• 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!

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

Sarcogito said:
Who is talking about grabbing anyone? There are only a couple countries in the world that would enter the borders of another sovereign nation to retrieve a wanted criminal. I doubt Malaysia is one of them. The only chance a former US President has of being arrested is if he is arrested by a foreign nation while he is visiting that foreign nation. And I doubt even Bush would be dumb enough to travel to a country where he is a wanted criminal. And if he was stupid enough to do it anyway, I doubt there would be any sort of invasion to get him back and the few Secret Service agents that travel with former Presidents wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop it.

It is fun to think about, but it won’t happen. We’re the bully on the block and there is nothing little countries like Malaysia can do about it, even when they are in the right.
Click to expand...

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. In most countries-the ones you probably worship the most-you'd be jailed or shot for saying the same thing about the leadership
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

this isn't the conspiracy forum. No tinfoil hats please
 
True. No President is going to allow the precedent to be set that you can arrest former Presidents of the United States. You arrest Bush, you go to war with the United States, and your military effectively ceases to exist.
 
cpwill said:
True. No President is going to allow the precedent to be set that you can arrest former Presidents of the United States. You arrest Bush, you go to war with the United States, and your military effectively ceases to exist.
Click to expand...


and those who ordered such things should get the Barrett 50 caliber lobotomy
 
Res Cogitans said:
What does Obama have to do with this? I doubt Obama gets a free pass on his drone war. I'd suspect that the Malaysians aren't as blined by American Partisan politics as most Americans are.

The issue here is one of two lines of questioning: 1) Should American Presidents be immune to international law? If so, why? 2) Are courts like this even legitimate in the first place? Should they be? and what would it take for them to earn legitimacy?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
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.
 
cpwill said:
True. No President is going to allow the precedent to be set that you can arrest former Presidents of the United States. You arrest Bush, you go to war with the United States, and your military effectively ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

If i were president i would let Bush and the rest be arrested. They all broke international laws reguarding many of which were set in place by the US. They deserve to be prosecuted as any other citizen would now.
 
muciti said:
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

BalancedPolitics.org - War on Iraq (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

Start with these. Keep reading up on your own.

Recommended Reading


Why Iraq Was Inevitable (article by Arthur Herman)
The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein
The Saddam-al Qaeda link
12 Iraqi War Myths from Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time
Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror - by Deroy Murdock
Debunking 8 anti-war myths lied about the conflict in Iraq
WMD Stockpiles Or No Stockpiles: 11 Reasons Why We Were Right To Hit Iraq
The Mother of All Connections (between Iraq and al-Qaeda)
Life Under Saddam Hussein (White House press release)
See men shredded, then say you don't back war
IRAQ- some links to terror by 'backhoe'
Links to articles connecting Saddam, Al Qaeda, and terrorism by 'peach'
The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (book by Stephen Hayes)
Saddam: King of Terror (book by Con Coughlin)
WMD: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein (movie/documentary)
Translating the Iraq Documents (blog by jveritas)
Regime of Terror: Documenting Saddam Hussein's Support of Terrorism (blog by Mark Eichenlaub)
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Download FlowPlayer (free video player for the web)
Download videos from Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.
The New York Times - search news articles going back to 1851
Google News Archive Search - historical archives going back decades
NewsLibrary.com - news research made easy
Click to expand...

I took the trouble to read all the direct links you supplied.

I was already familiar with the information provided in the Wikipedia article, and nothing therein legally justified the invasion of sovereign territory.

The other references were an American blog, an American discussion forum, and a diatribe against Islam in general by another American blog. 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.
 
cpwill said:
True. No President is going to allow the precedent to be set that you can arrest former Presidents of the United States. You arrest Bush, you go to war with the United States, and your military effectively ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but why should this be so?
 
Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leo said:
That may be the case, but why should this be so?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Don't forget Obama, who continued the policies. The mouthfoaming that occurs in these threads is laughable.
 
DaveFagan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
It's funny they don't find horrible dictators around the world guilty of many criminal wrongdoing including murder...
 
Yeah, you have to wonder when the America bashers in Malaysia and here on this forum start demanding the trial of Robert Mugabe or some of the real despots in this world. I'm guessing 'never' would be the answer to that.
 
Res Cogitans said:
2) Are courts like this even legitimate in the first place? Should they be? and what would it take for them to earn legitimacy?
Click to expand...

The International Criminal Court is the only official tribunal to prosecute war criminals and the decision reached by the Malaysian tribunal is meant to be a mere symbolic gesture. 41 UN member states have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute including China, India and the US, which undermines the ICC's legitimacy because only a state party accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crimes.
 
ThirdTerm said:
The International Criminal Court is the only official tribunal to prosecute war criminals and the decision reached by the Malaysian tribunal is meant to be a mere symbolic gesture. 41 UN member states have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute including China, India and the US, which undermines the ICC's legitimacy because only a state party accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crimes.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that doesn't mean it this foolish Malaysian group of nobodies won't encourage the goofy leftists of the world. This is what they live for.
 
305rob305 said:
It's funny they don't find horrible dictators around the world guilty of many criminal wrongdoing including murder...
Click to expand...

How do you know? Who do they even try?
 
Sarcogito said:
Many Americans don't give a damn what rest of the world thinks. The "My country, right or wrong" attitude is far too prevelant. Other countries better not step out of line, but we can do what we want.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom