Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 109

Thread: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    Not a single opinion based upon International Law, or the UN Charter, deeming the invasion justified or legal. Hardly impartial evidence. If being ill-informed means being free of pro-American prejudice, then I am happy to accept that categorisation.
    No one pays any attention to "international law" when it comes to responding to terrorism, and it is only the weaker democracies who are likely to give it any lip service to it at all.

    I can't see anyone doubting your lack of pro American prejudices.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    That may be the case, but why should this be so?
    While there are ruthless dictatorships all over the world it's hard to believe that there are people walking upright among us who believe that it's the leaders of the democracies who should be arrested.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    any foreign nation arrests any of our presidents its time for massive death and destruction-including the death of any politician in that country who instigated such actions and any others who support it. Your idiotic hatred of America is pathetic.
    My idiotic hatred of America? I have been serving my nation since 1997. I could have left for a safer, less stressful, higher paying job for quite some time now, but I choose to serve. So excuse me if after dedicating my life to my country if I happen to have some pretty high expectations for it. If I hated America or didn’t care about it, then I wouldn’t have such strong opinions on the matter.

    In most countries-the ones you probably worship the most-you'd be jailed or shot for saying the same thing about the leadership
    I was stationed in Tripoli during and prior to the revolution. I was there when protestors armed only with picket signs were reduced to slabs of meat, on the very street my family and I lived, for nothing more than speaking against the regime. So don’t presume to lecture me on the privilege that is free speech. I don’t just see it as a privilege and a right, but as a duty. If you are disappointed in the way your government has behaved or think they should be held accountable, then there is nothing more American than calling the government out on it.

  4. #64
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I think these "Courts" are a wonderful thing. This particular group of criminals have escaped punishment for their crimes. Now they get to suffer negative worldwide publicity and perhaps fear to travel to many overseas destinations, and deservedly so. I think the USA has the big military in the World at this time and that gives them tacit "immunity." It does not change the facts. The USA media won't even discuss the issue, but the rest of the World is listening. It just makes it easier to keep track of the real scumbags in our own closets. Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Haynes, etc. and reflections on their collective legacy. Their legacy continues at the Guantanamo military tribunals ongoing where it is a military "secret that any of the accused were tortured. Call these people convicted by this "sham" court to testify. Is the Military tribunal another "sham" court?
    Don't forget Obama, who continued the policies. The mouthfoaming that occurs in these threads is laughable.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #65
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Yes. Big OIL got the war started. The OIL is now in the distribution network controlled by same. Before the war the OIL got to market, the same amount of OIL but Saddam got the booty, in Euros. No change in supply/demand but a change in who shares in the profits. Those same Big OILIES make big money supplying the fuel for wars, so no need to speculate why it behooves them to initiate wars. I mean they profit at least twice under the worst of circumstances. You probably think they are just nice businessmen doing nice business. That's why all the WARS are on the topography with OIL and GAS and Minerals underneath. War and more wars is good for business at both ends. Who'd a thunk it?
    You'd a thunk it. Big OILIES? Hahahahah, if we really wanted to get at the oil, why not take over Saudi Arabia? Put your tinfoil hat back on, I think the Martians are flying over your house.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    The liberal internationalist order treasured by the international left is coming to an end. It's existence was only possible because of the room opened up by Pax Americana. With the end of American hegemony the Western Epoch of history comes to an end, and will be replaced by something that doesn't operate by the rules of the Geneva Convention, the United Nations or by international treaty.

    As evidence for this proposition I move to admit the Chinese response to the attempt by the global warming crowd to impose rules on their pollution. I also move for the admission of the Chinese interpretation of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Western internationalists are now coming face to face with a force they can't harangue, hector, harass or intimidate.
    In my view, the balance of power is shifting. The balance of power has never been static, so the reality of an ongoing evolution should not shocking. It need not be disconcerting either, so long as the U.S. understands its position in the balance of power, focuses on its interests and allies, and makes the diplomatic, financial, and military investments to preserve a balance of power that is compatible with its strategic interests. The U.S. has that capability. Whether it will sustain that capability were it to make (or fail to make) necessary policy choices is a different matter.

    The rise of China, among other developments, will restore understanding that the balance of power is a key factor in promoting international stability. The assumptions by some post-Realist foreign policy thinkers that the balance of power was some obsolete calculus of an irrelevant past or had been superseded by American preeminence are being shattered. That the U.S. is the world's dominant power, and likely to remain dominant for perhaps an extended period of time, is not the same thing as preeminence. Even the U.S. has limits. The messy outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan offer some examples.

    Recognition of the importance of the balance of power will not render diplomacy and its instruments obsolete. Indeed, one could argue that the art of diplomacy reached a high point in pre-WW I Europe during a period when the balance of power was the dominant foreign policy calculation. The ongoing changes will likely require that other countries' interests and spheres of influence be taken into consideration in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. That, too, is not necessarily a bad thing. No treaty has ever been sustainable on its own when it ignored a party's critical interests. The Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW I is a classic example of how badly a punitive and unbalanced treaty can disintegrate. Such treaties can only be sustained by a continual willingness to impose their terms by force whenever challenges arise. Few, if any, countries are willing or able to make such open-ended commitments.

    Finally, even as climate change is underway, it does not affect every country's interests equally. China's paramount interest is maintaining its economic growth. Its government continues to view economic growth and development as the foundation for stability. Even as climate scientists argue for reductions in CO2 emissions, the science collides with China's economic needs. At present, were China to engage in robust reductions in CO2 emissions, it could only do so by slashing its economic growth. Insufficient alternatives to conventional energy sources are available. To be sure, China is investing significantly in solar power, but investments in solar power and other alternatives will have a medium- and longer-term payoff. Those payoffs won't address China's immediate energy needs. Hence, China views the issue from the perspective of its national interests and it is unwilling to agree to any kind of CO2 emissions caps. Similarly, the U.S. has also declined to accept CO2 emissions caps or similar mechanisms for reducing its CO2 emissions. In both cases, national interests have trumped scientific understanding, even as such an outcome will have a global impact (an externality of sorts).
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 05-15-12 at 10:50 AM.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    The invasion of Iraq, and the fact that it was not conducted by legal force of an UN Security Council Resolution, are indisputable facts, for which a veritable mountain of evidence exists, and the justification given by the Bush administration (that of WMD stockpiles) has proven to be baseless.
    The U.S., like any sovereign state, has a right of self-defense. The absence of a UN Security Council resolution does not change this. Having said that, the pre-war National Intelligence Estimate that was released October 2003 suggested that Iraq had likely reconstituted some of its WMD. However, the NIE did not point to an imminent threat against the U.S. or U.S. interests/allies. Hence, IMO, a continuation of the Containment policy was probably the better approach (war should be a last resort and the lack of immediacy of a credible threat argued against a preemptive strike). Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the context in which the decision was made. The U.S. was in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was fear that even minor miscalculations to wait for a threat to become clear might lead to catastrophe. In that context, whether one agrees or disagrees with the President's decision, I don't believe one can say that it was unreasonable.

    Ex-President George Bush has stated that he authorised water-boarding (regarded internationally as torture), and both detention without trial, and extraordinary rendition, (for which evidence exists) are internationally regarded as crimes.
    When it comes to the actual international conventions, the President was given legal advice that the U.S. had some latitude. Bad legal advice is not the same thing as a willful decision to engage in prohibited acts. IMO, the relevant Conventions need to be tightened to further reduce any actual or implied ambiguity. That would be a far more constructive approach than publicity stunts directed against leaders who believe they are acting in their national responsibility to protect their people.

    [/quote]As a Brit, I am more than happy for ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair to hauled off to the ICC, to answer for his role in what was done. What puzzles me is the crudely aggressive responses of posters here, against the proposition that something similar be the case with suspected American perpetrators. Why is this so? Are not Americans concerned about their reputation as a just people?[/QUOTE]

    I want to see the international conventions tightened. I disagreed with the legal interpretations on waterboarding. But I don't believe publicity stunts or other crusades against wartime leaders are constructive. If anything, they risk diluting the standards. If every act is termed genocide, a war crime or crime against humanity, then those terms lose their meaning. Furthermore, such stunts undermine the very protections their advocates claim to be defending. If the above terms lose their meaning or leaders find the relevant instruments a barrier to safeguarding their peoples, they will ignore them. In such a case, civilian populations would enjoy fewer protections than they currently do. Better approaches for expanding and safeguarding civilian protections can and should be pursued.

  8. #68
    Student Res Cogitans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    11-08-12 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    268

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo View Post
    Bush had the force of American law supporting his tragic invasion of Iraq. Obama's drone war has no basis in law to support it. That's why Obama is relevant. Besides, Bush has stopped killing people. Obama is gearing up for more killing by flying robots.
    As I said, I doubt Obama gets a free-pass on his drone war. Nevertheless, the drone war was long underway before Obama got into office, and had no basis in law under the Bush administration either.

    Let me play the devil's advocate. How can Americans be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court the legitimacy of which is not recognized by the United States govt.? Should they be subjected to the jurisdiction of international tribunals? Not without the consent of the American people. How likely is that to happen. What would earn the legitimacy of these tribunals in the eyes of Americans? Persuasion followed by the consent to jurisdiction. In the absence of consent there can be no jurisdiction.
    I think your devil's advocacy is hitting all of the right notes. I think it is incredibly unlikely that Americans would consent to the jurisdiciton of international tribunals, and I mostly think that that is the right choice. But that is because I don't trust that any such tribunal would operate in good faith. So my questions might be refocused in a different way: Do such tribunals operate in good faith? If they do, should they be treated with any degree of legitimacy?
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
    -- Bertrand Russell

  9. #69
    Sage
    RDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Last Seen
    10-10-17 @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,398

    Re: Malaysia Tribunal finds Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

    Why get so worked up with the Malaysian tribunal? The man behind that tribunal is the former PM who is now in his 80s. Malaysia is our closest neighbour linked by road and rail. The former PM has been bashing Singapore for many years but we just give a deaf ear.

  10. #70
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    124
    It's funny they don't find horrible dictators around the world guilty of many criminal wrongdoing including murder...

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •