• 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

MachuPicchu

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
113
Reaction score
30
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Calls are getting more, not less, obvious in the public spectrum. So the question is, will we see prosecutions of public officials and are they justified?

To me, it is not a left vs right issue. This isn't just about Bush/Cheney. It is an issue of the highest ethical implications. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. Our public leaders must be held responsible for criminal actions. We must set a precedent that politicians are not above the law, regardless of their motivations.

It no longer is a fringe position to hold that we need to bring this to court and systematically determine if people committed war crimes. It is now a fringe position to ignore the overwhelming evidence that crimes very likely were committed.
 
We won't see any prosecutions. War crimes prosecutions are for countries that lose wars on their home turf, and they're nothing more than a means for victorious countries to install more pliable governments once they're ready to withdraw.

Noone's going to win a war on American soil in the immediate future, and both Bush and Cheney are probably going to be dead in their graves before it ever happens.
 
We won't see any prosecutions. War crimes prosecutions are for countries that lose wars on their home turf, and they're nothing more than a means for victorious countries to install more pliable governments once they're ready to withdraw.
There is nothing inherent about war crime prosecutions that state they can only happen after a government is overturned.

It just so happens that in the past, the only way to bring to light war crimes is by toppling the government who manipulates public opinion. That is no longer the case with the free flow of information due to the advent of the internet. The media still holds significant sway in terms of public opinion, but things can no longer be ignored as blogging and less prevalent journalism has a medium to inform the public.
 
There is nothing inherent about war crime prosecutions that state they can only happen after a government is overturned.

It just so happens that in the past, the only way to bring to light war crimes is by toppling the government who manipulates public opinion. That is no longer the case with the free flow of information due to the advent of the internet. The media still holds significant sway in terms of public opinion, but things can no longer be ignored as blogging and less prevalent journalism has a medium to inform the public.

Your post suggests an unfamiliarity with the facts.

Present your case without the typical piling on of the emotional, rhetorical useless BS that many zealots often do when trying to make their case, ok?

If you please, (and if you can) just include the kind of charges you'd anticipate and the example of how you think Bushco might have been guilty.
 
Your post suggests an unfamiliarity with the facts.
Really? This seems like an ignorant claim. Just because I didn't outline the details for you doesn't mean I'm not familiar with them. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.


Present your case without the typical piling on of the emotional, rhetorical useless BS that many zealots often do when trying to make their case, ok?
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and many within the Pentagon (to name a few) had sufficient evidence from the CIA to show that their justification for going to war was faulty. They manipulated and misconstrued the evidence and presented to the public information they knew to be highly suspect at best to bring our country to war.

Fiasco is an excellent overview of what occurred. Vincent Bugliosi presents an excellent case for prosecution of Bush for murder. Although it is an extreme goal, it could easily be used for war crimes as well.

Cheney has also admitted to authorizing water boarding. Water boarding is - by any conventional definition of the word - torture. We are signatories of the Geneva Convention which prohibits all forms of torture and under international law is considered a war crime. Therefore Cheney has admitted to authorizing warcrimes.


If you please, (and if you can) just include the kind of charges you'd anticipate and the example of how you think Bushco might have been guilty.
Violation of human rights under the Geneva Convention including, but not limited to torture and/or inhumane treatment (waterboarding), depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial (GITMO), and unlawful deportation (Extraordinary rendition).

These are not "might be guilty", these are things we've admitted to doing. These are things the rest of the world views as crimes. It's not a matter of if they've committed war crimes, it a matter of whether we as a country have the balls to pursuit justice. It's a matter of identifying who had a role, and who should be held accountable.
 
Last edited:
And let me be clear, if these people who I feel have committed crimes have actually NOT committed crimes then they deserve to have their names cleared in a comprehensive investigation. I believe this is something that both the left and the right can agree on. We need to uphold the law of our land. Unless there is an underlying reason why you would not want an investigation into such claims, it seems that both the left and the right should be actively pursuing the truth to ensure those in the government are upholding their sworn duties.
 
We won't see any prosecutions. War crimes prosecutions are for countries that lose wars on their home turf, and they're nothing more than a means for victorious countries to install more pliable governments once they're ready to withdraw.

Noone's going to win a war on American soil in the immediate future, and both Bush and Cheney are probably going to be dead in their graves before it ever happens.
Although your statement is more true than false, it is also un-American and irresponsible. If we don't hold our elected officials to the same standard we receive, then this country has lost its way. And if you think people shouldn't be held resoponsible for their actions, then you must think being an irresponsible adult is a good thing.
 
Calls are getting more, not less, obvious in the public spectrum. So the question is, will we see prosecutions of public officials and are they justified?

To me, it is not a left vs right issue. This isn't just about Bush/Cheney. It is an issue of the highest ethical implications. It is not about revenge, it is about justice. Our public leaders must be held responsible for criminal actions. We must set a precedent that politicians are not above the law, regardless of their motivations.

It no longer is a fringe position to hold that we need to bring this to court and systematically determine if people committed war crimes. It is now a fringe position to ignore the overwhelming evidence that crimes very likely were committed.

You are either lying or fooling yourself when you say this is not a right verses left/fringe issue.The only ones screaming war criminal are the die hard Bush bashers,the Cindy Sheehans,Code pink and other retards.
 
. . . no longer the case with the free flow of information due to the advent of the internet. . .
Information may flow freely, but were it absorbed freely, I expect that the general public in the West would be so terrified by what they learned of Militant Islam, that they might well laud Bush an Cheney as the heroes of the age, and demand greater military action.
 
You are either lying or fooling yourself when you say this is not a right verses left/fringe issue.The only ones screaming war criminal are the die hard Bush bashers,the Cindy Sheehans,Code pink and other retards.
It's more like the only ones who are arguing against war crimes trials are those treasonous American's who give blind allegiance to the flag much like the Christian Germans did with Hitler in Weimar Germany many years ago. I think you'd make a very good German. Never question. Always obey. The government is always right, even when it's wrong. If the government doesn't abide by the Supreme Law of the Land, it's okay. I really don't see how you sleep at night or tell people you're an American citizen. Because the things you say are un-American and the things you do show that you really don't care about your civic duty to this country.
 
Information may flow freely, but were it absorbed freely, I expect that the general public in the West would be so terrified by what they learned of Militant Islam, that they might well laud Bush an Cheney as the heroes of the age, and demand greater military action.
Until they bring forth such evidence, the majority of American's have said, "Is that it? Is this all you've got?"

I bet if Dick Cheney walked into your family's home, walked over to your mother, put a shotgun to her head and pulled the trigger, you'd think it was done for national security reason's and be okay with it.
 
Ah!
Very interesting, accusations from a swindler, who headed a decadent and useless boondoggle.

And he has such a good record of preventing conflict and terrorism, too in the Imaginary World where the U.N. is relevant.

Well that should certainly lead to something. Dismissal Annan's statements out of hand comes to mind.

All completely irrelevant. You didn't even try to counter the charge that the Iraq war broke international law. You tried to slander instead. Very telling.

He's an idiot whose opinions should matter not to anyone who values American sovereignty and american Primacy.

Alright Slobodan.
 
Until they bring forth such evidence, the majority of American's have said, "Is that it? Is this all you've got?"

I bet if Dick Cheney walked into your family's home, walked over to your mother, put a shotgun to her head and pulled the trigger, you'd think it was done for national security reason's and be okay with it.

I think you are lying but if he did that-you would blame the shotgun.
 
He's an idiot whose opinions should matter not to anyone who values American sovereignty and american Primacy.
He was also the Secretary General of the UN and it was his job to know UN policy. Think what you want to about Kofi, but you cannot take that fact away from him. It would be like someone you've consulted to think you don't know anything about court procedure's.
 
All completely irrelevant. You didn't even try to counter the charge that the Iraq war broke international law. You tried to slander instead. Very telling.



Alright Slobodan.
Ad hominum's are one of the most favorite debating technique's at this website.
 
Until they bring forth such evidence, the majority of American's have said, "Is that it? Is this all you've got?"

I bet if Dick Cheney walked into your family's home, walked over to your mother, put a shotgun to her head and pulled the trigger, you'd think it was done for national security reason's and be okay with it.
You're post is foolishness, of course.

The information on the nature of Militant Islam is freely available. The serious student is advised to begin with a study of the Koran, Hadith and current popular movements in Traditional Islamic regimes, and to set aside the comfortable, and objectionable modern tendency amongst the fearful to invent imaginary evils instead of confronting actual ones.

Courage is essential to survival in a hostile world, after all. A few moments of honest reflection will reveal the wisdom of this fact to all but the most intransigently timid.

A Perusal of the history of Islamic conquest is from the Middle Ages forward is also not to be neglected.

Carry on.
 
You are either lying or fooling yourself when you say this is not a right verses left/fringe issue.The only ones screaming war criminal are the die hard Bush bashers,the Cindy Sheehans,Code pink and other retards.

I said that for ME it's not a right vs left issue.

And it's hardly just the die hard Bush bashers, Cindy Sheehans, etc. that are calling for it too. But go ahead and keep thinking that.
 
You're post is foolishness, of course.

The information on the nature of Militant Islam is freely available. The serious student is advised to begin with a study of the Koran, Hadith and current popular movements in Traditional Islamic regimes, and to set aside the comfortable, and objectionable modern tendency amongst the fearful to invent imaginary evils instead of confronting actual ones.

Courage is essential to survival in a hostile world, after all. A few moments of honest reflection will reveal the wisdom of this fact to all but the most intransigently timid.

A Perusal of the history of Islamic conquest is from the Middle Ages forward is also not to be neglected.

Carry on.
Call it what you will, but I don't think Islam is anything you need courage to face. It's just a religion. Like Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, etc. And if you're going to make a case for something, like going to war, it is up to YOU to present your evidence. It is not up to me to find it for you. Especially, when the evidence in question doesn't exist. If it did, produce it. If it didn't, then ****ing drop it!
 
All completely irrelevant. You didn't even try to counter the charge that the Iraq war broke international law. You tried to slander instead. Very telling.



Alright Slobodan.

Who is this hysterical faerie :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom