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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Wait wait wait.....can he be charged for war crimes after he gets out of office? is that a possibility? I mean i doubt it, even if they tried he would find some loop hole or somebody to blame it on. There are several countries in worse shape than Iraq was before we invaded it. Why didn't we help them out?

I don't know i'm just crazy here, but before you start a War with another country, You know go in mess up the economy , Shell a bunch of buildings, endanger tons of civilians. I Would assume you would have some sort of plan. Not cross your fingers and expect to be in and out in 90 days.




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
Shadow is right.

Should some country attack America on the grounds that it has weapons of mass destruction, and it's leader is corrupt and unfit to lead ? Should another country liberate America from it's leadership and kill anyone that objects ?

No, it is up to Americans themselves to put things right. Either with the ballot box, the law, or the gun.


would you want that?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
no one should be above the un laws.usa is breaking some laws.international laws that they once made themshelves. is kinda of sad he who makes the rules breaks his own rules.nice picture by the way.pictures have a way of saying more than the words sometimes flukemol......

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by fusion360
Could this country however or the UN arrest its own president and for it to be legal?



The higher ups are privelaged in so many ways including avoiding prison...
their crimes are white collar and police forces usualy turn their cheek to em because they are privelaged members... what you would call the bourgeoise... No time for them, just a slap on the wrist.. MAYBE.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I didnt have to read all your so called sources, the first sentence was all that was needed to see it was biased hatred.

Iraq was a ticking time bomb, someone HAD to disarm it, why can't you people play chess and not checkers?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
no one should be above the un laws.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]


Exactly! When the UN failed to enforce its own resolutions regarding Sadam, they lost all authority. There is no UN. Just a bunch of crooks stealing oil for food money. Any nation that could sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of citizens be butchered by a maniac does not deserve a voice in world affairs. Especially when they are profiteering from others suffering. I am sure Sadam had many a good belly laugh about the fools who put 21 billion dollars in his pocket. Money thats currently being used to kill American soldiers and butcher Iraqi citizens. In case you have not noticed we are currently fighting a guy named Zarkowi and his followers. Zarkowi was in Iraq as a guest of Sadam with his blessings and knowledge. He was even provided with a training camp. Maybe we should funnel UN money through Zarkowi to Bin Ladens people. Oh, sorry, they've already done that. Of course, they lined their own pockets at the same time. The same people who refused to enforce resolutions they originally voted for. The UN is moot. It has been high jacked by world-class con men!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by flukemol
no one should be above the un laws.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by flukemol]


Exactly! When the UN failed to enforce its own resolutions regarding Sadam, they lost all authority. There is no UN. Just a bunch of crooks stealing oil for food money. Any nation that could sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of citizens be butchered by a maniac does not deserve a voice in world affairs. Especially when they are profiteering from others suffering. I am sure Sadam had many a good belly laugh about the fools who put 21 billion dollars in his pocket. Money thats currently being used to kill American soldiers and butcher Iraqi citizens. In case you have not noticed we are currently fighting a guy named Zarkowi and his followers. Zarkowi was in Iraq as a guest of Sadam with his blessings and knowledge. He was even provided with a training camp. Maybe we should funnel UN money through Zarkowi to Bin Ladens people. Oh, sorry, they've already done that. Of course, they lined their own pockets at the same time. The same people who refused to enforce resolutions they originally voted for. The UN is moot. It has been high jacked by world-class con men!


Just want to say interesting piece of information i was not aware of, but really IF the U.N. is usless(which i actually agree with you on), Then Why are we even a part of it. As for the Whole Help those poor people arguement? come on there are countries that are Way worse off! I will definetly say i'm glad that Sadam is out of the way , he was a horrible(if not ingenious) monster, but what about the rest of the world where the U.N. and the U.S. do nothing about because it does not give them anything in return.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Back to the topic, one would need to look at the processes as they affected Nixon and others to determine exactly at what point the incumbent "president" "cracks".

Tit for tat about the UN's inadequacies has not much to do with the documented and verifiable treasonous acts of Bush, or the international crimes for which he stands accused.

Any citizen can be arrested, even citizens in formerly respected "hugh places" who attempt to write Executive Orders that prevent the arrest of themselves and their cronies.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
im guessing these executive orders have been in place long before any of this happen. Hypothetically lets say Bush were to be impeached. Would the reaction of the country be similar to Clinton's hearings? Could there be enough evidence to go through with it?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I wonder if given the broad sweeping definition of terrorism as defined by recent homeland security legislations, if Bush could be charged under the trading with the enemy act, the same one his grandfather Prescott Bush was nailed for. His continuing financial ties of his administration, and of his own private vestments, to terrorist supporting middle eastern countries to companies involved in the recent illicit oil sale violations of the UN Oil for Food scam. Between the Bush Dynasty, and Cheney's ties to the Energy industries, it would take all day to read a list of individual charges brought under that act. It would be an irony to watch the latest Bush go down for supporting enemies in war time all over again... Prescott, Poppy, and now George it seems have all been involved with trading with the enemy, every single one of them. Prescott, Nazi Germany. Poppy Bush, Vietnam (air america), George, Bin Ladens, Middle East Oil Barrons etc. Anybody else see a pattern here?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join