• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Politicians aren't accountable, but corrupt just like the system. They will never see justice..
 
If you truley desire for presidents of the U.S. to be held accountable to international law, you must crusade for the anknowlegement of the relevant international courts juristiction within the U.S.

Sadly, I think this will be an uphill battle. As all presidential aspirants know that were they to acknowlege it that they will then become accountable to these courts themselves. I do not think that the elites of either major party will open themselves to this without SUBSTANTIAL preasure being put upon them.

And this is not excuses for wrong doings. I am not speaking of morality in this post at all. I am saing that if you want to see presidents held accountable to the world for their actions on the world stage, this is the only avenue through which I think it is achievable. And to be honest, as far as international courts go, it is probably to late for george bush. In my opinion, if we do see him appear before an international court, he will likely be an old man.

Real talk, not barbaric war monger apologism.





p.s. I saw a film on a simmilar topic called "the trial of tony blaire".
It is a dramatic film about tony blaire being fed to the wolves.
It is very funny. He cant believe its hapening. His conversation with hillary clinton (the now president of the u.s. in the film) is priceless
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
If you truley desire for presidents of the U.S. to be held accountable to international law, you must crusade for the anknowlegement of the relevant international courts juristiction within the U.S.
Click to expand...
The international court does not and never should have jurisdiction in the U.S. we are a sovereign nation. Why would you want other countries having a say in our laws?

Sadly, I think this will be an uphill battle. As all presidential aspirants know that were they to acknowlege it that they will then become accountable to these courts themselves. I do not think that the elites of either major party will open themselves to this without SUBSTANTIAL preasure being put upon them.
Click to expand...
We will handle our own business in-house, thank you very much, but we will wait until actual crimes are committed if that's alright with you.

And this is not excuses for wrong doings. I am not speaking of morality in this post at all. I am saing that if you want to see presidents held accountable to the world for their actions on the world stage, this is the only avenue through which I think it is achievable. And to be honest, as far as international courts go, it is probably to late for george bush. In my opinion, if we do see him appear before an international court, he will likely be an old man.
Click to expand...
F the world and their opinions when it comes down to our sovereign law, our constitution, and our self-defense. Our business, our law, our problem.

Real talk, not barbaric war monger apologism.
Click to expand...
What's barbaric about self-defense?
Click to expand...
 
MachuPicchu said:
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.


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.


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.
Click to expand...

Unless your trial happens here, it's meaningless -- and its not going happen here, so...
 
Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
 
Oftencold said:
Sources please!

I do find your lack of comprehension amusing, but only because I am too tired to work up annoyance.

What you think of as items of "Ancient History" are in the Muslim World current affairs. If you fail to grasp this extremely basic fact of Islamic Militancy, then your positions are not to be taken seriously.

Normally, I would cite sources for you. But since you seem to reject what I have already posted, I fear that there is little point.

But to take a stab at your question, the greatest threat to the Constitution of this, or indeed any Republic, is an ignorant population of state-dependent persons who fail to exercise analytical thinking or accept the hard truths that a must be assimilated by individuals wishing to develop a mature character.

Such individuals have allowed themselves to become serfs, and await the coming of their masters.

Carry on.
Click to expand...


"The CIA paied for, organized, trained, and equiped the backbone of modern day 'Islamic extremeist' groups especially through the ISI (the inteligence arm of the ISLAMIC republic of Pakistan, who your government gives millions of $s in military aid to every year)."



"After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen.[50] In 1981, following the election of United States President Ronald Reagan, aid for the mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos. "

"The United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year"

Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

( Eduardo Real: "Zbigniew Brzezinski, Defeated by his Success" (50))

( Kepel, Gilles, Jihad, Belknap, (2002), p.143 (51))


"The Pakistani government gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside the militant Afghan movement, according to newly released US official documents.

