America Would not hand him or them over. So in effect those treaties are worthless when you compare them to Powers such as America, Russia, China, G.B. Its pointless and the world knows it.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by 814ck0u7

 

No you are wrong the War may have been immoral but it was legal, You say UN Resolution 1441 isn’t correct.. Fine Gotcha but that still does not change the fact that THE AMERICAN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ACTION. Regardless of if you like it or not, the authorized it, war was made.

but the authorization was based on bunk info, known for sure to at least some at the time, eventually common knowledge.

no, i didnt say UN Res. 1441 is incorrect, i said that members of the UN noted vehemently that it does not authorize military action.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Right they went after a third world nations Leader... Do you honestly think America would Hand over anyone from the Bush Administration? Even if the Hague came down with Arrest warrants, At this point in our country it would not happen. America Would not hand him or them over. So in effect those treaties are worthless when you compare them to Powers such as America, Russia, China, G.B. Its pointless and the world knows it.

your argument has devolved a significant amount.

i think that 'America' (though america is not a single entity) as you put it, WOULD in fact hand over executive administration officials if it appeared they had cause to do so.... and in the eyes of many, we do.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Unity_99
Futhermore, using depleted uranium has already been declared by the UN a weapon of mass destruction.

When and exactly did the UN declare that, which resolution was it done under?

Okay. Anyone who would try to defend the usage of Depleted Uranium under any circumstances, no matter what the UN (or the Pentagon) says on the matter, is clearly either a total lunatic, totally stupid, or totally evil. Which are you? Either way, you've completely de-legitimized yourself with this statement, this arguing just for the sake of arguing. You say things just to be contrary. You say things just to try to make others look bad. We've got your number.

And that's all the feeding you'll get from me, troll.

reply to post by SLAYER69


All the deaths ARE from U.S. occupied forces.

They are trying to commit terrorist acts to get the U.S. to leave (If it's not U.S. staging the attacks themselves of course, which I wouldn't be surprised if the majority are.)

How many people do you "THINK" died in this war?

You know all the figures the U.S. military reports are fake right?

They DON'T even report it when 2-3 U.S. soldiers die in one day (especially during the past several weeks when people have started to really get tired of the war).

It's PROPAGANDA for a country to make it seem like they are "winning" when in reality they are losing.

You still haven't answered the question: How many years does the U.S. have to remain in Iraq for to make sure the situation is "stable"? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years? Never?

You know even if the U.S. left, they have created tens of thousands of terrorists now from their illegal invasion.

In short, the U.S. made the world a much more dangerous place in order to get a few dollars.

But the funniest thing of all is that the International Banks have NO MERCY. They don't care if the U.S. wins or loses because during these times they are STEALING the money from the middle class.

They have BANKRUPT the nation, and people still think there's some caveman somewhere trying to get you.

Peoples' stupidity surprises me.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


I've noticed a few of your posts on this thread saying that the war was legal and forgive me for saying but I haven't seen any links or evidence to support your opinion. Perhaps I missed it. I followed the link with regards to the Russians "clearing out" the WMD's (if it was yours), but it is only a newspaper report and no real substance to it. I hope you aren't basing your opinion on a newspaper report?

With regards to the legality of the war? Quite simply - it wasn't/isn't. The coalition used/use illegal weapons making it an illegal war. I posted the UN report on page 6 of this thread which found the US in breach of many treaties etc etc. Really have a look at it.

With regards to the legality of invading (because to be frank, that's what they were...invasions) Afghanistan and Iraq...the governments and people of these two countries didn't sanction nor partake in any attack against the US, nor did they make any threats to that effect. They may have rejoiced in the outcome alongside many other countries and people throughout the world so should the US start attacking them? Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia....

Regardless of what you think the legality of starting this war is, George W. Bush & co. are guilty of war crimes against humanity by sanctioning the use of illegal weapons in these "wars" for the adverse effects it has caused to the populations of these countries whom they were trying to "liberate".

This is my viewpoint on the matter. We are all entitled to them but I put it to you to see past how the war was started and actually look at the bigger picture of what a war crime really is and the legality of certain types of warfare (DU rounds and thelikes) and you will start to see that Bush etc ARE guilty of war crimes against humanity.

I look forward to reading your response.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Right they went after a third world nations Leader... Do you honestly think America would Hand over anyone from the Bush Administration? Even if the Hague came down with Arrest warrants, At this point in our country it would not happen. America Would not hand him or them over.

You have clearly not read what I wrote!!?

I said that they have the right, and could technically arrest someone OUTSIDE of the US - in a country who have signed those treaties, IF a war-criminal/torturer/human rights violater - who is charged with crimes against the humanity or human right violations is travelling to any of these countries for whatever reason.

I'm not specific about GWB, it could be his lawyers in the administration who gave the green light for torture, for an example

Or someone else or/for something else.

That's why I gave Pinochet as an example!




[edit on 9-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by 814ck0u7


you’re a fool if you think they would hand any American Leader or Previous Leader over for war crimes... Operation Paper Clip comes to mind when we pulled Nazi's out of Germany to work on our projects, we didn’t take out the Emperor of Japan... LBJ and Nixon walked free, Truman and His Nukes walked free. Bush and his cronies will stay free.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


And the use of DU weapons doesn't make the war illegal? Bush & co. aren't guilty of war crimes? That is the point of this thread, not whether going to "war" was legal.

For the sake of argument let us say that the war was commenced legally under INTERNATIONAL law and not down to a vote from the US Senate.
The fact that poisonous weapons/ammunition were used, going against treaties that the US and another 194 countries (I'm unsure of the numbers and probably vary with each treaty) have signed and tried to enforce not only makes the US (and allies) look like a liar, hypocrite, unreliable, two-faced but also makes the war illegal. It was an unnecessary measure to take in an already one-sided "war". But of course, even under American rules/laws Bush is a criminal. As someone else posted, he didn't prove that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that there were WMD's.

Do you STILL think the war was legal and that NONE of the Bush administration SHOULD be held accountable? Regardless of the whether it will happen or not of course.