Bush on trial

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

The profoundly retarded are exempt from standing trial. George W. Bush has this precedent of law going in his favor.

Not in Texas.

 

[madame_zora]

EDIT:
The legality of a military invasion is not judged solely by the statutes of one nation. Despite popular misconception here in the USA, ours is not the supreme authority in this world. The UN specifically voted against military incursion into Iraq, and GWB chose to ignore the rule of law (sound familiar?) and made the unilateral decision to invade anyhow.

Oh geez, you mean the Earth really doesn't revolve around America? Surely you jest.

Gimme a fucking break - the conflict in Iraq right now is immensely complex. It's a sectarian religious proxy war, feuled by American incompetence and Iranian intervention. This is exactly like putting the entire blame of WW1 on Gavrilo Princip's shoulders.

Please, get real.

What exactly IS your position? You claim not to be a bush apologist, but you also want to justify the war. What the fuck DO you stand for?

IF you agree that the war was entered into under false pretenses, which you'd almost have to be literally clinically insane to deny, then there's really no justification for it in any manner by which you might seek to make one. The rest of the converstaion becomes a matter of who can come up with the most irrelevant points about other wars and other matters. Where do you stand on THIS?

Our leaders lied to us about their reasons for wanting to go to war, lied to the extremely few other countries who contributed extremely few troops by comparison to us, and ignored the UN. This war was entered into with malice and deceit against the American people, and most of us are mad as hell. YOU find being lied to acceptable- fine, great, swell. Most Americans think that the pres is full of shit, and so are people like you who keep makihng excuses and denying reality.

Welcome to being in the minority fucktard. You won't like eating shit any more than the rest of us who have been silenced these last seven years have liked it, but you're about to find out that you were just noisier, you were never the majority to begin with.

The era of accepting war as inevitable is over. Time for us to grow the fuck up and learn to speak to each other rather than bully our way through our disputes and humiliate ourselves in the process. War-mongering is for idiots with no better mental skills.

 

[kalipygian]

Wrong - there is nothing ILLEGAL by acting unilaterally without the U.N.'s approval. Plenty of military actions have been taken in the past without the blessing of that unelected world body. Besides, considering the U.N.'s piss-poor record on its interventions worldwide (almost as bad as the CIA's), it's probably for the better. I'll give you the reasons for starting the war are out of wack, and now we know. But there is nothing 'illegal' (in a jurisprudence way) about going to war without the U.N.'s blessing. You have to remember that the United Nations aims to facilitate cooperation between countries and it's a platform to resolve disputes (in theory, certainly not in practice), it is NOT a body that has a legislative authority over its members.



Of course, there was multiple reasons for the start of WW1, but most historians would probably agree that him killing Franz Ferdinand was the straw that broke the camel's back and it snowballed from there.

It is very definitaly a violation for a signatory of the UN charter to conduct war except in self defense. It certainly has nevertheless been done quite a few times, without consequences.

The 1927 Kellog Briand pact(Kellog was the US secretary of state) declared to be against international law the making war as an instrument of policy.
It was ratified almost unanamously by the senate. It is most definately still in force, for all nations registered with the UN as signatories. It is what was used to prosecute at Nuernburg. It is clear in the US constitution, a ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land.

 

[burns1de]

Oh geez, you mean the Earth really doesn't revolve around America? Surely you jest.



What exactly IS your position? You claim not to be a bush apologist, but you also want to justify the war. What the fuck DO you stand for?

IF you agree that the war was entered into under false pretenses, which you'd almost have to be literally clinically insane to deny, then there's really no justification for it in any manner by which you might seek to make one. The rest of the converstaion becomes a matter of who can come up with the most irrelevant points about other wars and other matters. Where do you stand on THIS?

Our leaders lied to us about their reasons for wanting to go to war, lied to the extremely few other countries who contributed extremely few troops by comparison to us, and ignored the UN. This war was entered into with malice and deceit against the American people, and most of us are mad as hell. YOU find being lied to acceptable- fine, great, swell. Most Americans think that the pres is full of shit, and so are people like you who keep makihng excuses and denying reality.

Welcome to being in the minority fucktard. You won't like eating shit any more than the rest of us who have been silenced these last seven years have liked it, but you're about to find out that you were just noisier, you were never the majority to begin with.

The era of accepting war as inevitable is over. Time for us to grow the fuck up and learn to speak to each other rather than bully our way through our disputes and humiliate ourselves in the process. War-mongering is for idiots with no better mental skills.

You stupid fucking cow, I never wrote that I was for Bush. Newsflash: I was bringing a nuanced position, stating that it was ridiculous to compare him to Hitler, but that doesn't make dubya an angel either. You see the fucking world in black and white - just like Bush. Funny how you have so much more in common with him than you'd like to admit. There's some fucking gray areas that your fat ass needs to wake up to. You talk about putting Bush on trial, but you have no idea who would juge him, where and how (or if) it could be done. All I saw on this thread is lame-ass rhethoric and empty words. You should fucking thank me for challenging your so-called ideas.

Stupid-ass bitch calling me out like that, what's wrong with you.

 

[burns1de]

It is very definitaly a violation for a signatory of the UN charter to conduct war except in self defense. It certainly has nevertheless been done quite a few times, without consequences.

The 1927 Kellog Briand pact(Kellog was the US secretary of state) declared to be against international law the making war as an instrument of policy.
It was ratified almost unanamously by the senate. It is most definately still in force, for all nations registered with the UN as signatories. It is what was used to prosecute at Nuernburg. It is clear in the US constitution, a ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land.

Well, that's the thing - there's been no consequences. What I want to know is who would try Bush, then? How would it be done? I seriously doubt that anyone would let UN Peacekeepers enter the White House and just take him away to be tried at The Hague. What precedent would that create? Every time one of your leader fucks up, a country opposed to the US could just start pressing charges for political gains (because that's what countries do, not just the US). What about the rest of the Bush administration? Isn't Cheney the real brains behind the operation? Why not put HIM on trial? I'm not saying that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, just that everyone's been bitching but I've yet to read how they'd conduct that trial. Lots of people whine but few bring solutions, it seems.

Also, I'm not an expert at interpreting the American constitution, but to me, having an unelected world body take decision over the elected representatives of its member countries makes little sense.

 

[D_Roderick Beresford Stiffington IV]

Et Cetera, Et Cetera Off-topic postings, current events, rants and raves...

Someone want to remind me where it says its okay to call members "Stupid fucking cows"? I'd appreciate if the Canadian gentleman in this thread tones himself down a little. You're free to express whatever opinion you want but chill with the insults and attacks on people. That's not called for.

 

[burns1de]

Someone want to remind me where it says its okay to call members "Stupid fucking cows"? I'd appreciate if the Canadian gentleman in this thread tones himself down a little. You're free to express whatever opinion you want but chill with the insults and attacks on people. That's not called for.

So I guess it's okay for her to call me a fucktard, then? She called me out, she got what she deserved.

 

[HazelGod]

Someone want to remind me where it says its okay to call members "Stupid fucking cows"? I'd appreciate if the Canadian gentleman in this thread tones himself down a little. You're free to express whatever opinion you want but chill with the insults and attacks on people. That's not called for.

Bah, let him rail....he's only illustrating the indefensibility of his position by resorting to such ad hominem.

 

[dong20]

Very easily...illegal war + thousands civillians killed = war criminal.

Don't be naive. An offensive war or invasion is pretty much illegal by definition, and in war civilians die.

Those criteria alone do not make Bush a war criminal, Hitlers's invasion of say Czechoslovakia didn't make him a war criminal, that's not how it's defined, except perhaps on web fora where some people evidently know better.

Do you even know what a war criminal is? The Geneva Conventions aren't exactly scintillating reading but do have a quick look, start with Sec 147 and also sections 44-59 of the 1st Protocol but it's all relevant.

Wrong - there is nothing ILLEGAL by acting unilaterally without the U.N.'s approval. Plenty of military actions have been taken in the past without the blessing of that unelected world body.

Actually, that's not necessarily true, certainly not in such simplistic terms. As a signatory to the UN charter the US is pretty much obligated to adhere to UN binding resolutions issued by the security council (Non S.C. resolutions are non-binding), that's what the term means.

It doesn't take a cutting intellect to deduce that 1441 was taken by the US and UK as tacit approval for action against Iraq more so given their sidestep of the Chinese, French and Russion proviso. That decision offered them a convenient fallback - the UN authorised it!!

But, if you read article 51 of the UN charter it's hard to see how that's legal. Part of the problem with the UN is definining it's role as judicial or legislative or rather the separation of the two and there's no doubt UN Resolutions can be illegal in their own right. So following them does not absolve those who do so from the consequences. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it less true.

That the US didn't get what it wanted from the UN is one issue, that it decided to act unilaterally in violation of a resolution issued by an organisation of which it's a member is another. While not really pertinent to this discussion that's hardly atypical of the US.

Also, I'm not an expert at interpreting the American constitution, but to me, having an unelected world body take decision over the elected representatives of its member countries makes little sense.

Neither am I but I try my best. The role of the UN is not to override the wishes or domestic legislatitures of member nations but in the most basic terms is to:

• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

It's clear you think otherwise but it's not so. Just read the charter. And, before you start denegrating me - I'm not making any statement about the UN's efficacy in achieving it's aims, that's a whole other discussion.

Back on topic; in starting an (illegal) offensive* overseas war with Iraq Bush almost certainly broke international law (for what that's worth) even with the authorisation of the UN, if he had it (which is doubtful) and even then if such authorisation was legal (again, doubtful) and is thus he is, almost certainly a criminal, technically.

* Yes, I know the US really defending itself - from a nation neither capable nor motivated to attack it.

But that alone does not make him a war criminal. He may be held accountable for his actions in several ways but solely for invading that will not by a war crimes court. His actions subsequent to the invasion, his treatment of prisoners and suspension of their rights on questionable grounds and his failure to adequately protect the Iraqi infrastructure and civilian population are other matters worthy of deeper consideration.

I certainly think he, and to a lesser degree Blair et all should be called to account for their actions but my first statement that I doubt this will happen still stands.

On that I agree with burns1de, it's highly unlikely in his lifetime Bush will face anything harsher than bad press, how history will judge him is, as yet unclear.

I'm not saying that's right, or fair, or justice just that in any practical sense it just is.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Just imagine what would have happened if Saddam had invaded the USA a few years, quoting "America had every intention of invading Iraq...Oh, and they've got WMDs'" -- How do you think the American courts would have acted towards him? He would have been sentanced for starting an illegal war. He would have been tried for the deaths of however many civillians were killed, whatever the correct definiton is of a 'war crime' is, they would have tried him for it. On top of all that, America actually has got weapons of mass destruction and has a nasty little habit of starting wars with countries.

To say that Bush is not comparable to previous War Crimes defendants is in itself naive. So too is it to suggest that he cannot stand trial for the deaths of thousands of innocents.

 

[dong20]

Just imagine what would have happened if Saddam had invaded the USA a few years, quoting "America had every intention of invading Iraq...Oh, and they've got WMDs'" -- How do you think the American courts would have acted towards him? He would have been sentanced for starting an illegal war. He would have been tried for the deaths of however many civillians were killed, whatever the correct definiton is of a 'war crime' is, they would have tried him for it. On top of all that, America actually has got weapons of mass destruction and has a nasty little habit of starting wars with countries.

But and here's the thing - I'm not disputing that US et al probably acted illegally, I've said so already. What I am disputing is that such actions alone make Bush a war criminal as it's legally defined. I also think there is little or no realistic expectation of him facing criminal consequences for it.

You're doing what so many do, confusing those starting and prosecuting wars with war criminals. Those who start unjust wars may well be criminals in one meaning of the word but they're not necessarily war criminals, that's an entirely different distinction. When using such terms it helps to understand their meaning.

To say that Bush is not comparable to previous War Crimes defendants is in itself naive. So too is it to suggest that he cannot stand trial for the deaths of thousands of innocents.

It's not only not naive, it's correct. Reading some background information on some of the names mentioned here and their actions before making such comparisons.

Bush may be a liar and he may have led the US on a disastrous foreign policy misadventure and he may thus be criminally liable but he's hardly set the precedent for this has he? He's just the current convenient scapegoat for the latest epsode of 50 years of American foreign policy disasters.

On that theme, I assume you're including Blair and the national leaders of all coalition nations in this prosecution, or is this a personal crusade against Bush alone, in which case I'd question the objectivity of your motives.

One final note; I didn't say he couldn't stand trial, please read what's posted. I said I thought he wouldn't. I'm sorry if that distinction is too subtle for you.

 

[SteveHd]

Just imagine what would have happened if Saddam had invaded ...

That reminds me of Kuwait. I seem to remember Saddam's Iraq invading Kuwait. USA and others had to expel them. Was Saddam brought to account? Was he even indicted? Is Saddam a war criminal?

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

I do include Blair et al in this.

 

[SteveHd]

So both Blair and Bush are war criminals? How about Mr. Howard?

 

[dong20]

That reminds me of Kuwait. I seem to remember Saddam's Iraq invading Kuwait. USA and others had to expel them. Was Saddam brought to account? Was he even indicted? Is Saddam a war criminal?

I don't think he was indicted for Kuwait.

After capture he was charged with Genocide but those charges were dropped. His trial revolved around the events of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and other events and when he was sentenced to death for the deaths of about Shias (Dujail, 1982) the other actions against him were suspended.

As for him being a war criminal, a domestic terrorist or a mass murderer, I don't have all the facts but I think there's plenty of evidence to support all three. It seems undeniable he was guilty of crimes against humanity. Sadly it's now moot.

 

[dong20]

I do include Blair et al in this.

OK, you also mean the leaders from:

South Korea: 3,600 peak--1,200 current(5/07)(deployed 5/03)
Romania: 730 peak--405 current(5/07)(deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 troops--300 current (2/07)
El Salvador: 380 troops (2/07) (deployed 08/03)
Czech Republic: 300 peak--89 current (5/07)
Azerbaijan: 250 troops (2/07)
Latvia: 136 peak--125 current (2/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 180 peak--100 current (2/07)(deployed 8/03)
Albania: 120 troops (2/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak--53 current (2/07)
Armenia: 46 current (2/07)(deployed 1/05)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops (2/07)(deployed 6/05)
Estonia: 35 current (2/07)(deployed 6/05)
Macedonia: 33 troops (2/07)(deployed 7/03)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Moldova: 24 peak--12 current (2/07)(deployed 9/03)
Bulgaria : 485 peak--155 current (2/07)(deployed

and

Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03 - withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 08/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 09/03 - withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (deployed 12/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03 - withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03 - withdrawn)

Cast your net wide, lest any small fish escape.

 

[SteveHd]

Those would be un-indicted co-conspirators?

 

[dong20]

Those would be un-indicted co-conspirators?

Or sheep, depending on one's perspective.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

I'm sure a court would find it difficult to convict the other leaders as they were fed the same bullshit from Bush.

 

[SteveHd]

So we've established that Bush et al aren't war criminals?