""The documents illustrate that throughout the 1990's the ISI [Pakistani intelligence] considered Islamic extremists to be foreign policy assets," Barbara Elias, a National Security Archive researcher, said. "But they succeeded ultimately in creating a Pakistani Taliban. "

US documents show Pakistan gave Taliban military aid | World news | The Guardian

"The Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A special Afghan Section was created under the command of colonel Mohammed Yousaf to oversee the coordination of the war. A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, specifically the fighters loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The United States of America provided technical assistance and financial support to Afghan Mujahideen through ISI. "

Inter-Services Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Despite billions of dollars in U.S. military payments to Pakistan over the last six years, the paramilitary force leading the pursuit of Al Qaeda militants remains underfunded, poorly trained and overwhelmingly outgunned, U.S. military and intelligence officials said. "

Pakistan fails to aim billions in U.S. military aid at Al Qaeda - Los Angeles Times


PATRIOT VS CONSTITUTION

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

()

Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to define the term "domestic terrorism" as a counterpart to the current definition of "international terrorism" in 18 U.S.C. §2331. The new definition for "domestic terrorism" is for the limited purpose of providing investigative authorities (i.e., court orders, warrants, etc.) for acts of terrorism within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Such offenses are those that are "(1) dangerous to human life and violate the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a civilian population; influence government policy intimidation or coercion; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or a threat of)." Same as Administration proposal.

Sec. 806. Assets of terrorists organizations. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to provide that the assets of individuals and organizations engaged in planning or perpetrating acts of terrorism against the United States, as well as the proceeds and instrumentalities of such acts, are subject to civil forfeiture. Same as original Administration proposal.

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to add criminal violations relating to terrorism to the list of predicate statutes in the criminal procedures for interception of communications under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code. Not in original Administration proposal.

Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to add criminal violations relating to computer fraud and abuse to the list of predicate statutes in the criminal procedures for interception of communications under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code. Not in original Administration proposal.

Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to modify current statutory provisions on access to telephone, bank, and credit records in counterintelligence investigations to remove the "agent of a foreign power" standard.

Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the FISA. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to remove the "agent of a foreign power" standard for court-ordered access to certain business records under FISA and expands the scope of court orders to include access to other records and tangible items. The authority may be used for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities or to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning U.S. persons.

[url=http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/102401a.html]Section by Section Analysis of the USA Patriot Act - October 2001

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)




Your Sources

1. The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe by Lorenzo Vidino

Lorenzo Vidino is a research analyst for the Investigative Project. Whos director is Steven Emerson

"Emerson has also been known to be a major cause in the firing of Muslim govt. jobs, all because of pure exaggeration and hate.
Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:"

Steven Emerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Spread By the Sword By by Mark Hartwig

”[On the other hand, Christians shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that their Muslim neighbors are bomb-toting fanatics: Even Muslims who believe in militant jihad don’t necessarily like violence.
Instead of fearing or hating Muslims, Christians should view them in light of our duty to preach the gospel. For as 2 Tim. 1:7 reminds us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” ”
Islam: Spread by the Sword?

3. History of Spain Before During and After the Muslim Conquest

Could not find this book on Amazon.com but is attributed to have ended in the 13th Century

Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ( A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE )

Ended in 1300

History of the Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire

5. Muslim Conquests

I have no idea what your referring to here, perhaps the 13 or so noted time period in which Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Persians fought in what is currently referred to as the middle east?

6. The Islamic Justification for Killing Non-Combatants in War By Ms. Yael Shahar

“Ms. Yael Shahar served as a reservist in the IDF hostage rescue unit, and as a sniper in Israel’s Border Guard “Matmid” units.” - Would it be possible to provide sources from less compromised sources?

ICT - Ms. Yael Shahar

7. Battle of Vienna

Citing a battle? I do not understand, is this single event supposed to prove that Muslims are inherently war like? If so I do not follow the reasoning considering the large number of Cristian wars, genocides and conquests.

