View Poll Results: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    5 7.81%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    4 6.25%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    21 32.81%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    34 53.13%
Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 285

Thread: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  1. #111
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    For a debate to be meaningful, the debate must remain in the relevant context.
    In this case, the relevant context is what defines treason under US law.
    That being the case, no definition other than that found in US law need apply.
    The constitution restrictive use of the word treason is explained by History. The word is appropriate and sometimes inner changeable, unless you believe people guilty of espionage are not also guilty of treason. You're restricting the debate to a sentence in the constitution instead of the reality of the situation. Its cheap and shows that you manipulate the context to make yourself correct at the expense of meaningful debate.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    For a debate to be meaningful, the debate must remain in the relevant context.
    In this case, the relevant context is what defines treason under US law.
    That being the case, no definition other than that found in US law need apply.
    THen give us the definition then.
    I did state in my post that I am not a legal expert, and that this is open to debate. But support your claim, seeings you seem to think you are an expert.
    Cite U.S. treason laws. I am interested.

  3. #113
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Talk View Post
    Ibelieve that lying to his people about weapons of mass destruction and links to al queda constitutes "2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state."

    His alliegance to the state required giving honest information to his citizens. In my opinion. And if I am incorect, and it did not require this, then it should.
    I find this to be a bit of a stretch, its not as if he compromised his allegiance to this country in support of another. Its also not clear whether he lied intentionally or out of coercion. The consequences of his decisions were tragic for some, but the decisions themselves were not malicious or in conflict with the general good of the nation.

  4. #114
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    The constitution restrictive use of the word treason is explained by History. The word is appropriate and sometimes inner changeable, unless you believe people guilty of espionage are not also guilty of treason. You're restricting the debate to a sentence in the constitution instead of the reality of the situation. Its cheap and shows that you manipulate the context to make yourself correct at the expense of meaningful debate.

    If you're arguing that the President (or anyone else) has committed treason and should be put on trial for same (and I know that YOU are not), then you MUST use the term as it applies to US law. If you're not going to restrict the meaning of that term to that context, then your debate is, indeed, meaningless.

  5. #115
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Talk View Post
    THen give us the definition then.
    If you weren't so intent on defending your frangible ego by ignoring people that make you look like a fool, you would have noticed that I cited it, plain as day, a few posts ago.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057857884-post101.html

    The definition of "treason" is specifed in the US Constitution.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 12-23-08 at 11:08 AM.

  6. #116
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=Real Talk;1057857825]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post



    You fail to comprehend the word IF. And are going on ignore.
    For failing to comprehend the word IF.
    Think on that.
    IF I want to drink chlorine bleach, i must first unscrew the lid on the bottle and tip the contents of it into my mouth.
    No, I perfectly understand IF and also told you why there is no IF, only a NO.

    Do you udnerstand?
    The IF means that it is not a question of "should I do this" but "how would one go about doing that, were that their desire"
    Do you understand IF is important to what YOU want, not what YOU will get.



    It is not a complex word, and it was capitalised for a reason (because peoplefail to read here). I recomend you smarten up. Because you just got served.
    Hah, I'm college educated with a very high I.Q., don't think I'm the one hurting for knowledge here.

    So yeah. Either a troll, or not worth talking to to due to inability to grasp basic qualifier statements. Ignored.
    Goodbye.
    You are a non American citizen who is getting upset that you can't change American law and protocol, and is not accepting that the facts don't support your wants. It's cute that you would call me the troll though, nice try.

    As for the treason charge I make,I will nto discuss it with people that struggle with the word "if".
    And I will limit it to people who understand the DEFINITION as spelled out by the U.S. Constituition.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiznit770 View Post
    malicious or in conflict with the general good of the nation.
    Nonsense.
    He was dishonest with the people about important affairs of state. THis is in conflict with the good of the nation. And I dont care if he was being millicious or not, as he was lying, and it was his responsibility to ensure hat the told the truth.

