I don't think he actually knew all that was happening, those responsible probably told him nothing. He's not innocent but he's not guilty either.
Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?
- Thread starter Gashad
- Start date
I'm so not surprised Morello said that. I didn't know he said that until now but HE would say that.MaraudingChimpanzee said:
I don't really have an opinion on the quote more of the speaker. Strange how such a political activist as him goes unnoticed most of the time. Ignore my senile rants I'm not sure what I'm talking about either.MaraudingChimpanzee said:
Whoever made the poll was biased and obviously believes Bush needs to be put on trial for such.
As numerous people have mentioned before, there is no clear white and black answer to this, fanboying hate against him or fanboying the man himself does no one any good and makes you look rather ignorant. (Which you probably are anyways.) In any case, it should be noted that despite whatever claims may be put onto his shoulders, the president of the United States of America is merely one of three government branches and has VERY limited power. (See U.S. military strategy and how much Bush was involved in it for examples.) That being said, it's hard to believe that he can be held responsible for every thing that he may have done wrong in office.
On a unrelated note, all politicians are...politicians. Any one who would claim there are good politicians in the world (probably from their country of origin) needs to lay off the moonsugar and study the common behaviours of politicians.
As numerous people have mentioned before, there is no clear white and black answer to this, fanboying hate against him or fanboying the man himself does no one any good and makes you look rather ignorant. (Which you probably are anyways.) In any case, it should be noted that despite whatever claims may be put onto his shoulders, the president of the United States of America is merely one of three government branches and has VERY limited power. (See U.S. military strategy and how much Bush was involved in it for examples.) That being said, it's hard to believe that he can be held responsible for every thing that he may have done wrong in office.
On a unrelated note, all politicians are...politicians. Any one who would claim there are good politicians in the world (probably from their country of origin) needs to lay off the moonsugar and study the common behaviours of politicians.
It was an act of violence against another country of arguable threat with arguable success.
But his action aren't strictly illegal as there is arguable culpability for torture and declaration of war. Furthermore George Bush is less than capable as a president and it mystifies me as to how he got to power. But furthermore he was voted into power proceeding the nuclear weapons scandal that arose after Bush's questionable motivations for the invasion of Iraq. So personally I can't see how you can expect anyone to convict him when he was given his second term in office after the obviously questionable morality of the original invasion. Admittedly not every American voted for him and not all the information was available but he still shouldn't have been re-elected.
I am totally against all of the things the Bush has done and the repercussions that his actions have had, but the question is where do you stop once you have placed Bush on trial. Once that has been done it would be almost obligatory to place the rest of the Bush administration under the same scrutiny, as doubtless they contributed to the decisions that were made. But then do you prosecute leaders of the army and possibly subordinates for not exercising free will, orders or no orders murder is murder.
But I believe this is where the US system comes into its own you prevent the people who shouldn't remain in power from going more than 2 terms in office. I would like there to be further precautions put in place to prevent a recurrence but that is unlikely as nothing was done after the Vietnam war(even though public opinion did prevail) so I don't expect anything to be done now.
But his action aren't strictly illegal as there is arguable culpability for torture and declaration of war. Furthermore George Bush is less than capable as a president and it mystifies me as to how he got to power. But furthermore he was voted into power proceeding the nuclear weapons scandal that arose after Bush's questionable motivations for the invasion of Iraq. So personally I can't see how you can expect anyone to convict him when he was given his second term in office after the obviously questionable morality of the original invasion. Admittedly not every American voted for him and not all the information was available but he still shouldn't have been re-elected.
I am totally against all of the things the Bush has done and the repercussions that his actions have had, but the question is where do you stop once you have placed Bush on trial. Once that has been done it would be almost obligatory to place the rest of the Bush administration under the same scrutiny, as doubtless they contributed to the decisions that were made. But then do you prosecute leaders of the army and possibly subordinates for not exercising free will, orders or no orders murder is murder.
But I believe this is where the US system comes into its own you prevent the people who shouldn't remain in power from going more than 2 terms in office. I would like there to be further precautions put in place to prevent a recurrence but that is unlikely as nothing was done after the Vietnam war(even though public opinion did prevail) so I don't expect anything to be done now.
I thought just for crimes against humanity. I seriously doubt he had any idea what his war ministers were up to
lol send him to jail 4 being bad prezident amirite guys?
No, but seriously, this:
No, but seriously, this:
Arcticflame said:
I say we go with the more plausible option and just tattoo "DOUCHE BAG" on his forehead. Agreed?
There is no degree at which he would become viable to prosecute. The rule of law is dead and everyone knows it.SODAssault said:
All those yammering about how there should be no laws of war had better not EVER complain about mistreatment of American combatants, or even of Americans arrested overseas and accused of espionage or terrorism. If you're alright with Gitmo, you have no grounds to complain.