8. Islamic conquest of Afghanistan

Again, Could not find a book with this exact name, and no author was provided so I assume that you take the action itself as proof, as I have sourced above, this was not only supported, but in large part paid for the USA.

9. Khazar–Arab Wars

Ended 737 AD

Khazar–Arab Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
. . . I am saing that if you want to see presidents held accountable to the world for their actions on the world stage. . .
Click to expand...
Open the window, turn on the TV, read the newspaper. Learn what the world is.

Then you should see that it is a suicidal concept to court "world opinion," in much the same way as it is to seek the approval of a criminal mob.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
Click to expand...

Because everyone involved in the war (soldiers and security forces) are pure of heart and would never take advantage of their situation(sarcasm). Perhaps war crimes is not the appropriate term, since most agree Iraq is no longer at war.

War crimes exist, but they certainly are not justified in the case of Bush or Cheney. Putting our armed forces up on a pedestal where there can be no wrong is dangerous and ignorant.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because our laws trump theirs, any attempt to enforce international law on our sovereign shores would be an act of war, and we would destroy them if the attempt was made.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know much about international law.

How is he treasonist? Nevermind, you couldn't prove your case because their isn't one. And where is your proof the president lied? Nevermind, you don't have any.
Click to expand...

That's all been proved here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Seek and ye shall find... and be edumacated.
Click to expand...
 
ADK_Forever said:
LaMidRighter said:
You obviously don't know much about international law.
Click to expand...
Don't have to since it does not supercede long standing U.S. Constitutional law for sovereign affairs.


That's all been proved here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Seek and ye shall find... and be edumacated.
Click to expand...
Then list some of these war crimes and specifically tell me how they violated the Geneva Conventions, or U.S. War Powers doctrine. This oughta be classic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cheat3 said:
"The CIA . . .

Pakistan fails to aim billions in U.S. military aid at Al Qaeda - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


Point?

cheat3 said:
PATRIOT VS CONSTITUTION

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
. . .

Section by Section Analysis of the USA Patriot Act - October 2001

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)
Click to expand...

Yes, an act ratified by Congress, with a pretty good record of standing up to legal challenges in the courts. One that also is reported to have been useful in preventing further attacks by savages.

But I hardly think that it rises to the level of a crime at all, much less an internationally actionable war crime.
cheat3 said:
Your Sources

1. The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe by Lorenzo Vidino

Lorenzo Vidino is a research analyst for the Investigative Project. Whos director is Steven Emerson

"Emerson has also been known to be a major cause in the firing of Muslim govt. jobs, all because of pure exaggeration and hate.
Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:"

Steven Emerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Apparently Mr Emerson is a very good source, as, "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." This is from the same article.

Curiously, the material that you cite here, has just recently added to the wiki by someone with a poor grammatical style that oddly, I believe looks a bit familiar.

The Criticsm section until a few days ago in toto was:

Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.[3] In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:
Emerson's book, The Fall of Pan Am 103, was chastised by the Columbia Journalism Review, which noted in July 1990 that passages "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. Reporters from the Syracuse newspaper told this writer that they cornered Emerson at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference and forced an apology.[4]
​
The New York Times also criticized Emerson's accusation that Iran was behind the bombing.
But instead of weaving these revelations into the day-to-day story of the investigation, they drop them almost casually at the end, without much substantiation.[5]
​
Emerson also accused Muslims of being behind the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The false accusations led to "a backlash against the American Muslim community during the first few days after the explosion."
Click to expand...
cheat3 said:
2. Spread By the Sword By by Mark Hartwig

”[On the other hand, Christians shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that their Muslim neighbors are bomb-toting fanatics: Even Muslims who believe in militant jihad don’t necessarily like violence.
Instead of fearing or hating Muslims, Christians should view them in light of our duty to preach the gospel. For as 2 Tim. 1:7 reminds us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” ”
Click to expand...
In the same article the more dilligent reader will find
Modernist interpretations notwithstanding, it is clear that military jihad—even in its expansionist form—is an authentic part of Islam.
No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

Furthermore, the traditional doctrine of jihad remains alive to this day.
This means that Christians should not accept the sweeping claim that Islam is a religion of peace. There’s just too much contrary evidence.
Modernist interpretations notwithstanding, it is clear that military jihad—even in its expansionist form—is an authentic part of Islam.

No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

Furthermore, the traditional doctrine of jihad remains alive to this day.
This means that Christians should not accept the sweeping claim that Islam is a religion of peace. There’s just too much contrary evidence.
Click to expand...
Islam: Spread by the Sword?
cheat3 said:
3. History of Spain Before During and After the Muslim Conquest

Could not find this book on Amazon.com but is attributed to have ended in the 13th Century

Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Try clicking on the link in the post.

The point was to show that Islam had a long history of violent expansion. I take it that you concede this point, since you cite another reference to the 800 year battle to expel the Muslims Invaders from Europe.
cheat3 said:
4. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ( A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE )

Ended in 1300
Click to expand...

This would no doubt come as something of a stunning revelation to the Ottomans still serving in the regime in the 1920's.

Thirteen hundred was the second year of the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire . . . was an empire that lasted from 1299–1923. It was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey,[3] which was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923.
Click to expand...
LINK


History of the Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire
cheat3 said:
5. Muslim Conquests

I have no idea what your referring to here, perhaps the 13 or so noted time period in which Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Persians fought in what is currently referred to as the middle east?
Click to expand...
The clear point, was to show once again that Traditional Islam is a violently expansive body, with a history of forceful annexation going back to its inception.
cheat3 said:
6. The Islamic Justification for Killing Non-Combatants in War By Ms. Yael Shahar

“Ms. Yael Shahar served as a reservist in the IDF hostage rescue unit, and as a sniper in Israel’s Border Guard “Matmid” units.” - Would it be possible to provide sources from less compromised sources?
ICT - Ms. Yael Shahar
Click to expand...
You have a number in my earlier post to choose from. I find it amusing, ironic and sad, that you find a source with direct experience "compromised." This suggests a deliberate aversion to contradictory information.

cheat3 said:
7. Battle of Vienna

Citing a battle? I do not understand, is this single event supposed to prove that Muslims are inherently war like? If so I do not follow the reasoning considering the large number of Cristian wars, genocides and conquests.
Click to expand...
It is true, you simply do not understand. The battle of Vienna was the culminatios of an aggressive war of conquest. Once again, this demonstrates a long history of Islamic aggression against Western territories.
cheat3 said:
8. Islamic conquest of Afghanistan

Again, Could not find a book with this exact name, and no author was provided so I assume that you take the action itself as proof, as I have sourced above, this was not only supported, but in large part paid for the USA.
Click to expand...
Again, the entry is hotlinked. Click on it and be amazed at the wonders of hypertext.
cheat3 said:
9. Khazar–Arab Wars

Ended 737 AD

Khazar–Arab Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Once afgain illustrating the long histrotr of traditonal Islamic Agression.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Really, then what is American about those who have done NOTHING but stand in the way?
Click to expand...

Because they had the courage to stand up and say out loud 'NO! A WAR WITH IRAQ IS WRONG!!" in spite of the consequences, the attacks against their character, the association with 9-11 and how by being against the war in Iraq = support for OBL, Saddam Hussein, etc.

Rather than caving into 'intelligence' which to the attentive person was clearly somwhere between an attempt at 'warmongering' and completely fabricated (which, thankfully I was right on that one... because for how dangerous Saddam was claimed to be, if he DID have these WMD's he would have unleashed them with the grandest fury he could muster before his inevitable defeat. It's like, say you're at the bar and you see a guy with a gun, a reasonable analogy would be to choose that guy walk up and punch him in the face... in other words, you'd be BEGGING to get shot)


Navy Pride said:
Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
Click to expand...

Listen, the only reason it hasn't been proven to 'neo-con' allies is that anytime it does get proven, the bar is raised and told that the 'proof' is inadequate, 'debunked' or 'irrelevant',

Hell, I even found a video of high ranking Bush officials discussing : duration, severity and METHOD of torture for specific detainees, IN THE WHITEHOUSE where one of the guys is quoted to saying 'history will not look kindly upon us discussing this in the whitehouse." and it was deemed irrelevant???

It's nothing short of denial of Bush and co. wrongdoing. I mean, the media isn't debating whether or NOT Bush lied, but rather COUNTING THE OFFENCES (between 100-900 infractions depending if we're talking Bush or Bush and all... there was one where they calculated the 'lying to speaking ratios in some members being upwards of .5 (meaning every second statement was FALSE)

Oftencold said:
Yes, an act ratified by Congress, with a pretty good record of standing up to legal challenges in the courts. One that also is reported to have been useful in preventing further attacks by savages.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a 'biased' question?? 'we can't have the first warning of Saddams WMD's coming in the form of a mushroom cloud... Do you want to stop Saddam from accomplishing this, or do you want an american city to get nuked??? You don't want an american city to get nuked, DO YOU?? Support the war.

I'm not saying that the question posed to congress was that blatantly biased, BUT they were essentially pressured into voting for the war/ misled.

But I hardly think that it rises to the level of a crime at all, much less an internationally actionable war crime.
Click to expand...

Yet the guy whose JOB it is is to PROTECT the constitution should be ALLOWED to KEEP his job after calling it a 'goddamned piece of paper' (yes, the words come out of Bush's mouth) is a SLAP IN THE FACE to EACH AN EVERY ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

Torture is wrong, waterboarding IS torture contrary to your claims, which I'd like to see you backup (or do you deny that the US conducts waterboarding??)

Apparently Mr Emerson is a very good source, as, "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." This is from the same article.
Click to expand...

I could list off at least 2 others that have video dated upwards of 3 months-1 year prior to 9-11 that there WOULD be an attack on the US, that it would be used to justify wars in the middle east (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan) one of them CITING the PNAC document as being a MESSAGE of INTENT... if you want I'll fish those videos out an post them for you to call 'irrelevant'.

The point was to show that Islam had a long history of violent expansion. I take it that you concede this point, since you cite another reference to the 800 year battle to expel the Muslims Invaders from Europe.
Click to expand...

These wars are as old as the Bible itself, and the happenings represented IN the bible, IMO, are the SOURCE of this unending conflict between what boils down to religious wars.

The clear point, was to show once again that Traditional Islam is a violently expansive body, with a history of forceful annexation going back to its inception.
Click to expand...

Much like Christianity... but we won't count that.
 
My post said that IF one desires to have george bush put on TRIAL for war crimes, that you would first need to achieve and acknowlegement of this courts juristiction. I knew most of you would not want this to happen, for this forum is quite nationalistic, and rather blind to the sins of its leadership. But this is another matter. As is weather the U.S. should or should not undertake such a policy.

My statement is factualy corect.

IF u want bush (or future presidents) on trial in a world court, the method to achieve this is pursuing an acknowlegement of the relevant international courts juristiction over u.s. citizens actions (in relation to international crimes).

Until this is done, george bush, or any other president, will not see an international court trial.

There is no point in debating this with me (at least in the manner psots have been) as my post is not one of normative idealism, but one of tactics in pursuit of an expressed (by other posters) ideal outcomes.


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 that pursuing charges of treason aggainst George Bush and his war mongering cabal (for misrepresenting inteligence). Although I am not a supporter of the death penalty, I belive that the relevant charge for treason would be execution, and I would not be in favor of any 'special treatment' in aplication of the law for someone who once presided as a governer of the state with roughly (or is it exactly?) death penalty sentances per anum.

So yeah, death penalty for treason or not. Debate that one IMO.
Or go make a thread about weather an acknowlegement of world courts over U.S. citizens is a good idea (which I doubt Ill post in). Cause further discusssion here with me about this is boarderline futile.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
Please cite your incontrovertible proof, I'd like to read and critique it. I look forward to it.
Click to expand...
Here's one of many of Bush's lies...
In what’s been called George W. Bush’s first exit interview, the outgoing President continues a lie that he first unveiled several months after launching the Iraq War, justifying the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein didn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.
Click to expand...
Here's another one...
Media Still Letting Bush Lie on Iraq Inspectors
ABC, WaPo fail to challenge president's misinformation

12/2/08

In a December 1 interview with ABC anchor Charles Gibson, George W. Bush gave a grossly erroneous history of the run-up to the Iraq War--a false version of events that Gibson failed to challenge and the Washington Post glossed over the following day.
Click to expand...
Or how about this one regarding Bush's false claims about the "yellowcake" in Niger Hussein was trying to get to make his "bomb"?
Ilana Mercer, "'Just War' for dummies," WorldNetDaily, March 12, 2003: "In the 2,000 kilometers he crisscrossed in three weeks of searching for nuclear-development activities, in the 75 facilities examined, in 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 newly discovered sites, Hans Blix's colleague, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, met with an 'overall deterioration' and disrepair in Iraqi infrastructure. No trace of firing up production, North Korea or Iran-style. ... The account makes polite mention of an investigation into reports (spread by the U.S.) regarding Iraq's uranium transactions. They were 'not authentic,' which is a refined way of informing reasonable minds what the American power-worshipping chattering classes (and networks) criminally conceal: They were forgeries, folks!"
Click to expand...
This was one of the examples of the "intel at the time" not going along with the Bush mantra. However, this comes from the actual nuclear experts at the UN. If anyone should know what Iraq was doing with any nuclear aspirations, it would be the IAEA. But Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, just blew them off! I could go on, but it's getting late.

I will say you still haven't addressed the point I raised earlier about us attacking a country that did not attack us first. How can you possibly consider yourself taking the "high ground" (as you stated on the other thread), when you are trying to justify a decision that has resulted in over a million people losing their lives and over 5 million people forced from their homes that are now living as refugees? How can you possibly consider yourself morally superior when you defend what we've done to these people? And it won't matter how much you say I need to read about Islam, you still haven't offered any evidence to refute what I just stated.
 
BmanMcfly said:
. . .

Yet the guy whose JOB it is is to PROTECT the constitution should be ALLOWED to KEEP his job after calling it a 'goddamned piece of paper' (yes, the words come out of Bush's mouth) is a SLAP IN THE FACE to EACH AN EVERY ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS. . .
Click to expand...
From FactCheck.org:
Q: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses
.
A:Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.
Click to expand...
LINK
You see how easy it is to be more accurate if you check these things?
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
I see. :doh
Click to expand...
Obviously you don't since you felt compelled to leave out the rest of the statement, which explained why international law is irrelevent.:spin:
 
Real Talk said:
My post said that IF one desires to have george bush put on TRIAL for war crimes, that you would first need to achieve and acknowlegement of this courts juristiction. I knew most of you would not want this to happen, for this forum is quite nationalistic, and rather blind to the sins of its leadership. But this is another matter. As is weather the U.S. should or should not undertake such a policy.
Click to expand...
So it is nationalistic to uphold our constitutional sovereignity over a world body that is trying to usurp it?:roll:



IF u want bush (or future presidents) on trial in a world court, the method to achieve this is pursuing an acknowlegement of the relevant international courts juristiction over u.s. citizens actions (in relation to international crimes).
Click to expand...
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.

Until this is done, george bush, or any other president, will not see an international court trial.
Click to expand...
Good, because the concept of international law is a joke.



