Should George Bush be charged for commiting war crimes?
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
RE: Should George Bush be
The use of phospherous bombs
The use of DU
The death of civilians
The destruction of infrastructure
The theft of assets
The deaths of American soldiers
I'll get my legal staff working on a proper list with all the proper codes and infractions in the morning plus additional charges.
The use of phospherous bombs
The use of DU
The death of civilians
The destruction of infrastructure
The theft of assets
The deaths of American soldiers
I'll get my legal staff working on a proper list with all the proper codes and infractions in the morning plus additional charges.
Re: Charing Bush with War Crimes
In my opinion, the term war crimes is a bit broad; perhaps we should, as suggested by I think not above, discuss each "crime" in particular — I don't think it would be appropriate to lump every possible offence together. However, thinking that someone should be charged, and evidence be presented for each party's case and have the situation assessed therefrom, is quite a leap from whether or not I would think he should be convicted of those crimes (which I think would be more to the point, given the tone of this thread).
If there is information to suggest that perhaps His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States of America has indeed acted in a way which could be deemed to have been a war crime, then yes, I think he should be charged — where there is so much as suspicion of crimes such as these, I would suggest that charges are quite warranted, and should (within reason) be pursued. As to whether I think that he would (or should) be convicted of those crimes, I think that I would need to see the particular charge, and the evidence presented by both sides to many any such assessment.
In my opinion, the term war crimes is a bit broad; perhaps we should, as suggested by I think not above, discuss each "crime" in particular — I don't think it would be appropriate to lump every possible offence together. However, thinking that someone should be charged, and evidence be presented for each party's case and have the situation assessed therefrom, is quite a leap from whether or not I would think he should be convicted of those crimes (which I think would be more to the point, given the tone of this thread).
If there is information to suggest that perhaps His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States of America has indeed acted in a way which could be deemed to have been a war crime, then yes, I think he should be charged — where there is so much as suspicion of crimes such as these, I would suggest that charges are quite warranted, and should (within reason) be pursued. As to whether I think that he would (or should) be convicted of those crimes, I think that I would need to see the particular charge, and the evidence presented by both sides to many any such assessment.
OK Darkbeaver, I'll concede that every single item you posted is a war crime (I really don't but for the sake of argument). Why hasn't any country, any judicial body, any ogranization anywhere in the world, perform a trial, even if it a mock trial to prove a political point.
You have the answer? Because I don't.
You have the answer? Because I don't.
RE: Should George Bush be
There was mock trials conducted a couple of months ago, Ramsey Clark was involved, thanks for reminding me, I'll see who was charged and with what.
There was mock trials conducted a couple of months ago, Ramsey Clark was involved, thanks for reminding me, I'll see who was charged and with what.
You would have better luck seeing OJ Simpson confessing to the double murders.I think not said:
Re: RE: Should George Bush be
Ramsey Clark? The same Ramsey Clark who is on Saddam's defense team. :lol: :lol:darkbeaver said:
Hey! Drag it to Wreck Beach. Let's drag this back on-topic.
:arrow: Re: Bush, War Crimes
I think he should be charged, but as of yet, not convicted. I am suspicious enough of wrong-doing to suggest that we should have evidence presented on both sides, but after that, I would need to read documentation presented in order to come up with whether or not I think he should be convicted of such crimes.
:arrow: Re: Bush, War Crimes
I think he should be charged, but as of yet, not convicted. I am suspicious enough of wrong-doing to suggest that we should have evidence presented on both sides, but after that, I would need to read documentation presented in order to come up with whether or not I think he should be convicted of such crimes.
JonB2004
Your argument that 2300 American soldiers died and 250,000 Iraqi's died (where the hell did you ever get that number by the way) is not a premise for a war crime. War crimes are defined as breaking rules of engagement, intentionally killing civilian populations and so forth.
Your argument that 2300 American soldiers died and 250,000 Iraqi's died (where the hell did you ever get that number by the way) is not a premise for a war crime. War crimes are defined as breaking rules of engagement, intentionally killing civilian populations and so forth.
Legal Encyclopedia: "War Crimes"
Just like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia and Poland, or Saddam invading Kuwait, Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in wars of aggression, NOT self-defence.
Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld should be similarly tried and sentenced like Göring was.
.
Yeah, but that's because US politics is dominated by corrupt robber barons who use the media to attack anyone who appears to be looking out for the average American (and Clinton just appeared to be doing it). They have tens of millions of "useful idiots" brainwashed by the the Fundamentalist Xtian churches or Fox "News" who really do think a blowjob is worse than mass murder. It's about partisanship, power and keeping the the masses ignorant and entertained.
That people can still hold the opinion that Bush didn't lie to get into Iraq is a tribute to the stupidity the human race is capable of and to the relentlessness of US propaganda.