If you want to ***** about that without being total hypocrites, read up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions] and edumacate yourselves dammit.
I also like how all the chicken-hawks come out crowing when they know they can't be touched. If you're so gung-ho, look in the Yellow Pages under "recruitment"; if you can't do it or can't be bothered, it's not the pages that're yellow...
-- Steve
PS: me, I voted that Pres. George Walker Bush be indicted for war crimes, notably violations of numerous provisions of international treaties on the conduct of war and the commission of aggressive war on false pretexts. I also think that he should've been impeached by the US Senate for violating the US Constitution, and subborning others to do so on his behalf.
Ditto Richard Cheney, and have Donald Rumsfeld up for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
If you want to ***** about that without being total hypocrites, read up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions] and edumacate yourselves dammit.
I also like how all the chicken-hawks come out crowing when they know they can't be touched. If you're so gung-ho, look in the Yellow Pages under "recruitment"; if you can't do it or can't be bothered, it's not the pages that're yellow...
-- Steve
PS: me, I voted that Pres. George Walker Bush be indicted for war crimes, notably violations of numerous provisions of international treaties on the conduct of war and the commission of aggressive war on false pretexts. I also think that he should've been impeached by the US Senate for violating the US Constitution, and subborning others to do so on his behalf.
Ditto Richard Cheney, and have Donald Rumsfeld up for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I am against it for a few reasons.
A big reason is that it would be nothing but a witchhunt. It would be about making Bush look bad, not about the crimes itself. If it must be done, I say wait awhile. Let the bias have time to die down so that it can be a fair investigation.
If it was fair, I wouldn't mind so much, but I am positive some people are out to get Bush, and would be involved in the proceedings. Despite the crimes, he still should have a fair invesigation. I do worry this will damage America in several ways, so this issue should be considered carefully.
The biggest reason is that George Bush did this because he was trying to protect the American people.
Yes, torture is wrong, but why are some people more forgiving of murderers and child molesters who acted in their own self interest? There are several examples where murderers and child molesters get off easy, or get second chances when they are still a danger. At least Bush was trying to protect people.
If you're going to try Bush, be hard on the selfish, unrepetant criminals as well. Maybe not the death penalty, but don't jeopardize lives by releasing thse who are still dangerous.
EDIT: Thinking back on what was said in the first post, why are people considering trying the SUSPECTED terrorists in civil courts? Some may be innocent, I'll admit, but the rest at war with us. Not figuratively; literally. They (the guilty ones) are enemy combatants, and should be tried as such.
I do agree with a later post. The Obama administration tends to forget some facts about the praised role models. I haven't heard decrying of the American concentration camps, and on a somewhat related note, I seriously wondering if the Obama Administration will in the future pursue Eugenics, which could be used to violate human rights like Hitler did.
EDIT 2: By the way, why did Bill Ayers get a pass? He still doesn't regret what he did, and I imagine he would do it again if he could get away with it. I can't remember how he got away with his crimes, but he has.
Why not try to prosecute him again? This Administration has violated the Constitution at least once already with the AIG 90% tax, why not go after Bill Ayers again?
A big reason is that it would be nothing but a witchhunt. It would be about making Bush look bad, not about the crimes itself. If it must be done, I say wait awhile. Let the bias have time to die down so that it can be a fair investigation.
If it was fair, I wouldn't mind so much, but I am positive some people are out to get Bush, and would be involved in the proceedings. Despite the crimes, he still should have a fair invesigation. I do worry this will damage America in several ways, so this issue should be considered carefully.
The biggest reason is that George Bush did this because he was trying to protect the American people.
Yes, torture is wrong, but why are some people more forgiving of murderers and child molesters who acted in their own self interest? There are several examples where murderers and child molesters get off easy, or get second chances when they are still a danger. At least Bush was trying to protect people.
If you're going to try Bush, be hard on the selfish, unrepetant criminals as well. Maybe not the death penalty, but don't jeopardize lives by releasing thse who are still dangerous.
EDIT: Thinking back on what was said in the first post, why are people considering trying the SUSPECTED terrorists in civil courts? Some may be innocent, I'll admit, but the rest at war with us. Not figuratively; literally. They (the guilty ones) are enemy combatants, and should be tried as such.
I do agree with a later post. The Obama administration tends to forget some facts about the praised role models. I haven't heard decrying of the American concentration camps, and on a somewhat related note, I seriously wondering if the Obama Administration will in the future pursue Eugenics, which could be used to violate human rights like Hitler did.
EDIT 2: By the way, why did Bill Ayers get a pass? He still doesn't regret what he did, and I imagine he would do it again if he could get away with it. I can't remember how he got away with his crimes, but he has.
Why not try to prosecute him again? This Administration has violated the Constitution at least once already with the AIG 90% tax, why not go after Bill Ayers again?