• 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!

Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A tribunal in Malaysia, spearheaded by that nation’s former Prime Minister, yesterday found George Bush and Tony Blair guilty of “crimes against peace” and other war crimes for their 2003 aggressive attack on Iraq, as well as fabricating pretexts used to justify the attack. The seven-member Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal — which featured an American law professor as one of its chief prosecutors — has no formal enforcement power, but was modeled after a 1967 tribunal in Sweden and Denmark that found the U.S. guilty of a war of aggression in Vietnam, and, even more so, after the U.S.-led Nuremberg Tribunal held after World War II. Just as the U.S. steadfastly ignored the 1967 tribunal on Vietnam, Bush and Blair both ignored the summons sent to them and thus were tried in absentia.

The tribunal ruled that Bush and Blair’s name should be entered in a register of war criminals, urged that they be recognized as such under the Rome Statute, and will also petition the International Criminal Court to proceed with binding charges.

For these people who have been immune from prosecution, we want to put them on trial in this forum to prove that they committed war crimes.” In other words, because their own nations refuse to hold them accountable and can use their power to prevent international bodies from doing so, the tribunal wanted at least formal legal recognition of these war crimes to be recorded and the evidence of their guilt assembled. That’s the same reason a separate panel of this tribunal will hold hearings later this year on charges of torture against Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others.



Read more @:
Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack - Salon.comWell im not expecting anything to really come from this? To bad our own courts cant hold people responsible like this. Kind of shows what the world thinks of us, our foreign policy, and most of all these two men.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
Honestly don't care what the world thinks, I think what we did in Iraq had to be done and im personally proud to have been a part of it.
 
Interesting. What plea did Bush and Blair enter? Was the jury a selection of their peers? I'd want to see some of the tapes of them speaking in their own defense, of course. I guess I'm also curious about the subpoena process used to get documents together for the prosecution.
 
Interesting. What plea did Bush and Blair enter? Was the jury a selection of their peers? I'd want to see some of the tapes of them speaking in their own defense, of course. I guess I'm also curious about the subpoena process used to get documents together for the prosecution.

They refused to show up..
From the article: "Bush and Blair both ignored the summons sent to them and thus were tried in absentia."
 
Who give a **** what some kangaroo court in Malaysia says? I say we review if any American dollars go to this country and end all aid to Malaysia immediately.

Further, Salon? Gheeze! is there any more evidence that publications like this from the liberal lunatic fringe just can't move on.....Get over it.


j-mac
 
Ineffectual court that has no legal standing makes a decision that means jack crap. Film at 11
 
They refused to show up..
From the article: "Bush and Blair both ignored the summons sent to them and thus were tried in absentia."

Of course they did. It's ridiculous. That's my point. I doubt their staffs even bothered to tell them about this.
 
Can we now considering this kind of story, consider Katrina vanden Hoovel (sp) the nut she is, and not be subjected to her stupid opinions on our Sunday shows anymore?


j-mac
 
I do agree that evidence was fabricated for the Iraq war, but trial in absentia in a country that basically has no power or influence is pretty meaningless. It would have to be one of America's allies doing it for it to carry any weight and I doubt that will ever happen.
 
I do agree that evidence was fabricated for the Iraq war, but trial in absentia in a country that basically has no power or influence is pretty meaningless. It would have to be one of America's allies doing it for it to carry any weight and I doubt that will ever happen.

To hold any real weight, it would have to have come from the ICC or another organization of similar standing. And even then, we're not signatories to or members of the ICC, so I doubt there's anything anyone can really do to enforce such a decision.
 
funny how they failed to put Saddam and Qhaddafi on trial for war-crimes. wil they be trying Bashar Assad anytime soon?
 
I don't believe anyone involved actually expected this to bring about any actual justice. It was more of the sentiment behind the trial. I would be very interested to see the arguments from both the prosecutors and defense.
 
ZERO


j-mac

Pretty much.

I have my disagreeances on the War in Iraq but random courts in countries that didn't participate and was not effected at all by the war are non sequitur.
 
I don't believe anyone involved actually expected this to bring about any actual justice. It was more of the sentiment behind the trial. I would be very interested to see the arguments from both the prosecutors and defense.

The problem is that they have no documents, no standing to question anyone involved, and no way to make a reasonably informed judgment. They thought Bush and Blair were big meanies, yes, but that's not news.
 
funny how they failed to put Saddam and Qhaddafi on trial for war-crimes. wil they be trying Bashar Assad anytime soon?

Well Saddam was put on trial for war crimes in his own country...
 
This tribunal is a joke really. It sat over less than a week and was really a pet project of the former Malaysian PM, a know conspiracy theorist and anti Semite.

Not that I disagree with it's findings obviously :D
 
If they're gonna charge Bush and Blair, well then...


images
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack - Salon.comWell im not expecting anything to really come from this? To bad our own courts cant hold people responsible like this. Kind of shows what the world thinks of us, our foreign policy, and most of all these two men.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

who gives a flying fart? I sure don't and if those asswipes want to arrest Blair or Bush we should nuke them inton the stone age and kill anyone who has anything to do with it
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bush and Blair found guilty of war crimes for Iraq attack - Salon.comWell im not expecting anything to really come from this? To bad our own courts cant hold people responsible like this. Kind of shows what the world thinks of us, our foreign policy, and most of all these two men.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Why couldn't our courts hold a US President responsible for a crime?

And I don't think these kangaroos speak for the world.

And I don't really care what "the world" thinks. Hell this forum can't agree on anything. We're supposed to try to win the world over? Fool's errand.
 
Wonder how much weight a decision of some court in Malaysia really holds.

zero...and Id bet Bush and Blair giggled when they heard they were convicted.
 
zero...and Id bet Bush and Blair giggled when they heard they were convicted.

Giggled?

I picture more of a smirk, with a "Yeah, well they can kiss my freedom lovin' ass."
 
Back
Top Bottom