Should Bush be charged with war crimes? (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

Now that President Bush has resolved publicly that those who committed war crimes will be punished, the subject of U.S. war crimes may begin to move closer to its deserved prominent place in the American public discourse. If this happens, more Americans are likely to realize that the man who spoke of punishing war criminals has himself violated the law and should be accordingly punished.

In fact, according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which the U.S. had a major role in drafting, those who initiate a war of aggression quite literally bear individual criminal responsibility, not only for waging unprovoked war, but for the war crimes which inevitably flow from aggression.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/060506a.html

If the alleged Haditha murders by US marines results in some of the soldiers being put on trial over this incident, should George Bush, accordance with the precedent set at Nuremberg years ago, be charged along with these soldiers for being the man that started the war that eventually resulted in the deaths at Haditha.

 

[cherokee]

If the alleged Haditha murders by US marines results in some of the soldiers being put on trial over this incident, should George Bush, accordance with the precedent set at Nuremberg years ago, be charged along with these soldiers for being the man that started the war that eventually resulted in the deaths at Haditha.

First we have to wait for the investigations to finish and see it they are tried and found guilty.

I’m no fan of Bush but I got a feeling your way off base with this one.

But out of curiosity just which precedent are you referring to?

Anyways you would have to establish that Bush had some sort of direct involvement in ordering the shootings.

 

[aquapub]

God, where do they find people who think this little? This has to be the dumbest poll I've ever seen. Bush didn't order it, therefore it is nothing like the precedent set at Nuremburg, hysterical stooge.

 

[massive_attack]

Ima start a new poll that uses the title of this thread...

 

[MSgt]

This won't go any higher than it has. The Battalion Commander and two Company Commanders were relieved in April for a "loss of confidence." This was not solely based on haditha but other incidents throughout their Battalion's deployment.

Keep in mind that these three Officers were not at the location and gave no orders of such kind. I believe the Haditha incident is being investigated thoroughly and all that are found to be involved will be held accountable.

Bush has nothing to do with it. This is in no way of any kind of relation to what came out of Nuremberg. To say otherwise, only trivializes what occurred during that time period. There is no great mandate to murder Muslims, there is no sentiment of hatred given to us through hate speech, and there is no great movement to purge the earth of people not like us. The use of the word "aggression" does not apply at all.

This thread is rediculous. The only individuals that would vote yes are those individual that prefer to set aside intelligence and instead embrace hatred towards Bush. C'mon, Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
This won't go any higher than it has. The Battalion Commander and two Company Commanders were relieved in April for a "loss of confidence." This was not solely based on haditha but other incidents throughout their Battalion's deployment.

Keep in mind that these three Officers were not at the location and gave no orders of such kind. I believe the Haditha incident is being investigated thoroughly and all that are found to be involved will be held accountable.

Bush has nothing to do with it. This is in no way of any kind of relation to what came out of Nuremberg. To say otherwise, only trivializes what occurred during that time period. There is no great mandate to murder Muslims, there is no sentiment of hatred given to us through hate speech, and there is no great movement to purge the earth of people not like us. The use of the word "aggression" does not apply at all.

This thread is rediculous. The only individuals that would vote yes are those individual that prefer to set aside intelligence and instead embrace hatred towards Bush. C'mon, Billo.

Everyone can make up their own mind on this. But according to Articles 6 and 7 (see below), Bush indeed fits the definition.

Originally posted by aquapub:
God, where do they find people who think this little? This has to be the dumbest poll I've ever seen. Bush didn't order it, therefore it is nothing like the precedent set at Nuremburg, hysterical stooge.

It doesn't matter that he didn't order the murders, he ordered the war. A war that violated International treaties that our own Congress ratified (thus making them our laws as well).

Article 6 of the Charter states: “The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”

And from Article 7: “The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/060506a.html

It should also be noted that we were one of the principal authors of the Nuremberg articles. Do we walk our talk or not?

 

[Goobieman]

It doesn't matter that he didn't order the murders, he ordered the war. A war that violated International treaties that our own Congress ratified (thus making them our laws as well).

You STILL havent admitted to yourself that your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause is worng, have you.

Sheesh.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
You STILL havent admitted to yourself that your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause is worng, have you.

Sheesh.

And your too conceited to admit that was never the issue.

 

[Goobieman]

This thread is rediculous. The only individuals that would vote yes are those individual that prefer to set aside intelligence and instead embrace hatred towards Bush. C'mon, Billo.

It's Billo.
Do you expect anything different?
The first thing he does in the morning is ponder to himself "how can I raise my bigoted, partisan hatred for Bush to a new level?"

 

[Goobieman]

And your too conceited to admit that was never the issue.

You keep bringing up how the war violates US law.
You must have an issue there somewhere.

I will admit - you spun it a little differently this time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
You keep bringing up how the war violates US law.
You must have an issue there somewhere.

I will admit - you spun it a little differently this time.

There's nothing to spin. We violated Articles 6 and 51 of the UN Charter. Which is a treaty we ratified. Which according to the Constitution, makes it US law as well. Of coarse, you dismiss this because you believe in un-checked and un-limited federal authority.

 

[Goobieman]

There's nothing to spin. We violated Articles 6 and 51 of the UN Charter. Which is a treaty we ratified. Which according to the Constitution, makes it US law as well. Of coarse, you dismiss this because you believe in un-checked and un-limited federal authority.

I see you need to be punted yet again.

Show me where the Supremacy Clause has ever been held to create a limitation on the actions of the FEDERAL government.

Until you do that, your argument, above, hasn't a leg to stand on.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
It's Billo.
Do you expect anything different?
The first thing he does in the morning is ponder to himself "how can I raise my bigoted, partisan hatred for Bush to a new level?"

Let me know when your done playing "make believe" and we will continue the debate.


...done yet?

....how about now?

How is expecting us to keep our word, follow our laws and comply with our agreements interpreted as "...bigoted, partisan hatred for Bush"? And if there is hatred for Bush, why does it have to be partisan? He's done enough to be hated by many different people. And it doesn't take a bigot to spot his (or your) hypocrisy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
I see you need to be punted yet again.

Show me where the Supremacy Clause has ever been held to create a limitation on the actions of the FEDERAL government.

Until you do that, your argument, above, hasn't a leg to stand on.

This is just your little bullshit word game designed to take this arguement somewhere other than where it is. And I'm not going to allow it. As I have said, that was never the issue. And your not going to make it one here.

How can you punt anything while your shoe is still in your mouth? I bet your ego enters a room before you do.

Next question, Goober...

 

[Goobieman]

This is just your little bullshit word game designed to take this arguement somewhere other than where it is. And I'm not going to allow it. As I have said, that was never the issue. And your not going to make it one here.

Like I said --
YOU keep bringing up the idea that the war is illegal according to US law.
Since you keep bringing it up, it must be an issue - one of YOUR issues.
Every time I see you do that, I am going to call you on it.
And every time I call you on it, you will refuse to effectively support your argument.

So tell us, Billo - when has the Supremacy Clause ever been held to restrict the actions of the FEDERAL government?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Like I said --
YOU keep bringing up the idea that the war is illegal according to US law.
Since you keep bringing it up, it must be an issue - one of YOUR issues.
Every time I see you do that, I am going to call you on it.
And every time I call you on it, you will refuse to effectively support your argument.

So tell us, Billo - when has the Supremacy Clause ever been held to restrict the actions of the FEDERAL government?

Why don't you wipe your a.s.s with the Supremacy Clause? We can discuss this in the context that we violated an International Treaty that we agreed to comply with. But then we go back on our word. And in doing so, we violated International Law.

How's that. You want to take your head out of your a.s.s long enough to discuss this? Or do you want to continue with your Supremacy fetish? Or do you want to hit that "report button" like all the little ***** bitches that use that button because they ain't got no balls and they got to hide behind something? Or are you one of those f.u.c.k.e.r.s that use that "button" as a weapon?

It would figure that with an ego the size of yours, you would be into something like the Supremacy Clause.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Haditha is just one small part of why Bush should be charged with war crimes.

Preemptive War in Iraq
Lying to Congress to get us into war
Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo
Rendition
Sanctioned Torture
Ignoring Geneva Conventions

etc. etc.

To The Hague with him...

 

[tecoyah]

Unless we intend to force an evolution of warfare in general, there is no ground, or point in charging Bush with Warcrimes. Charging the President /King/Leader of a Nation for the acts of individuals under his authority is a rediculous attempt at undermining the power to act. If we wish to make Warfare Illegal this might be a step towards that end but, otherwise seems rather useless. Granted there is reason to question the "Reasoning" behind the war, but not to hold the architect responsible for the way it was built.

 

[Goobieman]

Why don't you wipe your a.s.s with the Supremacy Clause? We can discuss this in the context that we violated an International Treaty that we agreed to comply with. But then we go back on our word. And in doing so, we violated International Law.

You keep going back to the idea that the war is illegal under US law:

A war that violated International treaties that our own Congress ratified (thus making them our laws as well).

And untill you show that the supremacy clause creates a restriction on the FEDERAL government, your argument that the war is illegal under US law is unsound.

Its really that simple.

You want to take your head out of your a.s.s long enough to discuss this?

I see you're doing everything you can to avoid having to support your own claim.
Again.

Or do you want to hit that "report button" like all the little ***** bitches that use that button because they ain't got no balls and they got to hide behind something? Or are you one of those f.u.c.k.e.r.s that use that "button" as a weapon?

Bye bye, Billo, bye bye.

 

[tecoyah]

How's that. You want to take your head out of your a.s.s long enough to discuss this? Or do you want to continue with your Supremacy fetish? Or do you want to hit that "report button" like all the little ***** bitches that use that button because they ain't got no balls and they got to hide behind something? Or are you one of those f.u.c.k.e.r.s that use that "button" as a weapon?

Hell Billo....I almost used it on you after that pointless excersize in memberbashing. Way to kill a conversation there Pal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by tecoyah
Hell Billo....I almost used it on you after that pointless excersize in memberbashing. Way to kill a conversation there Pal.

Your partisan comments are anything but news.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by tecoyah
Unless we intend to force an evolution of warfare in general, there is no ground, or point in charging Bush with Warcrimes. Charging the President /King/Leader of a Nation for the acts of individuals under his authority is a rediculous attempt at undermining the power to act. If we wish to make Warfare Illegal this might be a step towards that end but, otherwise seems rather useless. Granted there is reason to question the "Reasoning" behind the war, but not to hold the architect responsible for the way it was built.

Maybe you should do your homework before putting your foot in your mouth. Go back and research what we (the United States) did (and authored) at the trials in Nuremburg. (Here's a hint: exactly the opposite of what you just stated!)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
You keep going back to the idea that the war is illegal under US law:

A war that violated International treaties that our own Congress ratified (thus making them our laws as well).

And untill you show that the supremacy clause creates a restriction on the FEDERAL government, your argument that the war is illegal under US law is unsound.

Its really that simple.

This is your issue. Not mine. Your trying to hijack this thread much like your attempts on the other one. And it ain't gonna happen, 'lil suzi!

The reference to US law has never been more than a side-bar to this discussion. We violated International Law! A law we agreed to honor. Get that through your _________ head!

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Quote:
You want to take your head out of your a.s.s long enough to discuss this?

I see you're doing everything you can to avoid having to support your own claim.
Again.

I'll take that as a "no".

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Bye bye, Billo, bye bye.

Sounds like a country song. Right up there next to the "Punters Lament".

 

[Billo_Really]

Hey, Goob, do you ever plan to address the issue raised by this thread? Because none of your comments are in concert with the topic of this thread.

Oh, by the way, the word is "U-N-T-I-L". Try spell check once and a while, since you like buttons so much.

 

[Goobieman]

This is your issue. Not mine.

Then why do YOU keep bringing it up?

The reference to US law has never been more than a side-bar to this discussion.

Then why do YOU keep bringing it up?

I see you're doing everything you can to avoid having to support your own claim.
Again.