• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amnesty International Wants Bush Prosecuted for Admitted Waterboarding

Guy Incognit0

Yeah, that's a well understood principle of international law. Sitting heads of state and other government officials are granted "immunity from criminal jurisdiction and [...] inviolability" under this principle. Kinda weird, I know, but I think it has something to do with preserving stability. I'm guessing it doesn't apply to a failed state or an illegitimate government official.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's the same, or very similar to, diplomatic immunity. But while Europeans mind find it advantageous to be ruled from Belgium, I doubt many Americans would feel th same way.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal; Judges ad hoc Bula-Bula, Van den Wyngaert.

I'd love to know where these guys got there legal training, and why anyone should pay any attention to them at all. I certainly didn't vote for them.




You know, the book he wrote where he vigorously defended his choice to waterboard, or his interview where he admits his rationale for committing torture was that his "lawyer said it was legal."[/QUOTE]
 
OscarB63 said:
what is sad is that these people seem to care more about protecting terrorists from "torture" than they do about preventing the terrorists from killing innocents
Click to expand...

Wrong choice. We can protect with out torturing. We can punish those who are terrorist without becoming evil men who torture. It is not a choice between torturing or losing innocent lives. The fact is we have been party to inncoent men being tortured. Why would anyone support that? It is the problem when you accept torture, you can't control or know until too late when you have an innocent person.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yes, Bush should have been prosecuted. He wasn't not because he was innocent, but because too many would have to go down with him
Click to expand...

ah, so THAT's why holder hid

LOL!

good thinking
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, nothing posted I've seen refuted anything. And yes, Bush should have been prosecuted. He wasn't not because he was innocent, but because too many would have to go down with him, and it woudl be brutal.
Click to expand...

I am just glad you and those that support your ideology weren't in charge of this Nation's security. Again, you blamed Bush for not stopping 9/11 and now you blame him for using tactics that prevented other attacks. You have a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, please seek help.
 
Guy Incognito said:
the ICC has jurisdiction over Bush if they choose to assert it. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

you're counting now on the icc?

are you listening to yourself?

just when are you expecting action from the internationals, if i may ask, what form will it take?
 
Boo Radley said:
Wrong choice. We can protect with out torturing. We can punish those who are terrorist without becoming evil men who torture. It is not a choice between torturing or losing innocent lives. The fact is we have been party to inncoent men being tortured. Why would anyone support that? It is the problem when you accept torture, you can't control or know until too late when you have an innocent person.
Click to expand...

you really are very naive
 
Boo Radley said:
He wasn't not because he was innocent, but because too many would have to go down with him, and it woudl be brutal.
Click to expand...

yep and that's what a lot of the liberals screaming for Bush's head just don't get. If they get Bush...they get a lot of "their guys" with him. At this stage in the game...I'd be willing to sacrifice Bush to get Pelosi and Kerry et al. I'll trade you one ex president for two sitting Senators any day of the week. Sorry George...sometimes you gotta take one for the team.
 
"You can either die a hero
Or live long enough to see yourself become the Villian"
 
Grant said:
Amnesty International makes a lot of money from the Left and will continue these charades with the hopelessly gullible until the well runs dry.

And given the educational standards in the democracies these days, how soon is that?
Click to expand...
George “The Hitman” Soros and the Human Rights Mob


Amnesty International is a co-offender, running a mega-million dollar international operation, with hundreds of staff on the payroll and offices in capital cities around the world. Tracing the George Soros dough in Amnesty’s coffers is like unraveling a money-laundering front, with multiple foundations and funds between “The Hitman” himself, George Soros, and Amnesty’s bank account.

George Soros again. He has an extreme hatred for Bush:fyi:
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'm not sure where you're coming up with this stuff. The ICC is the organ for international prosecution of war crimes. It doesn't matter whether the US has signed on or not, the ICC has jurisdiction over Bush if they choose to assert it. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

OK. And how will they be asserting this 'jurisdiction'?

