Prosecute Bush & Cheney! The Real Reasons George & Dick Belong Behind Bars

Bush Administration Convicted of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

This omission might be due, at least in part, to the fact that Mr. Bush is now a convicted war criminal who dares not travel abroad out of fear of being arrested.

In February 2011, Bush was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance in Geneva, Switzerland after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint charging him with violating international treaties against torture.

His trouble increased dramatically a year ago when Bush — along with former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and several other top Bush administration officials — were convicted of war crimes in absentia by a special war crimes tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal was convened and conducted according to internationally recognized procedures and rules of evidence, and the week-long hearing ended with the five-member panel unanimously delivering guilty verdicts.

What is the significance of that tribunal? Is its verdict legally binding? Are there troublesome aspects to the idea that a foreign tribunal can sit in judgment of a U.S. President — whatever we may think of his actions? We will discuss these vitally important questions with Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He served as a prosecutor at the tribunal.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Yes, Bush and Chaney should be in prison. If the truth ever came out about 911, I have no doubt they are complicit co conspiracy in the planning of 911 and helped the events to unfold by using their political power.

When it comes to evidence of their complicity the buck stopped right at the Bush administration.

The very fact is the Bush Administration did everything in their power to stone wall every inquiry regarding the 911 investigations.

Neither of these two men could keep their stories straight. Bush and Chaney would not allow the 911 Commission to interview them separately.

Bush and Chaney lied through their teeth against counties that had nothing to do with 911. They wanted control of the oil fields, the poppy fields and steal all the resources from both countries.

Not to mention the World Banking Cartels and the IMF wanted in those two countries to steal as much monies from the people and get control of owning big business and the country infrastructures.

Yes it was all about making money for themselves, their elite friends, and contracting buddies. Billions of dollars wasted and lost in these two wars.

I have no doubt that historians will write that the Bush Administration was the most secrete and nontransparent Administration ever.

And the fact is Dick Chaney destroyed all his records when he left office. No paper trail, nothing.

a reply to: JesseVentura

I know you're a brave hombre Jesse!
As long as you temper that bravery with smart thinking. And
keep how vicious these people can be clearly in mind at all
times. Then at least you haven't martyred yourself. Not one
more sacrifice to these ghoulish devils. I say lynch 'em. Like we
should have with Prescott Bush. He should've been hanged at
nuremburg with the rest of the G-D nazi basturds.

This whole world is ####ed up tho Sir. Because of principalities
in high places. But it won't be this way forever. Changes are
come'n.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Come on Jesse, WMDs were found in Iraq even though the media never really covered it, because it was more fun giving Bush/Cheney crap about it.

Yes, WMDs were found. Old, decrepit, and leaking chemical weapons. The leftovers from deals brokered by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld back in the 1980s.

The WMDs found were not new dangers from "mobile labs", or anything of the sort. Had the military found new WMDs, like what the Bush administration alleged, then Bush would have shouted his vindication from the rooftops, but they couldn't really claim foul when finding WMDs that the U.S. sold to Saddam. That's why "the media never really covered it".

originally posted by: Gestas
a reply to: EverydayInVA


No I am asking why all of them where not Confiscated.

I don't claim to know all about the situation I am just asking questions.

I would go after every single president after Kennedy.

Do not mistake me I want World Peace.

Well if we had confiscated them it would have proven they where there and then the whole "WMD was a lie" would have faded into nothing. Also issues of find them handling them. Right after the first Gulf War it may have been possible, but we were never allowed to enter Iraq then do to pressure from the other members of the "Collation" 10 Years later they had been moved, shuffled and had 10 more years of deterioration and lack of maintenance. ,

As for the Second Gulf War, you need to read Bush's Autobiography he lays out a lot of information that is insightful. Although he wanted to finish the issue with Iraq, he never wanted to go into Iraq when we did. He wanted to focus on Afghanistan. It ended up being a combination of logistics, timing and political issues that force the second war when it happened.

As far as world peace goes. That is a figment of your imagination. The ONLY way you have peace is when you have the firepower to back it up. Sad, but true.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: neo96

Great video and so true.

I had a lot more respect for Jessie before he started posting on ATS.

So you liked him better when he wasn't exposing the ignorance and hypocrisy on your side?

My side is individual liberty which isn't exclusive to either the Republicans or the Democrats. However, pretending that Bush was the only one calling for this invasion is wrong as all the major players, both Republican and Democrat were saying the same thing at the time.

You are just too young to remember.

Don't confuse a liberal with facts, it just confuses them.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Good luck. No matter how much Bush or any other recent, current, or future president deserves to be put on trial, it won't happen. You don't get to the presidency without connections and protection.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Come on Jesse, WMDs were found in Iraq even though the media never really covered it, because it was more fun giving Bush/Cheney crap about it.

Yes, WMDs were found. Old, decrepit, and leaking chemical weapons. The leftovers from deals brokered by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld back in the 1980s.

