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.

 

Could Bush Be Arrested?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
Good try Masked Avatar. But you see, none of those crimes you list really matter according to the majority of American voters.


I'm not "trying" anything. It's simply an interesting correlation between the actions of the Bush administration and their close correlation with International Crimes definitions. Not much effort required at all.

But in what way are American voters connected with the judgment of international crimes? Whether or not US voters (appear to) give this government a further mandate to continue with some agenda, it does not absolve the perpetrators of their criminal status as defined by this particular Court.

And it's just the tip of the iceberg. After the U.N. treaties and resolutions, Geneva Conventions, and lies to Congress and to other nation "Coalition" partners, the list of violations will be even bigger than the two coloring books in the George W Bush presidential library...

[edit on 21-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
With the fiercest fighting machine the world has ever seen at Bushs finger tips he will not be arrested, give me a break. Who would do it? Anyone? The UN? Please no one can, and no one will. Iraq war was LEGAL no matter how badly you hate Bush.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GODFLESH
Iraq war was LEGAL no matter how badly you hate Bush.



Excellent! We have another lawyer to stand up for the actions of Bush!

I am sure all ATS members will look forward to your citation of the bodies of law that existed at the time of the invasion that made the invasion of Iraq a legal one.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
No foreign country would arrest the president but our own military could stage a military coup and then put him and his crew before a military tribinal for war crimes and possible high treason. Now there's something to ponder.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Thanks for allowing me to elaborate more on the legal issue Masked Avatar, as you so politely asked!

Based on resolution 1441 and previous resolutions 678, and 687 we convinced the council that going to war is valid, sense Iraq never obeyed the first Gulf Wars cease fire entirely.

So yeah, hate to burst your bubble, but war was LEGAL.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GODFLESH
Based on resolution 1441 and previous resolutions 678, and 687 we convinced the council that going to war is valid, sense Iraq never obeyed the first Gulf Wars cease fire entirely.

So yeah, hate to burst your bubble, but war was LEGAL.



So then why has Kofi Annan declared it an illegal war? He is part of the U.N, is he not?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Please, dont use Kofi Annan is an example. Didnt he get millions for the oil for food program, or at least knew about it yet did nothing?

Not everyone at the UN agreed, but in the end, the majority declared it LEGAL.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GODFLESH
Please, dont use Kofi Annan is an example.


O.K then, what about Hans Blix. He was the one saying Iraq had no WMD's but nobody believed him.



Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

LINK


or would you prefer somebody from America like Richard Perle



International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

LINK


Sort of makes all the deaths over there look like war crimes, doesn't lt?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
For one sec I thought the title says could Bush be a bastered




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was legal? LOL get you some Domestic and International Law here...
www.hrcr.org...
The Invasion of Iraq wasn't legal according to even our own laws,


www.dissidentvoice.org...
The U.S. Constitution also compels the need for a Security Council vote, since our nation is a signatory of the UN Charter, thus giving the Charter the status of a treaty guaranteed by the Constitution itself. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in Article VI, Section 2, specifically grants international treaties the same status as the Constitution itself and all state and federal laws enacted in accord with the Constitution....
U.S. government officials responsible for the Iraq invasion without the sanction of the Security Council are in direct violation of the Nuremberg Charters prohibition against crimes against peace and crimes against humanity....Moreover, the Nuremberg Charter notes that to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.

Just to name a few laws broken....


www.newdawnmagazine.com...
The Charges
3. The international crimes that have been charged and will be proven against these Defendants consist principally of the three Nuremberg Offences: the Nuremberg Crime Against Peace, that is waging an aggressive war and a war in violation of international treaties and agreements; Nuremberg Crimes Against Humanity; and Nuremberg War Crimes. In addition, these Defendants also committed grievous war crimes by wantonly violating the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Declaration of London on Sea Warfare of 1909; the Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare of 1923; the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977; and the international crimes of Genocide against the People of Iraq as defined by the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide of 1948 as well as by the United States' own Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, 18 U.S.C. 1901. Finally, and most heinously of all, these Defendants actually perpetrated a Nuremberg Crime against their own troops when they forced them to take experimental biological weapons vaccines without their informed consent in gross violation of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation that has been fully subscribed to by the United States government....
16. Pursuant to the Pentagon's war plan for destroying Iraq and stealing Persian Gulf oil fields - and without consultation or communication with Congress - Defendant Bush initially ordered 40,000 U.S. military personnel into the Persian Gulf region during the first week of August 1990. He lied to the American People and Congress when he stated that his acts were purely defensive. Right from the very outset of this crisis - and even beforehand - Defendant Bush fully intended to go to war against Iraq and to seize the Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf. Defendant Bush deliberately misled, deceived, concealed and made false representations to the Congress to prevent its free deliberation and informed exercise of legislative power.

17. Defendant Bush intentionally usurped Congressional power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult with the Congress. He individually ordered a naval blockade against Iraq - itself an act of war - without approval by Congress or the U.N. Security Council. Defendant Bush waited until after the November 1990 elections to publicly announce his earlier order sending more than 200,000 additional military personnel to the Persian Gulf for offensive purposes without seeking the approval of Congress. Pursuant to the Pentagon's war plan, Defendant Bush switched U.S. forces from a defensive position and capability to an offensive capacity for aggression against Iraq without consultation with, and contrary to assurances given to, Congress and the American People.

18. On the very eve of the war, Defendant Bush then strong-armed legislation through Congress that approved enforcement of U.N. resolutions vesting absolute discretion in any nation, providing no guidelines, and requiring no reporting to the United Nations. Defendant Bush knew full well that he intended to destroy the armed forces and civilian infrastructure of Iraq. Those acts were undertaken to enable him to commit a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace and war crimes. This conduct violated the Constitution and Laws of the United States and especially the War Powers Clause found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the U.S. War Powers Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 555, and the United Nations Charter, which is the "Supreme Law of the Land" under Article 6 of the Constitution. For this reason alone, Defendant Bush and his co-conspirators committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that warrant their impeachment, conviction, removal from office, and criminal prosecution.

1441


www.commondreams.org...
Britain and Spain clarified that the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 last November should have been permitted to continue before military action could be authorized, added The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF).

Even Richard Perle said it was illegal, wake up...


www.guardian.co.uk...
Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Here's a good piece on your 'resolutions'...


www.bodydharma.org...
Even Britain recognizes that resolution 1441 is a week reed. It insists that war is implicitly authorized by Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, both of which date from the early 1990s.
Nonsense, says McWhinney. Security Council resolutions are specific to time and place; they cannot be dragged out years later to justify unilateral actions.
"No country alone can be judge, jury and high executioner."
Besides, writes British lawyer Keir Starmer, the earlier Security Council resolutions don't quite work, either. Resolution 678 (1990) did authorize military action but only to force Iraq to abandon its occupation of Kuwait. And resolution 687 (1991), which established the ceasefire at the end of the first Gulf War, doesn't authorize force at all.
All of this is important in the context of the U.N. system set up by the U.S. and its allies after World War II to prevent war. Under the U.N. Charter, it is a crime for any nation to make war, except in self-defence or with the explicit approval of the council. Anyone in any country that makes war outside of these conditions is breaking international law.

Now ask me why Bush withdrew from the Hague?


www.wsws.org...
www.truthinaction.net...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
All the links you presented are opinions, and not facts. lawyer this, spokes person that, all comes down to personal hatred toward the current administration.

You may not agree, some countries may not agree, but the war is LEGAL!!! Get it through your anti-bush/anti-war skulls!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
You post a reply in less than five minutes and have the audacity to critique my sources lol...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Ask the hundreds of thousands of men and innocent women and children Sadam butchered how they feel about the war. Ask the Kurds who ingested the Mustard Gas and watched their own flesh peel as they died. Ask the women who where raped and murdered in Kuwait by Sadams thugs how they feel. But then I guess you can't can you. Their dead!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Ask the Kurds who ingested the Mustard Gas and watched their own flesh peel as they died.

Ask them how they liked the US selling them the crop spraying helicopters and the mustard gas to do it with... While we were selling arms to Iran to fund south american terrorists...

Edit:
Who Made Who


[edit on 22-11-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
So we should fix one wrong by commiting another? Maybe we should appologize to the terrorists for putting the World Trade Center in their way. Why are you defending Sadam?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Blaine91555]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
No, we should stay the hell out of the middle east and send them a check for their oil like everybody else. You really want to know about the world trade center? How is Iraq involved with that? Why did we turn down Afghanistan's offer to extradite Bin Laden? Educate yourself, cause the official story being handed to us is BOLOGNA.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
We tried your way with a gentleman called Adolf Hitler. Look where that got us. We ignored Somalia. How many innocents died there? I don't know whether you are in the US so I don't have any idea what your motives are. If you ignore the guy next door when he beats his wife and children, sooner or later he will be at your door. I've never been able to ignore the suffering of others. I could not live with myself if I did. The people pouring across the Iranian border are Muslim terrorists. Thats who our brave soldiers are fighting. If you are in the US; would you rather we fight them here. Don't delude yourself. If we don't stop them there, they will be here shortly. Sadam forcing his people to vote for him under threat of death does not make him any less of a terrorist. If Bush had to lie to get the job done I applaud him for it. At least he had the courage to do something. Standing around like a bunch of sheep waiting to be slaughtered is not honorable it is stupidity. If the estimates are right and only 8% of the Muslims aligned with the radicals we are in deep doodoo here. It may be the end of civilization as we know it. I'm not the one that needs to wake up.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   
So you admit that Bush may have lied and because of his actions it could be the end of civilisation as we know it!

You have certainly woken me up



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If Bush had to lie to get the job done I applaud him for it... I'm not the one that needs to wake up.


Yeah...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Ya, I'd like to see the UN come in with their subs and aircraft carriers and bombers demanding we turn over Bush....wait a minute, do they have subs, aircraft carriers, bombers....eh, maybe they'll get the chinese to do them a favor.

Really, the only way Bush would be arrested while in office is if enough evidence turned up to implicate him in one heck of a conspiracy. What the heck, they had proof that Regan or Bush was involved with the Iran/Contra, they thought it was unwise, since they were in the white house.
There would have to be some pretty good evidence to implicate him into one heck of a crime......Like he deposited the entire Us treasury into his personal bank account and they pick him up boarding a plane to some two-bit so. american country or something.

And, well, I wouldn't want the chinese or any other foreign power romping around american cities with guns and tanks, would you?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join