I'd pay a dollar to watch them show up in Crawford, Texas.

Like any idea that sounds good on paper, such as the League of Nations and the UN, it becomes politicized and fails miserably in practice. Such is the case here.

History of the ICC
 
Grant said:
Guy Incognit0



Sure, it's the same, or very similar to, diplomatic immunity. But while Europeans mind find it advantageous to be ruled from Belgium, I doubt many Americans would feel th same way.
Click to expand...

You're right, there's nothing stopping Bush from getting prosecuted in US courts. Except politics as usual.


Grant said:
Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal; Judges ad hoc Bula-Bula, Van den Wyngaert.

I'd love to know where these guys got there legal training, and why anyone should pay any attention to them at all. I certainly didn't vote for them.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for them either, but then again we aren't the only people that Bush's war crimes violated. War crimes are crimes against all of humanity, so the Belgians have just as much jurisdiction over Bush as if he had actually committed the torture in Brussels. We didn't vote for them but somebody did, and it was done legitimately. That's all they need.
 
you know what I find funny??? the arguement the guys here are using to justify the ICC going after Bush is the same arguement they said was BS when Bush used it to go after Saddam.

War crimes are crimes against all of humanity, so Bush had just as much jurisdiction over Saddam as if he had actually committed the torture in the US
Click to expand...

see how easily it flows?
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You're right, there's nothing stopping Bush from getting prosecuted in US courts. Except politics as usual.




I didn't vote for them either, but then again we aren't the only people that Bush's war crimes violated. War crimes are crimes against all of humanity, so the Belgians have just as much jurisdiction over Bush as if he had actually committed the torture in Brussels. We didn't vote for them but somebody did, and it was done legitimately. That's all they need.
Click to expand...

With all the problems we have in this country today, this is your top issue? You keep buying what Amnesia International says but only on this issue? Your position is old.
 
You know, the book he wrote where he vigorously defended his choice to waterboard, or his interview where he admits his rationale for committing torture was that his "lawyer said it was legal."
Click to expand...

This is not new. It has been discussed for years..
 
Grant said:
OK. And how will they be asserting this 'jurisdiction'?

I'd pay a dollar to watch them show up in Crawford, Texas.

Like any idea that sounds good on paper, such as the League of Nations and the UN, it becomes politicized and fails miserably in practice. Such is the case here.

History of the ICC
Click to expand...

Will it ever happen in reality, probably not. But who knows. Ten or twenty years from now the political climate might be very different.

How will the ICC assert jurisdiction? It's called universal jurisdiction. War criminals can be tried anywhere they are found.

How will they hale Bush into court? I don't know. Like I said, maybe things will be different in twenty years. But now I think it would cause quite a scandal if they did.
 
Guy Incognito
You're right, there's nothing stopping Bush from getting prosecuted in US courts. Except politics as usual.
Click to expand...

Apart, of course, for his innocence.
I didn't vote for them either, but then again we aren't the only people that Bush's war crimes violated.
Click to expand...

So before he even goes to the ICC you already have him guity of committing "war crimes". I strongly suspect the ICC feels the same way also, before he even sets foot in Belgium.
War crimes are crimes against all of humanity, so the Belgians have just as much jurisdiction over Bush as if he had actually committed the torture in Brussels. We didn't vote for them but somebody did, and it was done legitimately.
Click to expand...

We didn't vote for them but "somebody" did and, in your opinion, it was done 'legitimately'.

Okeydokey

"That's all they need".
Click to expand...

That might be all you and they feel they need but I believe the American people will want more than just the word of this ugly bunch.
 
Conservative said:
With all the problems we have in this country today, this is your top issue? You keep buying what Amnesia International says but only on this issue? Your position is old.
Click to expand...

My position is old?

Frankly, I don't think we should ever rest in our prosecution of war criminals. I'm glad the nazi hunters didn't just forget about the crimes of the war criminals they pursued, and brought to justice their quarry sometimes twenty or thirty years after the crime itself had been committed. I'm glad they didn't just decide that it the position that war crimes should be punished was "old."
 
Guy Incognito

Will it ever happen in reality, probably not. But who knows. Ten or twenty years from now the political climate might be very different.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're right, and that the jackboots will be then be hitting the pavement. The UN and ICC are great organizations for just such a scenario.

How will the ICC assert jurisdiction? It's called universal jurisdiction. War criminals can be tried anywhere they are found.
Click to expand...

But of course there is already selective prosecution, and no doubt that process will increased. A great way to rid yourselves of any political enemies.
How will they hale Bush into court? I don't know. Like I said, maybe things will be different in twenty years. But now I think it would cause quite a scandal if they did.
Click to expand...

Scandal?

It would be a war. Even the Democrats would not stand for that.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
My position is old?

Frankly, I don't think we should ever rest in our prosecution of war criminals. I'm glad the nazi hunters didn't just forget about the crimes of the war criminals they pursued, and brought to justice their quarry sometimes twenty or thirty years after the crime itself had been committed. I'm glad they didn't just decide that it the position that war crimes should be punished was "old."
Click to expand...





You didn't just Godwin this thread, did you?
 
Guy Incognito said:
My position is old?

Frankly, I don't think we should ever rest in our prosecution of war criminals. I'm glad the nazi hunters didn't just forget about the crimes of the war criminals they pursued, and brought to justice their quarry sometimes twenty or thirty years after the crime itself had been committed. I'm glad they didn't just decide that it the position that war crimes should be punished was "old."
Click to expand...

So you are comparing Bush to the Nazis? Unbelieveable and just substantiates my claim that you have a bad case of BDS. You don't have a clue what Bush did or didn't do but are willing to buy what Amnesia International tells you but only on this issue? Where were you on the Saddam Hussein issue or the beheading of innocent civilians? Your selective outrage is quite telling. Bush didn't do anything wrong, no one was hurt and lives were saved. I really feel sorry for you but that is reality. I would take Bush back in a heartbeat over the emty suit in the WH right now.
 
Grant said:
Guy Incognito


Apart, of course, for his innocence.
Click to expand...
lol Tough to prove his innocence when he's going on a book tour with his confession. But you can still dream, i guess.

Grant said:
So before he even goes to the ICC you already have him guity of committing "war crimes". I strongly suspect the ICC feels the same way also, before he even sets foot in Belgium.
Click to expand...
That's not at all how it works. The jurisdiction is over the reasonable allegation of the war crime, there is no presumption of guilt. That's what the trial is for. Hell, if Bush was tried and acquitted by a fair court, I'd be thrilled. That would be justice. But I cannot imagine a realistic defense, he is clearly guilty based on well known facts that he himself has admitted to. But he has a right to his day in court.
Grant said:
We didn't vote for them but "somebody" did and, in your opinion, it was done 'legitimately'.

Okeydokey

That might be all you and they feel they need but I believe the American people will want more than just the word of this ugly bunch.
Click to expand...

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the US government. When the USA recognizes a sovereign nation's legitimacy, we must act accordingly. We're not talking about some failed state here, we're talking about democracies that the US and the global community at large all recognize as legitimate, uncorrupt, and freely elected, just as they treat our government as such. This is very basic stuff here.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
So you are comparing Bush to the Nazis? Unbelieveable and just substantiates my claim that you have a bad case of BDS. You don't have a clue what Bush did or didn't do but are willing to buy what Amnesia International tells you but only on this issue? Where were you on the Saddam Hussein issue or the beheading of innocent civilians? Your selective outrage is quite telling. Bush didn't do anything wrong, no one was hurt and lives were saved. I really feel sorry for you but that is reality. I would take Bush back in a heartbeat over the emty suit in the WH right now.
Click to expand...

I don't feel sorry for this guy at all.

Him, and people like him, are the real threat to the world. They believe in the legitimacy and naked power of a faceless and unelected authority who will have 'jurisdiction' over all our lives.

Where have we heard this before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom