It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


How quickly Assange supporters ignore certain releases of information when they no longer support their argument. Wikileaks released documents that shows Iraq had an active WMD program up to the 2003 invasion. Iraq was in violation of 5 UN resolutions, and under article VII coupled with the resolutions we were within our rights to invade.

My point is this:

If people want to go after Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, then do it. Find a prosecutor, get the charges going and go from there. Simply name calling every chance they get accomplishes nothing, and does nothing but continue to portray that side of the fence as out of touch.

9/11 was not the first attack on US intrest by Islam. As I said in another thread, if you want to know when it first started, ask any Marine, and they can give you the answer. 9/11 was also not the first attack on the world trade center. 1993 was when they exploded a truck bomb in the parking level.

Moving on from that, we had an attack on 2 of our embasies on the African Continent. We had an attack on the USS Cole by extremists on a suicide mission.

Also, as far as war crimes go, seriously you guys need to actually read not only US Domestic law, but the UN Charter, the IHL, the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions as well as the CAT.

You will find that we are within our rights to classify captured persons who DO NOT CONFORM to the Genevea Conventions as enemy combatants. As such, they are not subject to International law, but Domestic Law - Civilian, or Domestic Law - Military Tribunals. People demand they be charged, which again is not required under "International Law" since we are still in a state of armed conflict with them.

Exactly how many amicus briefs were file during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada or the first gulf war when we dealt with POW's as well as enemy combatants?

If you want to criticise them for violating law because you think they comiited war crimes, thats fine. However its not what is happening. The opposite side of the fence is doing this for no other reason than to try to make a statement.

Where are all these vocal oponents to war crime When Hussein was killing his population? Where were these groups when France violated the arms embargo on selling weapons to Iraq and China? Where were these groups when China illegally annexed Tibet? Where are these groups when China was caught violating the arms embargo on the Sudan?
Where are these groups and their clout when Sudan was in the middle of genocide? Where were these people when Rawanda comiited Genocide? Where were these groups when Iran used school children, having them hold hands and walking through fields to clear land mines?

Where were these vocal opponents of war crimes when civilians were having their heads cut off and then having that video aired on Al Jazeerra?

How about insurgents who intentionally used civilians in IRaq as human shields. Hamas and Hezbullah do the same thing, yet I dont see you guys screaming your lungs out over there.Where were you guys when Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, in addition to taliban and alqueida units, used mosques, schools and churchs to not only store munitions, but actually fight from.

The only reason people find it "cool" to go after Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld is because if they attempted the same stunt in China, North Korea or Sudan, interupting a speech, they would be executed. Almost any person on this planet can come to this country, make a sign and protest in front of the whitehouse, Supreme Court or Congress. You cant get away with that in front of the Peoples Hall in China.

Translation - Those screaming about the moral high ground are lazy - plain and simple. Actually making a stand against a country that does not have the rule of law and guarantees on speech is to hard and to dangerous. So they take the lazy way out - Attack a government that allows it.

The laws you guys hold dear in this arean are designed to prevent the actions. They are not designed to be brought up 5-10-15-20 years after the fact as an amicus brief.

The whole argument made against Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney is not coming across as they comitted warcrimes. It comes aacross aswe hate these 3 because its the "cool" thing to do.

You want to hold these 3 accountible thats fine, but you better make sure you have room for the Chinese, French, British, Chilean, Mexican, Sudanese, Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish, Mynmar etc leaders that should be sharing a cell with them.

As a side note, when, if ayone actually, decides to read the info I linked, you will take note that even though we are signatories to almost all of these conventions, there are provisions that came out of the nuremberg trials that are used when hostilities occur and only one nation is a signatory to those rules.

Non signatory nations who engage in armed conflict are not subject to the protections of those agreements. This would include Afghanistan and Al Queida. Before anyone opens their mouth on universal jurisdiction, please read Article 21 under CAT before opening your mouth.

My point is this -
Taking the slack ass easy road to make a political point does nothing to change the situation. Going to an event for nothing more than to yell war criminals is nothing but petty, uneducated and portrays themselves as dilettantes.

If it werent for the starch in these protesters shirts, I dont know how they would be able to stand erect.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Not even close in comparison.

You do not have freedom of speech on private property and since its private property there is absolutely no requirements needed to tell a person to kick rocks.

The Wetboro Baptist Church protest in public areas, not private.

Huge Difference.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 





You mean the same Ron Paul that accepts campaign donations from white supremacists?


Really, is that all you got? haha. Talk about grasping for straws.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You got me on the trespassing angle ( although I can think of times when it would be OK on private property also). I was referring to the lack of class angle.

There are also private cemetaries. And some are so small I can be a nuisance without setting foot in it.

edit on 10-2-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are grasping at straws - just admit you are wrong and stop making a fool of yourself.
You may not have the right to remain on the property if you exercise your freedom of speech on someone elses property and they ask you to leave but your freedom of speech allows you to say anything anywhere you like. Public or private property makes no difference, if they do not like it they can simply ask you to leave. There is nothing illegal about saying something - unless you refuse to leave after being asked.
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You got me on the trespassing angle ( although I can think of times when it would be OK on private property also). I was referring to the lack of class angle.

There are also private cemetaries. And some are so small I can be a nuisance without setting foot in it.

edit on 10-2-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)


Its cool.. I am not trying to take this out on everyon in this thread, so I hope people are not taking it personally. My complaint with this mess, you can read it in depth in my wall of text above, is if you are going to protest to demand change, then demand it.. work towards it. If you are doing it just to get a cheap shot while media is present, then go home.

It truely distracts from from the people who are truely trying to get changes.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 





You mean the same Ron Paul that accepts campaign donations from white supremacists?


Really, is that all you got? haha. Talk about grasping for straws.


My statement remains as posted.



Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."



Link
edit on 10-2-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
There is no freedom of speech on private property. But, you should think very hard and long about playing this card if you are hosting a political event. People might think that politicians are showing their true colors if they quell free speech in that manner. And if you are against free speech it is just as accurate to call a person a despot, rather then politician.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
You are grasping at straws - just admit you are wrong and stop making a fool of yourself.


I'll pit my 10 years of being a Police Officer against your lack of knowledge about your rights and the law any day of the week and twince on sundays.


Originally posted by byteshertz
You may not have the right to remain on the property if you exercise your freedom of speech on someone elses property and they ask you to leave but your freedom of speech allows you to say anything anywhere you like.


and again, you would be wrong. You should check out Schenck vs. United States.


Originally posted by byteshertz
Public or private property makes no difference, if they do not like it they can simply ask you to leave. There is nothing illegal about saying something - unless you refuse to leave after being asked.


Going for a record I see on being wrong. In addition to tresspassing, you just commited a peace disturbance.


Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.


Yeah, see my first answer. As a side note, I would suggest any person reading this to NOT take anything byteshertz says as valid. Doing so will result in a criminal record and a loosing case in court.

Anything else you want to critique and be wrong about or are you done now? Your argument is just as effective as yelling war criminal.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I cant believe the Pro Cheney Crowd cheering for him Lets send them into war lets see if they will survive there first call of duty



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nidstav
There is no freedom of speech on private property. But, you should think very hard and long about playing this card if you are hosting a political event. People might think that politicians are showing their true colors if they quell free speech in that manner. And if you are against free speech it is just as accurate to call a person a despot, rather then politician.


So its ok to interupt an event that people paid money to go to, but its not ok for the politician at the event to ask the person interupting to shut up or be escorted out?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Ooh ooh, do Karl Rove next! I'm dying to hear what you have to say about him!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I cant believe the Pro Cheney Crowd cheering for him Lets send them into war lets see if they will survive there first call of duty


LOL this is just to perfect... So once again, the left is going to hide behind the right, while the right does the job when it comes to taking a stand on something.

Awesome!!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Torgo
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Ooh ooh, do Karl Rove next! I'm dying to hear what you have to say about him!


You are apparently taking my argument as a defense of REpublicans, instead of noticing that I am calling out the people who "demand" accountability and the rule of law, and scream about it, and throw a fit, until they are out of camera range, at which point they just go home and do nothing.

Thaty is until the next event comes up with media present, at which point they will strut themselves out in front of the media to look cool, repeat the incident, and go home at the end of the night.

Here is a suggestion.. We dont care what you scream.. Either sh#t or get off the pot already. Make a push to have them charged, or quit complaining about it if thats all you are going to do.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by byteshertz
You are grasping at straws - just admit you are wrong and stop making a fool of yourself.


I'll pit my 10 years of being a Police Officer against your lack of knowledge about your rights and the law any day of the week and twince on sundays.


Doesnt impress me - most cops i've met don't actually understand how the law works beyond what they need to know to get the average jo to comply.





Originally posted by byteshertz
You may not have the right to remain on the property if you exercise your freedom of speech on someone elses property and they ask you to leave but your freedom of speech allows you to say anything anywhere you like.


and again, you would be wrong. You should check out Schenck vs. United States.


Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.




Originally posted by byteshertz
Public or private property makes no difference, if they do not like it they can simply ask you to leave. There is nothing illegal about saying something - unless you refuse to leave after being asked.

Going for a record I see on being wrong. In addition to tresspassing, you just commited a peace disturbance.

You are one of those cop's that just likes the sound of his own voice is all im seeing. It is not tresspassing unless you are asked to leave. What you are saying is if I let you on my property and you say something I don't like I can have you arrested for breaking the law. Ummmm no mr cop. Thats just stupid.




Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.


Yeah, see my first answer. As a side note, I would suggest any person reading this to NOT take anything byteshertz says as valid. Doing so will result in a criminal record and a loosing case in court.


Well Mr Cop, I don't think anyone is going to be too worried about 'loosing' anything but their right to freedom of speech. Please explain how this is any different from you coming to my house and then saying something I don't like. I can have you arrested if you don't leave when I ask, but anything you say is not illegal.


Anything else you want to critique and be wrong about or are you done now? Your argument is just as effective as yelling war criminal.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Forgive me, but with your support of Cheney and with such statements as, "LOL this is just to perfect... So once again, the left is going to hide behind the right, while the right does the job when it comes to taking a stand on something." you can see why I might be a bit confused.

Seriously though, I'd love to hear what you have to say about Rove.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Torgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Disturbing the peace:

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.
...
Standards for whether to charge someone with disturbance of the peace are highly subjective, and in many jurisdictions courts are highly deferential to the opinion of the arresting/charging officer



So you are basically using your power as a police officer to undermine the persons rights.
But luckily for that person as said previously this took place on private property, and as disturbing the peace is a offence that is only used on public property you would have no case. If the person who owns the property wanted that person to stop saying things they do not like or agree with they would be required to ask them to leave and if they failed they could then have them removed for trespassing. It is not trespassing until you are asked to leave.

BUT ofcorse you knew all this because you are a cop, right?
edit on 10-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Mr cop's taking a while... reading though his training manual



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Applause for a war criminal?
These people need their heads examined. Thumbs up for the guy that yelled out "war criminal" in a den of wolves.
Cheney and Rumsfeld should be ashamed to show their face in public.


agreed, by the way i am not right or left.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Dangit I missed my party!
I hold those 2 men responsible for the loss of the American Republic.
While in the Ford whitehouse. Cheney and Rumsfeld wrote the continuity of government procedures that enabled a shadow government following 9/11.
They wrote the playbook on powergrabbing by the executive branch.

That crowd would have cheered if they had shot that man on the spot for calling cheney a war criminal.
That is one seriously scary crowd.
When they shout USA, all I can see is the brownshirts at the Nuremburg rally, mindlessly following along and beating their chests.
They treat world politics like its a football game.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join