• 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!

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

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

  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    Votes: 3 6.3%

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

    Votes: 4 8.3%

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

    Votes: 14 29.2%

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

    Votes: 27 56.3%
  • Total voters
    48
Real Talk said:
God damn.
Both of you. You need to learn to use the english language before you debate.
Click to expand...
I see things havent changed.

Treason:
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.
Click to expand...
Artilce III Section 3, US Constititon.
US Constitution
 
Real Talk said:
God damn.
My curiosity seems to have gotten the better of me again
anyways
Dictionary.com

trea⋅son

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.



Both of you. You need to learn to use the english language before you debate.
Click to expand...

Usually when the meaning you're trying to label is that far down the list its best to use a different word.
 
shiznit770 said:
Usually when the meaning you're trying to label is that far down the list its best to use a different word.
Click to expand...
Its also helpful to cite a relevant source.
 
shiznit770 said:
Usually when the meaning you're trying to label is that far down the list its best to use a different word.
Click to expand...

Maybe when 2 of 3 of the entries in the dictionary cover the crimes comitted you should understand what it is.
It is not my fault if the only time you have heard the term treason is when someone has tried to overthrow a king. It can be used to describe all kinds of violation of duty to state. For example, serving in a foreign army fighting AMerica is likely treason. And misrepresenting inteligence, for example. If an adivsor lied to a king, he would be guilty of treason. And in a democracy, if an elected sovereign betrays a legal bond of his office to the people, this is treasonouse.
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
Maybe when 2 of 3 of the entries in the dictionary cover the crimes comitted you should understand what it is.
Click to expand...
The dictionary's definition isnt relevant to US law.

It is not my fault if the only time you have heard the term treason is when someone has tried to overthrow a king. It can be used to describe all kinds of abuses of power. It can be used to describe all kinds of violation of duty to state. And misrepresenting inteligence, for example. If an adivsor lied to a king, he would be guilty of treason. And in a democracy, if an elected sovereign betrays a legal bond of his office to the people, this is treasonouse
Click to expand...
Not according to US law, which is very specific as to its definition of treason.

Now, you can not like the fact that you are wrong, but you should at least admit it, even if only to yourself.
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
Maybe when 2 of 3 of the entries in the dictionary cover the crimes comitted you should understand what it is.
It is not my fault if the only time you have heard the term treason is when someone has tried to overthrow a king. It can be used to describe all kinds of violation of duty to state. For example, serving in a foreign army fighting AMerica is likely treason. And misrepresenting inteligence, for example. If an adivsor lied to a king, he would be guilty of treason. And in a democracy, if an elected sovereign betrays a legal bond of his office to the people, this is treasonouse.
Click to expand...

Which one applies besides -

3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Click to expand...

And can you give any examples which my suggest your assertion is true?

I don't like Bush either, but he is not guilty of treason.
 
shiznit770 said:
Which one applies besides -
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Click to expand...
And can you give any examples which my suggest your assertion is true?
Click to expand...
As if -that- standard is relevant...
 
Goobieman said:
As if -that- standard is relevant...
Click to expand...

You may enjoy debating other people in your own restricted context, but I do not. I think its a cheap self-satisfying practice and rarely results in interesting or meaningful debate.
 
shiznit770 said:
You may enjoy debating other people in your own restricted context, but I do not. I think its a cheap self-satisfying practice and rarely results in interesting or meaningful debate.
Click to expand...
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.
 
shiznit770 said:
Which one applies besides -



And can you give any examples which my suggest your assertion is true?

I don't like Bush either, but he is not guilty of treason.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Real Talk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shiznit770 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:roll:
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.
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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"
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.:rofl

As for the treason charge I make,I will nto discuss it with people that struggle with the word "if".
Click to expand...
And I will limit it to people who understand the DEFINITION as spelled out by the U.S. Constituition.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
shiznit770 said:
malicious or in conflict with the general good of the nation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Real Talk said:
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).
Click to expand...

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:
Oftencold said:
From FactCheck.org:

LINK
You see how easy it is to be more accurate if you check these things?
Click to expand...
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.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So it is nationalistic to uphold our constitutional sovereignity over a world body that is trying to usurp it?:roll:

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.
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
 
Hey Oftencold! I answered your questions. Are you going to answer mine? Or run away like you've just seen a killer rabbit?

That's too bad, I was just starting to like you.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
Hey Oftencold! I answered your questions. Are you going to answer mine? Or run away like you've just seen a killer rabbit?

That's too bad, I was just starting to like you.
Click to expand...
Remain calm!

I am researching answers to your post, as I believe they deserve that respect. I am also dealing with a toothache, the announcement that my job will not be funded after the turn of the year and lack of sleep resulting from the first two issues.

As far as liking me, that is a risk I do not generally advise, as I am an odd and very archaic sort of friend. This is to say that I have from time to time filled the role of people last friend. That is, the one that is still there when they've managed to drive all the others away. Visiting friends in prison though, or sitting up with them through crises of one strip or another can be terribly tedious, causing me to lose some of my customary charm.

I am also a friend that makes very much out of vogue demands on others in matters of honor and such.

Tonight, I'll be working a twelve hour fill-in shift at the power plant, so that the family guys can be at home on Christmas Eve. I had hoped to spend the free time thee to respond properly to your material, and will plan still on doing so.

[I have addressed some personal items here, which I do not like to do. However, I have reasons for doing so in this instance that I do not wish to elaborate upon --OC]
 
Billo_Really said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right, and the rule of law is not on your side, everything since the outbreak of the war was done constitutionally.
When you break it, you need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
Correct, but since laws were not broken there is no justification for the actions of the far left anti-war movement, hence, they are exclusively Un-American.
Especially, when your actions have the destructive results that Bush's actions have had towards this country.
Click to expand...
You'll have to do more than empty emoting here, what damages are you talking about? Last I checked the war hasn't damaged us personally or internally.
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!
Click to expand...
Bull ****, the constitution does not allow for an international body to try the president of the United States, especially since the constitution was not violated in any way, shape, form, or logical stretch of the imagination. Also, we deal with our own affairs, I don't care how many pro "international law" nations are butt hurt that we don't give a damn about their lack of authority in the matter, the constitution must be upheld.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a chance that I'm a cloned space alien with a cybernetic implant taking instructions from an orbiting mothership too. Again, it is highly unlikely.
At some point, we have to say that the burden of proof is on the party or person asserting the unlikely position.
 
Oftencold said:
There is a chance that I'm a cloned space alien with a cybernetic implant taking instructions from an orbiting mothership too. Again, it is highly unlikely.
At some point, we have to say that the burden of proof is on the party or person asserting the unlikely position.
Click to expand...
You're trying to use an analogy that is off the planet and unrealistic with an issue that is quite real and very likely considering Bush's track record. Bush believes in a "unitary" Presidency. He also thinks God told him to run for President. With that in mind, it is very likely Bush would think the Constitution is just a piece of paper after someone had the gall to tell him some of the things in the Patriot Act were un-Constitutional. It is Bush's own MO to react that way. So your analogy falls far from its mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom