Brandon9000 wrote:dlowan wrote:You will say we are hiding the balls.
Well, gosh, what about movies, then? Everyone ready for "Star Wars?"
You will accuse us of hoarding stars of mass destruction - and out-twinkling you.
Twinkle twinkle little star
But ne'er so bright as the US' are.
Brandon, you're suggesting that your discomfort move all of us not to discuss the topic of this thread--and we all came here to at least read, and perhaps comment.
Remember the "August isn't a good time for a new product roll-out" comment by Rove? That statement was made just after Blairs meeting with Bush in Crawford in 2002.
Those of us that have paid attention have known all along it was a planned invasion, whether the world liked it or not. PNAC made that clear. There's really no surprise to those of us that have said so all along.
There'll be no impeachment, no trial for war crimes, and no charges of treason.
That was the purpose of rigging the election for a Republican majority.
That was the purpose of outing Plame and making the yellow cake report from her husband appear biased / wrong.
That was the purpose of putting Gonzales in as AG.
That was the purpose of pushing through nominated right wing judges and why they are getting antsy about making sure all of their guys are in place immediately.
That was the purpose of nominating Bolton, so the UN wouldn't have any power over the US war criminals.
That was the purpose of "re-assessing" Geneva convention rules and claiming we didn't have to comply.
Get it, Brandon and others of your ilk? It wasn't a wild conspiracy theory after all.
BTW, anyone know how the tea is in Boston this time of year?
Setanta wrote:Brandon, you're suggesting that your discomfort move all of us not to discuss the topic of this thread--and we all came here to at least read, and perhaps comment.
I'm not really, Setanta. I'm just messing around. Please proceed.
squinney wrote:....There'll be no impeachment, no trial for war crimes, and no charges of treason.....That was the purpose of "re-assessing" Geneva convention rules and claiming we didn't have to comply.
Get it, Brandon and others of your ilk? It wasn't a wild conspiracy theory after all.
BTW, anyone know how the tea is in Boston this time of year?
Ilk...this is like a small deer, no? I fail to see the relevance. Moving right along, if you think you can tie treason or war crimes to Bush, go to it. But don't forget that these things have actual legal definintions and are not simply anything you care to define them as. As for Bush nominating judges who agree with us, boo hoo.
Intrepid,
You said..."In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation."
Now,for you and all the rest of you that want Bush or his Admin charged with treason,let me educate you.
Treason is the ONLY crime defined in and by the constitution,and it has a very specificdefinition.
In case you didnt know (or refuse to learn),here is the official,legal,constitutional definition of treason,as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution...
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So,as you can see,there is NO LEGAL WAY for Bush or anyone in his Admin to be charged with treason.
Sorry,but you need to find a new fantasy.
MM
OK. He can't be charged with treason. However, he can be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Based on the fact that is uncalled for, unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq has resulted in the death of over 100,000 people and a countless amount of wounded and maimed.
However, an accusation of criminal incompetence could be levied against Rummy for his conduct of the dirty little war with childish ease. No wonder the Shrub wants to fill the federal benches with his hand picked flunkys.
Criminal incompetence is a much better accusation, actually.
Though the argument could easily be made that by lying to Americans (which is exactly the point which Brandon derailed for 3 pages) the Pres. and his senior staff committed perjury.
Cycloptichorn
Sure there is!
For the Crimes against Humanity
murder - Thousands of Iraqis and troops are dead by the stroke of his pen, needlessly
deportation or forcible transfer - Hundreds of people have been disappeared by the CIA and taken to other countries by the stroke of his pen
torture - Need I write anything here?
enforced disappearance of persons - this is a fact that we do this
There are several crimes that he could easily be charged with.
As for the war crimes, Torture is a war crime. The charges can go all the way to the top.
What ever happened to the Republican idea of 'the buck stops here?' And 'personal responsibility?' Bush is a coward if he doesn't take responsibility for the things that happen on his watch.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Sure there is!
For the Crimes against Humanity
murder - Thousands of Iraqis and troops are dead by the stroke of his pen, needlessly
deportation or forcible transfer - Hundreds of people have been disappeared by the CIA and taken to other countries by the stroke of his pen
torture - Need I write anything here?
enforced disappearance of persons - this is a fact that we do this
There are several crimes that he could easily be charged with.
As for the war crimes, Torture is a war crime. The charges can go all the way to the top.
What ever happened to the Republican idea of 'the buck stops here?' And 'personal responsibility?' Bush is a coward if he doesn't take responsibility for the things that happen on his watch.
Cycloptichorn
I hate to disappoint you, but a president cannot be charged with murder for initiating a war that someone thinks was unjust.
There were thousands of military court martials while Clinton was in office, and he was not held responsible for anything connected with any of them. If you can prove that Bush gave instructions for the things that happened at Abu Ghraib Prison, go for it.
Excuse me,but what torture?
I have seen allegations of that,but no absolute proof by anyone.
And dont mention Abu Ghraib.
While that was wrong and the offenders do deserve to be punished,it is not torture to publicly humiliate someone.
Killing enemy troops in combat is not murder,no matter how much you want it to be.
Are you saying that Bush is personally responsible for each and every Iraqi civilian that has died,even those killed by their own countrymen?
Sorry,but that wouldnt stand up in court.
"deportation or forcible transfer - Hundreds of people have been disappeared by the CIA and taken to other countries by the stroke of his pen"
based on what evidence? Where is that executive order?
Brandon
What were the Nuremberg trials all about? Bush is no less culpable than they were.
Mys
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48048
There's a whole thread with the proof you need about the torture. I suggest you actually attempt to read the links and articles if you don't believe me.
I'm not saying Bush is responsible for every death of the war (legally, morally he sure as hell is) but torture, where people get killed and maimed, he is responsible for.
Also, if ya want to find out about how we are disappearing people, google 'extraordinary rendition' or 'red sox jet' and you'll see how it goes.
It's not neccessary for the pres. to sign an executive order for him to be responsible for things. I'll ask you again, do you believe in 'the buck stops here?'
Cycloptichorn
cyclo,
" I'll ask you again, do you believe in 'the buck stops here?"
You cant ask me again,because you never asked me the first time.
Yes,I do believe in "the buck stops here",but before it can stop there,it has to get there.
"It's not neccessary for the pres. to sign an executive order for him to be responsible for things."
Didnt you just say "Hundreds of people have been disappeared by the CIA and taken to other countries by the stroke of his pen"
Now you say there is no executive order written anywhere.
Is there or isnt there?
An order to make people "dissapear" would have to be in writing.
au1929 wrote:Brandon
What were the Nuremberg trials all about? Bush is no less culpable than they were.
First of all, I was speaking of crimes within the American system of law. If you want the president to be arrested and tried by some international body, I know that the Nuremberg crimes involved things like sending Jews to concentration camps, and sending such prisoners to ovens and gas chambers for extermination.
Sadly, no.
if Slobodan Milosevic can be charged, George Bush can be charged
"Charges:
The Indictment charges Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Milutinovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Nikola Sainovic and Vlajko Stojiljkovic on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) thereof) with:
one count of violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 - murder), and four counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 - deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; other inhumane acts)
The Indictment "Croatia"
Factual allegations:
The Second Amended Indictment was filed by the Prosecution on 26 July 2004 and ordered the operative Indictment by the Trial Chamber on 28 July 2004. According to the Indictment, Slobodan Milosevic participated in a "joint criminal enterprise" between at least 1 August 1991 and June 1992. The purpose of this enterprise was the forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia, an area he planned to become part of a new Serb-dominated state. This area included those regions that were referred to by Serb authorities as the "Serbian
Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" (collectively referred to by Serb Authorities after 19 December 1991 as the "Republic of Serbian Krajina ("RSK")) and "Dubrovnik Republic".
It is alleged that, during the above period, Serb forces, comprised of the Yugoslav People's Army ("JNA") units, local Territorial Defence ("TO") units and TO units from Serbia and Montenegro, local and Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs ("MUP") police units and paramilitary units, attacked and took control of towns, villages and settlements in the territories listed above. After the take-over, the Serb forces, in cooperation with the local Serb authorities, established a regime of persecutions designed to drive the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population from these territories.
This regime included the extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, the deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians and the confinement or imprisonment under inhumane conditions of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians. As a result, virtually the whole of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population were forcibly removed, deported or killed in the "Serbian Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" regions.
Further, public and private property in all the relevant areas was intentionally and wantonly destroyed and plundered, including homes, religious, historical and cultural buildings.
According to the Indictment, during the relevant period, Slobodan Milosevic was President of the Republic of Serbia and as such exercised effective control or substantial influence over the participants of the joint criminal enterprise and, either alone or acting in concert with others, effectively controlled or substantially influenced the actions of the Federal Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and later the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("FRY"), the Serbian MUP, the JNA, the Serb-run TO staff in the relevant territories, and the Serb volunteer groups.
Charges:
The Indictment charges Slobodan Milosevic on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) thereof) with:
nine counts of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 2 thereof - wilful killing; unlawful confinement; torture; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly),
13 counts of violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 thereof - murder; torture; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects), and
10 counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 thereof - persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; extermination; murder; imprisonment; torture; inhumane acts; deportation; inhumane acts (forcible transfers)).[/b]
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm
If the same definitions for such crimes that were used to charge Slobodan Milosevic were applied to George Bush, Bush would be sitting in a cell at the Hague, along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell.
Sorry, Mys. Thought I had addressed the first question to ya but I see it was a general question.
Did you bother to look at any of my links? I don't know whether there was an executive order signed for this stuff or not. Bush certainly appointed Gonzales, however, and that implies culpability; appointing a killer to do your work for you is the same as doing it yourself.
The orders to make people 'disappear,' or as we call it, Extraordinary Rendition, are well known and approved by Bush and his senior staffers.
Read up on the subject and come back and try to defend these thugs, I would suggest... if you aren't familiar with the kinds of stuff we've been doing, it's shocking...
Cyclopitchorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Though the argument could easily be made that by lying to Americans (which is exactly the point which Brandon derailed for 3 pages) the Pres. and his senior staff committed perjury.
Cycloptichorn
Fraid not Cy. Perjury is lying while under oath to tell the truth. Assuming Bush lied to the American people (as I know you do believe), he did not commit perjury. Heck, if that qualified as perjury, we could get rid of every politician in this country any time we wanted using that excuse. They all lie to us at one time or another. How do you think they get elected and stay there?