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 that pursuing charges of treason aggainst George Bush and his war mongering cabal (for misrepresenting inteligence). Although I am not a supporter of the death penalty, I belive that the relevant charge for treason would be execution, and I would not be in favor of any 'special treatment' in aplication of the law for someone who once presided as a governer of the state with roughly (or is it exactly?) death penalty sentances per anum.
Click to expand...
There was no treason, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Because they had the courage to stand up and say out loud 'NO! A WAR WITH IRAQ IS WRONG!!" in spite of the consequences, the attacks against their character, the association with 9-11 and how by being against the war in Iraq = support for OBL, Saddam Hussein, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and Michael Moore had impeccible character to begin with:roll: Sheesh, the anti-war crowd never ceases to amaze me, we can debate the merits of the war any time, and I am not saying it was right or wrong to go in, but the idiots on the extreme anti-war crowd don't care if we make a mistake leaving a power vacuum in that country that would ultimately land more terrorist attacks on our doorsteps(yes it would happen if AQ, Iran, or Syria got a hold of the country after an immediate withdrawal), they just want their way like spoiled children, and their tantrums are actually even more annoying than that of a spoiled child and less intelligent.

Rather than caving into 'intelligence' which to the attentive person was clearly somwhere between an attempt at 'warmongering' and completely fabricated (which, thankfully I was right on that one... because for how dangerous Saddam was claimed to be, if he DID have these WMD's he would have unleashed them with the grandest fury he could muster before his inevitable defeat. It's like, say you're at the bar and you see a guy with a gun, a reasonable analogy would be to choose that guy walk up and punch him in the face... in other words, you'd be BEGGING to get shot)
Click to expand...
How do you figure this intelligence was specifically geared towards "warmongering", the burden of proof is on you, lest you want to look like you are simply trying make a specific opinion credible.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.

There was no treason, plain and simple.
Click to expand...



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.

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"

IF.

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.

So yeah. Either a troll, or not worth talking to to due to inability to grasp basic qualifier statements. Ignored.
Goodbye.

As for the treason charge I make,I will nto discuss it with people that struggle with the word "if".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Real Talk said:
My post said that IF one desires to have george bush put on TRIAL for war crimes, that you would first need to achieve and acknowlegement of this courts juristiction. I knew most of you would not want this to happen, for this forum is quite nationalistic, and rather blind to the sins of its leadership. But this is another matter. As is weather the U.S. should or should not undertake such a policy.

My statement is factualy corect.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, IF you put a big enough engine on a pig, it will fly -- an equally correct, and equaly meaningless statement.

There is no point in debating this with me...
Click to expand...
...because you arent interested in actually debating.

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 that pursuing charges of treason aggainst George Bush...
Click to expand...
Treason would be a domestic charge. Given the definition, it is unsupportable.
 
I dont know why I clicked view post.

If someone says "I want to make a flying pig", I would likely suggest, "IF that is what you want, I would sugges that you might want to find a way to put an engine on one. Because I dont think making it grow wings is going to work"

Please forgive me for being able to seperate questions of should and how.

As for treason, it would obviously be a domestic charge (crime against the state... lol....). I cant be bothered trying to find out why you would object to such a trial or why you would think that it would not work, and will not be clicking view post again for people on ignore again in this thread.
 
Real Talk said:
I dont know why I clicked view post.

If someone says "I want to make a flying pig", I would likely suggest, "IF that is what you want, I would sugges that you might want to find a way to put an engine on one. Because I dont think making it grow wings is going to work"

Please forgive me for being able to seperate questions of should and how.
Click to expand...
Clearly, you missed the point of my post.

As for treason, it would obviously be a domestic charge (crime against the state... lol....).
Click to expand...
That's not the definition of treason.

I ...will not be clicking view post again for people on ignore again in this thread.
Click to expand...
You're just mad because you couldn't defend a position, and were thread-banned for reverting to childish behavior.
I see things havent changed.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom