So if they are guilty in the eyes of the, law then Bush and his cabinet are also

[jbander]

A suit against two CIA contractors, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, In the 525-page summary of the still-unreleased 6,000-page Senate torture report, these psychologists were identified by their pseudonyms: Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar. The pair were not only the architects of the interrogation methods, but also operated and assessed them. DOJ lawyers approved these torture techniques. The CIA paid the men and their company tens of millions of dollars. The suit filed against them has got the go ahead by the court, the CIA argument to stop this suit was for the need government secrecy on this because parts of it are still being used. If this suit is decided against these two proud American torturers , then I hope that the suit will continue and charge Bush and his cabinet also.
Around the world many countries say that Bush and his cabinet are war criminals. Which is automatic because we have signed treaty's saying we won't torture and we know that a treaty becomes law automatically as soon as it is signed by the countries that are involved. So I see that if these people are found guilty in a American court. then the letter of the law says that Bush and his hacks are guilty also.

 

[RetiredUSN]

A suit against two CIA contractors, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, In the 525-page summary of the still-unreleased 6,000-page Senate torture report, these psychologists were identified by their pseudonyms: Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar. The pair were not only the architects of the interrogation methods, but also operated and assessed them. DOJ lawyers approved these torture techniques. The CIA paid the men and their company tens of millions of dollars. The suit filed against them has got the go ahead by the court, the CIA argument to stop this suit was for the need government secrecy on this because parts of it are still being used. If this suit is decided against these two proud American torturers , then I hope that the suit will continue and charge Bush and his cabinet also.
Around the world many countries say that Bush and his cabinet are war criminals. Which is automatic because we have signed treaty's saying we won't torture and we know that a treaty becomes law automatically as soon as it is signed by the countries that are involved. So I see that if these people are found guilty in a American court. then the letter of the law says that Bush and his hacks are guilty also.

What countries are saying Bush is a war criminal? Please name them if you are using them to prop your argument.

 

[jbander]

What countries are saying Bush is a war criminal? Please name them if you are using them to prop your argument.

Check into his planned trip to Switzerland that got dumped when switzerland not wanting trouble told him that there were people there who were charging him with war crimes and Geneva's world court did accept those charges, of course they would he is a war criminal. I hope and believe his cabinet is also.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Check into his planned trip to Switzerland that got dumped when switzerland not wanting trouble told him that there were people there who were charging him with war crimes and Geneva's world court did accept those charges, of course they would he is a war criminal. I hope and believe his cabinet is also.

You said:

Around the world many countries say that Bush and his cabinet are war criminals.

I asked for countries that have, and you come up with that?

 

[jbander]

You said:

Around the world many countries say that Bush and his cabinet are war criminals.

I asked for countries that have, and you come up with that?

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia...At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Their slime all of them Talk to these guys "The court heard how Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers; Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall; Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement, Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today." Do you support slime, just wondering??????

 

[jbander]

There is a organized group out there that will bring charges to any of these war criminals, in any country that comes under the governance of the world court. That's how Switzerland charges were filed, they were filed by this group. I'm going to send them some money to help them achieve their goal. I would except the death penalty but would also except jail sentence if that's all they come up with. I also like the idea that these slime people know they are taking a chance by even leaving this country. The only way they can travel now is if a country they want to go to will protect these criminals.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Around the world many countries say that Bush and his cabinet are war criminals. Which is automatic because we have signed treaty's saying we won't torture and we know that a treaty becomes law automatically as soon as it is signed by the countries that are involved. So I see that if these people are found guilty in a American court. then the letter of the law says that Bush and his hacks are guilty also.

Not quite. In the United States the President or a designated representative may sign a treaty, but it does not have the force of law until the U.S. Senate approves it with a two-thirds vote and then the President ratifies it.

 

[jbander]

This means little but I do enjoy the thought "Headlines from Addictinginfo.org and Liberalamerica.org both claim that Germany is filing war crimes charges again former president George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and members of the CIA for their part in the administration’s torture program"

 

[jbander]

Not quite. In the United States the President or a designated representative may sign a treaty, but it does not have the force of law until the U.S. Senate approves it with a two-thirds vote and then the President ratifies it.

All countries have different perimeters that have to be met for it to be a signed treaty, ours includes a 2/3 majority in the senate , it is signed after the vote. So if it is signed it is after the vote"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...". None of this makes ant difference, We signed and ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT in 92 .

 

[Captain Adverse]

All countries have different perimeters that have to be met for it to be a signed treaty, ours includes a 2/3 majority in the senate , it is signed after the vote. So if it is signed it is after the vote"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...". None of this makes ant difference, We signed and ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT in 92 .

No. Still incorrect.

FYI

The President, or his representative (ambassador, plenipotentiary, etc.) can negotiate and then sign a treaty.

It must THEN go to the Senate for a 2/3 vote of approval.

THEN the President ratifies it through additional process.

 

[jbander]

And I also enjoy this .Former International Court of Justice judge Thomas Buergenthal "A former judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said former US Vice President Dick Cheney should - and eventually will - stand trial for war crimes for his role in the Iraq War.
" That makes me hopeful that these war criminals will be prosecuted for their war crimes.

 

[jbander]

The 10-year-old law gives Belgium's courts the right to judge anyone accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, regardless of where the crime took place.

Apart from Bush and Blair, the officials named in the suits were US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Attorney General John Ashcroft, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and General Tommy Franks, who led US forces in Iraq. They were found Guilty. Which of course is a automatic because they are guilty and have admitted it.

 

[Tigerace117]

This means little but I do enjoy the thought "Headlines from Addictinginfo.org and Liberalamerica.org both claim that Germany is filing war crimes charges again former president George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and members of the CIA for their part in the administration’s torture program"

The Germans have absolutely no room to talk when it comes to war crimes.

Not that there were any.

One thing I find interesting is that in order to paint things as "black and white" as possible the various accusing bodies always ignore the actions of the various terror groups and Saddam's army

 

[jbander]

No. Still incorrect.

FYI

The President, or his representative (ambassador, plenipotentiary, etc.) can negotiate and then sign a treaty.

It must THEN go to the Senate for a 2/3 vote of approval.

THEN the President ratifies it through additional process.

Ok now who is suppose to care, Go back to the drawing board , the president can ratify most treaties without congress, it is aligned with the executive order.

 

[jbander]

The Germans have absolutely no room to talk when it comes to war crimes.

Not that there were any.

One thing I find interesting is that in order to paint things as "black and white" as possible the various accusing bodies always ignore the actions of the various terror groups and Saddam's army

My concern is how we act as a country, way down the line I care how other countries act. It is by no means to who cares level but it is small on my list compared to how we act.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ok now who is suppose to care, Go back to the drawing board , the president can ratify most treaties without congress, it is aligned with the executive order.

Apparently you as you keep repeating a falsehood as if repeating it makes it true. :roll:

I was simply clarifying an error in your OP. Treaties are NOT LAW until approved by a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate, and then ratified by the President. A simple signature does not make it the law under our Federal Constitution.

The most famous example was Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[Tigerace117]

My concern is how we act as a country, way down the line I care how other countries act. It is by no means to who cares level but it is small on my list compared to how we act.

The point is that many times the "war crimes" are connected. You could say an air strike which nails a village was a "war crime" but if you ignore the fact that the Fedayeen were using villages just like that one for cover for cover it makes more sense.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The 10-year-old law gives Belgium's courts the right to judge anyone accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, regardless of where the crime took place.

Oh noes!!! Not Belgium!!!!

Please....tell us how this hate works out for you. Let us know when anyone is actually convicted of being a "war criminal." Oh, and don't forget about all those drone strikes Lord Obama's been executing for the past 6 years or so. I'm sure your biased thinking has already given him a free pass over those, right?

 

[jbander]

Apparently you as you keep repeating a falsehood as if repeating it makes it true. :roll:

I was simply clarifying an error in your OP. Treaties are NOT LAW until approved by a 2/3 majority vote of the Senate, and then ratified by the President. A simple signature does not make it the law under our Federal Constitution.

The most famous example was Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles.

To repeat myself the Treaty can be finalized by a signature if the president signs it with a executive order. So your wrong , that's all I'm pointing out. It doesn't need the 2/3 rd majority does it. So Treaties are law without out the 2/3rd majority right.

 

[jbander]

The point is that many times the "war crimes" are connected. You could say an air strike which nails a village was a "war crime" but if you ignore the fact that the Fedayeen were using villages just like that one for cover for cover it makes more sense.

Bush lied to get us into a war then tortured captives against treaties that this country signed , that makes him a war criminal in both examples.

 

[Fenton]

To repeat myself the Treaty can be finalized by a signature if the president signs it with a executive order. So your wrong , that's all I'm pointing out. It doesn't need the 2/3 rd majority does it. So Treaties are law without out the 2/3rd majority right.

EO's only apply to existing laws and lack the authority to expand those laws.

Would it kill you to inform yourself before coming in here and littering all over the forum ? Im guessing youre either not a American or may be living here without proper documentation.

Or you could just keep your wierd Bush obsessions to yourself

 

[Tigerace117]

Bush lied to get us into a war then tortured captives against treaties that this country signed , that makes him a war criminal in both examples.

Bush "lied"? Iraq did have WMDs. At the time we couldn't have ruled out Saddam's involvement, and he did everything in his power to make us think he was involved.

 

[jbander]

Bush "lied"? Iraq did have WMDs. At the time we couldn't have ruled out Saddam's involvement, and he did everything in his power to make us think he was involved.

Ya you be, the only WMD they had Reagan the worst president in our history gave it to them. The united nations inspectors were given a list by the Sadam government, the inspector looked at the sights listed and if they where to fragile, since they all go back to Reagan. They left them there to be picked up by people in the service that were equipped to handle them. Which took forever, Then Bush starts a war with one of the biggest lies in history and we go to war. and guess what, they find the weapons that were registered by the united nations already but hadn't been picked up yet. To prove my point I will give you the youtube sights that show in one Bush saying there was no weapons of mass destruction and Chaney saying there was no weapons of mass destruction , Gee golly gee, I wonder why they said that , hell they could have gone to a expert, you and you could have told them that they didn't know what they were talking about because you know better then them. My hero!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tigerace117]

Ya you be, the only WMD they had Reagan the worst president in our history gave it to them. The united nations inspectors were given a list by the Sadam government, the inspector looked at the sights listed and if they where to fragile, since they all go back to Reagan. They left them there to be picked up by people in the service that were equipped to handle them. Which took forever, Then Bush starts a war with one of the biggest lies in history and we go to war. and guess what, they find the weapons that were registered by the united nations already but hadn't been picked up yet. To prove my point I will give you the youtube sights that show in one Bush saying there was no weapons of mass destruction and Chaney saying there was no weapons of mass destruction , Gee golly gee, I wonder why they said that , hell they could have gone to a expert, you and you could have told them that they didn't know what they were talking about because you know better then them. My hero!!!!!!!!!

"Worst president in our history"? Worse than Buchanan, who basically sat around and doc nothing as the South was bailing out? Worse then the guy who was president for a month then died? Worse then Tyler?

If Bush said they're were no weapons of mass destruction and there were I wonder why Democrats always claim that there were no WMDs.....

 

[Fenton]

Ya you be, the only WMD they had Reagan the worst president in our history gave it to them. The united nations inspectors were given a list by the Sadam government, the inspector looked at the sights listed and if they where to fragile, since they all go back to Reagan. They left them there to be picked up by people in the service that were equipped to handle them. Which took forever, Then Bush starts a war with one of the biggest lies in history and we go to war. and guess what, they find the weapons that were registered by the united nations already but hadn't been picked up yet. To prove my point I will give you the youtube sights that show in one Bush saying there was no weapons of mass destruction and Chaney saying there was no weapons of mass destruction , Gee golly gee, I wonder why they said that , hell they could have gone to a expert, you and you could have told them that they didn't know what they were talking about because you know better then them. My hero!!!!!!!!!

In 2002 Hillary Clinton said Sadaam Hussein was giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda.

In 1998 Bill Clinton said Sadaam Hussien had spent the last 10 years building up his chemical and biological stockpiles.

In 2008, 500 metric tons of Yellow Cake uranium was flown out of Iraq by the US Air Force into Canada.

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Have you ever stopped to consider that your wrong about everything ???

And you also never answered my question.

You seem to lack some very basic knowledge when it comes to our Constituiton and the authority given to each branch of Govt.

So Im guessing your'e not American and are either posting from outside the US or are in this Country illegally.

So which is it ??