    If a CEO lies to his share holders, he has broken his bond to the company.
    Same goes for a president and his country.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Talk View Post
    And as I say (I guess this one is open to legal debate, as I am not sure of the exact wording and interpretations of relevant laws), I believe in pursuing charges of treason aggainst George Bush and his war mongering cabal (for misrepresenting inteligence).
    Debate the legality if you want. I stated from the start that I am not a legal expert, and asked poeple opinions on it. I lol @ the idea that I would stake my ego on something that I acknowlege that I do not know with any certainty.

    Honestly. Id ont know why I click view post for either of you. I guess itsmsotly that I feel bad for continuing a discussion, and denying the right of reply.

    But honestly,I dont feel that conversation with you guys is worth while.

    As for your (not goober,the other poster) colege education and a high I.Q? Guess what? Same. In international politics. Do u want a cookie? I know plenty of technicaly inteligent, but woefuly ignorant people with college degrees. The western world is full of them. Get down off that pedastal, as Im likely twice the expert you are on the things we post on in this forum, and im not sweating you or anyone about it.

    In essence: If in fact that single quote that goober posted is an exaustive list of laws regarding treason in the united states federal legal system, ten such a charge could not be pursued. But as you will see clearly above, this thought was a concept of research for me. One that I acepted is open to debate, as I am unsure and want to know the verity of the situation.

    Based on the presumption that this referance you cited is an exaustedlistof relevant alws in the U.S. legal system, I support campaigning for laws that change this.

    I believe that when it comes to gross missconduct by a president against the people (the voting shareholders in government), that treason should be a relevant charge. I am not asking to hold your presidents accountable to me. Only to you, the American people. And I believe the crime should be the same for a civilian 2. If you lead the country into war on knowing lies, you are betraying your country. It is that simple.

    The only problem with this is that I am wary of power holders laying the blame on fall guys. I believe george bush knew he was lying, and that if he did not he should have. Because his claims were without any factual merit. (certainty of wmds, links to alqueda). It was all nonsense.

    And all of this presumes that there was no complicity/deliberate inaction regarding the septermber 11 attacks. IF (which I am far from presuming, but I am uncertain due to lack of relevant expertise and adequate research) George Bush (or any other American) knew of in advance, deliberately ignored in progress, planned or executed any action in support of this attack for any reason, treason would (IF it is the case) be grounds for treason, under the provision cited.

    I would like to think we could all agree on that. Not that he had any involvement, or that anyone else did. But that IF it were the case, treason would be the relevant charge.

    I hold no opinion on this (although I have read the project for a new American century, and do believe that they have clearly manipulating these events to achieve prestated ends), as im in no better position to judge than people who argue either way about the issue. But I figure its worth bringing up, considering how many people believe that this is what happened.
    Last edited by Real Talk; 12-23-08 at 09:01 PM.

  9. #119
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    From FactCheck.org:

    LINK
    You see how easy it is to be more accurate if you check these things?
    Excuse me, but you didn't prove the assertion was false. You just proved that there is a chance that what Bush said was "unlikely". And there is also a chance that it is true.

  10. #120
    Banned Billo_Really's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    HBCA
    Last Seen
    01-14-09 @ 09:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    18,930

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057857769]
    So it is nationalistic to uphold our constitutional sovereignity over a world body that is trying to usurp it?

    So WE in the U.S.A. have to give up OUR rights to self-governance to make YOU and YOUR country feel better? Not gonna happen.

    Good, because the concept of international law is a joke.

    There was no treason, plain and simple.
    It is equally un-American to turn your back on the values that are the cornerstones of this country. Which is the rule of law. When you break it, you need to be held accountable. Especially, when your actions have the destructive results that Bush's actions have had towards this country. We are not giving up any Constitutional authority trying him for war crimes. We would be showing the world that we are not a nation of god-damn hypocrits!

Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •