Bush on trial

[dong20]

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

So you're saying that those national leaders are not prosecutable on the grounds of being unable to form their own conclusions - or merely that it would be so hard to prove that they were able to do so it's not worth trying?

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

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

I think we're all reading from the same book here...just the dictionary defenition of war criminal gets in the way of the pedants! You know exactly what I mean...Bush needs to be punished.

 

[dong20]

I think we're all reading from the same book here...just the dictionary defenition of war criminal gets in the way of the pedants! You know exactly what I mean...Bush needs to be punished.

I've never argued Bush shouldn't be 'punished'. Only suggested that for what he should be punished needed more thought, and that by whom would depend on the crime and, above all I stated my view of the unlikelihood of it happening.

It's not about pedantry. Like saying murder is the same as involuntary manslaughter simply because in both cases someone died. If making such a distinction between is pedantry then I plead guilty.:smile:

 

[SteveHd]

I think we're all reading from the same book here...

Umm ... I don't think so.

... just the dictionary defenition of war criminal gets in the way of the pedants!

No, International Law gets in your way of calling them war criminals.

...Bush needs to be punished.

What part of International Law should he be indicted and tried on? Please copy-and-paste the statute and provide a URL for us to doublecheck your reference.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Princip was treated relatively humanely, as he was a minor, he was not given the death sentence, but was imprisoned.

And died in prison of tuberculosis.

He'd have been better off at Guantanamo.

 

[kalipygian]

And died in prison of tuberculosis.

He'd have been better off at Guantanamo.

Dieing of tuberculosis in prison was then extremely common, in all countries. I think he was imprisoned in Prague, if he had survived, the new Republic of Tzechoslovakia was so anti Habsburg, he might have been freed, and given a slav hero medal.

 

[kalipygian]

I think the Nuernburg defendants were prosecuted simply for invading the surrounding countries, as well as such things as mass murder and slave labor.

 

[SteveHd]

They were prosecuted for mass murder and other things but not for "invading the surrounding countries". That's not a crime.

 

[madame_zora]

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.

Well, IF you could read you'd see where I said:

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?

so where the fuck do you get off saying I accused you of being for bush? I clearly stated that you are trying to NOT be for bush, but still be for the war. It ain't my problem that you are too stupid to understand even very simple language, chief.

I asked you to clarify your position, which I don't believe you can do. Over and out mate.

 

[madame_zora]

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.

On this point, I'll defend Burns1de- he's well within his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dong20]

They were prosecuted for mass murder and other things but not for "invading the surrounding countries". That's not a crime.

Break into my house and I'll prosecute, break into my country and I'll pout.

International law, you have to love it.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

So, in summary...let's kill Bush!

 

[SteveHd]

Keep saying that and some men wearing dark suits will visit and ask questions. It will be a bad experience.

 

[madame_zora]

So, in summary...let's kill Bush!

Seriously, I would rather send him to vacation in Guantanamo- more fitting, IMHO.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Funny, I thought the American Congress approved the war.... I guess we don't have the same definition of 'illegal'.

I think this point was missed. Congress approving the war doesn't make it legal (unless you are considering only the American constitutional perspective). As it turns out, the approvals that were received (including most of the international head-nods) were based on lies, which brings us back to the impeach-Bush-for-lying-to-Congress argument. And so on.

I seem to recall that War of aggression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia counts as a crime, perhaps Bush could be charged with that? But this is all fantasizing, anyway. The only way Bush and his cronies could possibly be called to account is the same way that Nicholas II and Louis XVI were. In other words, it'll take blood in the streets, and lots of it.

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

So, in summary...let's kill Bush!

Fun though it would be, wouldn't that just lower us to his level?

 

[HazelGod]

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

No, it's simply been established that unilateral invasion of Iraq doesn't supply the technical basis for them to be labeled as such.

For that, we simply look towards the facility at Guantanamo Bay...a site chosen specifically and willfully in order to deprive those held there of their basic rights under both US and international law. The angle pursued by the White House under the advisement of counsel (Alberto Gonzales, what a shock) was that by using the "enemy combatant" label rather than POW, those being held were somehow disqualified from the rules of treatment established in the Geneva Conventions...and that the location of the facility outside the borders of the USA further disqualified them from the rights of due process afforded to everyone under our Constitution.

We see willfull intent and we see conspiracy with regard to these violations...I believe there's plenty of merit to charges of war crimes as well as crimes against the Constitution. I'm not naive enough to believe these sons of bitches will ever be held accountable, but that doesn't alter their culpability one iota.

 

[dong20]

For that, we simply look towards the facility at Guantanamo Bay...a site chosen specifically and willfully in order to deprive those held there of their basic rights under both US and international law. The angle pursued by the White House under the advisement of counsel (Alberto Gonzales, what a shock) was that by using the "enemy combatant" label rather than POW, those being held were somehow disqualified from the rules of treatment established in the Geneva Conventions...and that the location of the facility outside the borders of the USA further disqualified them from the rights of due process afforded to everyone under our Constitution.

We see willfull intent and we see conspiracy with regard to these violations...I believe there's plenty of merit to charges of war crimes as well as crimes against the Constitution. I'm not naive enough to believe these sons of bitches will ever be held accountable, but that doesn't alter their culpability one iota.

I agree that there's evidence to suggest such violations occured by the US there and elsewhere.

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 also agree that the likelihood of any meaningful action being taken against anyone is sadly remote.

 

[kalipygian]

They were prosecuted for mass murder and other things but not for "invading the surrounding countries". That's not a crime.

Yes it is, I read up on it before I posted, it would be nice if others would go to the same effort. See my previous post, and go read the kellogg briand pact text.

 

[B_HappyHammer1977]

Seriously, I would rather send him to vacation in Guantanamo- more fitting, IMHO.

or more fisting...see if he likes that!!