The WMDs found were not new dangers from "mobile labs", or anything of the sort. Had the military found new WMDs, like what the Bush administration alleged, then Bush would have shouted his vindication from the rooftops, but they couldn't really claim foul when finding WMDs that the U.S. sold to Saddam. That's why "the media never really covered it".

Umm

So it's a Jedi mind trick?

"No these are not the WMD'd you are looking for. I bought these last season. go on you way and don't look at these."

The original cease fire said Iraq could have NO WMD's. So the fact that they where old makes no difference. Also let me expose you to 40 year old Sarin and then new Sarin and see what the difference is. Not much.

(By the way his WMD where supplied by the USSR, not the US, just like the majority of his weapons systems.)

originally posted by: dismanrc
Well if we had confiscated them it would have proven they where there and then the whole "WMD was a lie" would have faded into nothing.

No it wouldn't have faded at all. The weapons traced back to U.S. sources.

Photos of the weapons got out.

The chemical weapons found had English text on them, and serial codes that traced back to U.S. manufacture.

It's not a question that we (the U.S.) sold those chemical weapons to Iraq.

"We must invade Iraq because they have chemical weapons which we sold them." wouldn't garner the same support for war as the lies that were told about scary "mobile labs producing WMDs as we speak".

originally posted by: Informer1958

This omission might be due, at least in part, to the fact that Mr. Bush is now a convicted war criminal who dares not travel abroad out of fear of being arrested.

Garbage.

Legitimacy of the tribunal The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[13] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[14]

and

www.politifact.com...

I suppose you also think the "The International Common Law Court of Justice" and the "The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State" are valid organisations?

a reply to: Informer1958

It amazes me the media still interviews Dick Cheney for his comments on Obama's foreign policy decisions!! Of all people, they interview a war criminal for a foreign policy perspective? It makes me sick.

The American people should have been outraged when Nancy Pelosi stated on the congressional floor that "all Bush Administration investigations were off the table!" What? You have to wonder if there wasn't a behind the scene deal made between her and Bush, kind of like when Ford pardoned Nixon.

Just because the U.S. has so much influence in the world, shouldn't give them a free pass to get away with war crimes. As a country, we should be ashamed of ourselves for ignoring this administration's crimes. We tout ourselves as a leader of human rights, and a country who stands behind justice for people who have been victims by crimes against humanity. Yet when our hands are dirty we hide and ignore our criminal actions. Talk about hypocrisy!

a reply to: Metallicus

I'm sorry, but when you're a president of any organization including a country, the buck stops at the top! To blame his decisions on those around him is not taking the responsibility for his complicity of guilt. They didn't find WMD's, yet he continued the Iraqi occupation and changed the mission!! He never called for a thorough investigation of the facts that lead up to the decision to commit troops to the war in Iraq. It was all done on his watch!!!

Don't you find it questionable when he blamed Osama Bin Laden for 911? Than on national TV and months later he says he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden and doesn't waste his time thinking about him. WTF!! This is the same guy that said he wanted him dead or alive on national TV. He even makes fun of not finding WMD's!!!

Really, and you don't think he should be held accountable? Sounds like his hands were in the cookie jar along with his cronies.

a reply to: JesseVentura

I completely agree with you that the Iraq war was trumped up but I disagree with putting Bush or Cheney on trial. In an ideal world both would be in prison, but that's not the world we have. If we throw them in prison then the Republicans are going to turn around and throw some Democrats in prison. Then the Democrats are going to want revenge and throw more Republicans in prison. Before long we'll be throwing all of the previous administration in jail. This even applies at the state level where you and other like you can be imprisoned just because you don't pick the right side to ally with and remain an independent.

Before long this would lead to all out civil war.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Our government went terribly wrong some time ago and for the last 30 years have wallowed in illegal activity.
How do you even begin to undo the wrongs and do justice to the victims covering that amount of time?

It's been bad since at least 1913 and the creation of the Fed. However, it was really kicked up a notch in the 1960s with the coup d'etat of JFK, and the assassinations of RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X. (Talk about cutting the head off of snakes, albeit it good ones.)

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: EverydayInVA

There was NO single reason for the war.

And anyone who has bothered to read the Iraq War Resolution knows it.

VOTED ON and PASSED by CONGRESS.

The funny part there is three of those people that voted YEA ?

One became the vice president. The two others became secretary's of state.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.govtrack.us...

And one of the same ones that became Secretary of State is running for POTUS, and is suppose to win.

a reply to: JesseVentura

just drop them off in the middle east in just Flip flops, and let fate take its cause.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
As each year passes, the memories of the Iraq War fade, but one fact still rings true: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied to the American people about their reasons for invading. I am ready to put them on trial once and for all, but the reasons I believe they should see their day in court may surprise you. Do you think Bush and Cheney belong behind bars?

Yes, they BELONG behind bars.

1) Illegal war of aggression in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of up to 200,000 civilians and 1000s of American soldiers.

2) Institution of torture, a war crime as well. Japanese officers were convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American soldiers in WWII.

Any American who doesn't want to prosecute them is actually a traitor to American principles of universal human rights, national sovereignty (Iraq), property rights (Iraq), due process, etc. It's also hypocritical. If an American doesn't want to prosecute American leaders who violate international law or commit evil, then justice is dead or one-sided. We have no right to then criticize other leaders who commit crimes.

Holding American leaders accountable for violations of American principles and the law IS patriotic. It shows we are dead serious about our claimed principles. It shows we actually are for the rule of law. It shows that Bush and Co. DO NOT represent us, and will be held accountable. Why should other countries respect us and our claims to democracy, human rights, etc, if we don't?

I wouldn't necessarily say Bush was reacting to bad intelligence. He's not this naive dumb president, I won't go that far. I think he knows very well what was going on.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Bush was acting on bad intelligence and was a useful idiot.

I won't defend Cheney because he was smart enough to know better.

Yes, completely. Not only that, but Bush and Cheney also advocated for war crimes when they tortured. They gave approval. Dick calls it "enhanced interrogation". That's a warcrime. And let me piggyback, Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina have both said that they would advocate for torture under certain conditions. They should both be disqualified from being president on that alone.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: JesseVentura

Definitely, I agree 100%. I've said it before, Hillary's criminal email fiasco and even Richard Nixon's Watergate crime pales in comparison to the war crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Yet the Bush administration getting away with one of the most blatant criminal war crimes of any administration in U.S. history. Where's the uproar when there's a recorded video evidence of lies? We're talking over 4.000 lives and over 100 thousand Iraqi lives take under false pretenses!!!

The famed Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugiliosi, has presented an argument based upon hard facts.

In The Prosecution of an American President, Bugliosi presents a meticulously researched legal case that proves George W. Bush took our nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses and is therefore, under the law, guilty of murder for the deaths of 4,500 young American soldiers who fought and died there.

Here's the video:

I fully agree. I'm not saying we'll ever see the trial, that'll never happen. Just like we'll never know the truth of John Kennedy. He's only been dead since '63. It falls under ‘national security’. I doubt you could charge the president if he walked out in the front lawn and shot a guy in cold blood.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: JesseVentura

Good luck. No matter how much Bush or any other recent, current, or future president deserves to be put on trial, it won't happen. You don't get to the presidency without connections and protection.

I disagree. It would be a housecleaning and we'd finally have a clean government. You've got to break a law to go to prison, and I never broke a law when I was Governor. You might've disagreed with the policies that I stood for, but no scandals.

The point being, what would be wrong with throwing some of these bastards in prison? It might set an example and get us clean government for a change, instead of these bastards today. Prison can do some good too. If other people have to go to prison, why not politicians?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JesseVentura

I completely agree with you that the Iraq war was trumped up but I disagree with putting Bush or Cheney on trial. In an ideal world both would be in prison, but that's not the world we have. If we throw them in prison then the Republicans are going to turn around and throw some Democrats in prison. Then the Democrats are going to want revenge and throw more Republicans in prison. Before long we'll be throwing all of the previous administration in jail. This even applies at the state level where you and other like you can be imprisoned just because you don't pick the right side to ally with and remain an independent.

Before long this would lead to all out civil war.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
I disagree. It would be a housecleaning and we'd finally have a clean government. You've got to break a law to go to prison, and I never broke a law when I was Governor. You might've disagreed with the policies that I stood for, but no scandals.

The point being, what would be wrong with throwing some of these bastards in prison? It might set an example and get us clean government for a change, instead of these bastards today. Prison can do some good too. If other people have to go to prison, why not politicians?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JesseVentura

I completely agree with you that the Iraq war was trumped up but I disagree with putting Bush or Cheney on trial. In an ideal world both would be in prison, but that's not the world we have. If we throw them in prison then the Republicans are going to turn around and throw some Democrats in prison. Then the Democrats are going to want revenge and throw more Republicans in prison. Before long we'll be throwing all of the previous administration in jail. This even applies at the state level where you and other like you can be imprisoned just because you don't pick the right side to ally with and remain an independent.

Before long this would lead to all out civil war.

Cleaning house is a hard proposition, Jesse. Truth be told is our whole system - government, judicial, corporate, etc. needs a cleaning. Corporations have been dug in like ticks for too long. We have too many bad laws on the books due to corporations and lobbyists writing them and our lazy Congress not reading them (really not caring to read or being paid not to read them). This type of thing even happens at the state level, obviously it depends on the state - you may have encountered this in Minnesota. A perfect example of this would be ALEC - The American Legislative Exchange Council.

We don't have officials at any level of the government working in the best interest of the people and our natural resources. Sure, we can find the random decent ones here and there, but they aren't enough to make up for the damage that has been done over the MANY decades of blood sucking.

Laws and the legal system are designed to protect the rich from the poor. This is too apparent when rich people are in court vs. poor.

How do you genuinely change these systems that are designed to benefit the rich? Voting some people out of office won't change a system that for so long has treated a large portion of the population unfairly while allowing a much smaller portion basically get away with murder, fraud, highway robbery, etc.