Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!

Huh? I haven't mentioned the UN.

You're angry with me for something I haven't done? Am I a war criminal?

lol cause i know as soon as you threw that out, we'd hear from fishdude about some part of some un this that or the other we violated. or some obscure international whatever. hence the statement of mine above about why do we even bother having a constitution since fishdude has never (as far as i have seen) cited it in any arguement.

International law is not 'obscure'. Just because you don't understand it outside of the context of your national constitution doesn't mean that has no validity.

In any case, Gerard was asking about the case for 'war crimes' by the US president. I never made that claim - I just said there was a case to answer for violating articles of international law.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!

Huh? I haven't mentioned the UN.

You're angry with me for something I haven't done? Am I a war criminal?

lol cause i know as soon as you threw that out, we'd hear from fishdude about some part of some un this that or the other we violated. or some obscure international whatever. hence the statement of mine above about why do we even bother having a constitution since fishdude has never (as far as i have seen) cited it in any arguement.

International law is not 'obscure'. Just because you don't understand it outside of the context of your national constitution doesn't mean that has no validity.

In any case, Gerard was asking about the case for 'war crimes' by the US president. I never made that claim - I just said there was a case to answer for violating articles of international law.

and so far, i've been right you did leave out the un, so be sure to work that into your next blog

[46]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

The Case Against War on Iraq

by Howard Zinn

...Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein....

You and Mr. Zinn evidently have no clue from where this term comes and what it actually tests. Schenck v. United States. It has nothing to do with military actions, but free speech. A socialist was protesting the draft in the Great War, and it was asked whether his right to free speech could cause, "a clear and present danger" to the country. It's also where America gets the phrase, "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." The socialist lost and was jailed. His speech did.

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!

Huh? I haven't mentioned the UN.

You're angry with me for something I haven't done? Am I a war criminal?

lol cause i know as soon as you threw that out, we'd hear from fishdude about some part of some un this that or the other we violated. or some obscure international whatever. hence the statement of mine above about why do we even bother having a constitution since fishdude has never (as far as i have seen) cited it in any arguement.

International law is not 'obscure'. Just because you don't understand it outside of the context of your national constitution doesn't mean that has no validity.

In any case, Gerard was asking about the case for 'war crimes' by the US president. I never made that claim - I just said there was a case to answer for violating articles of international law.

and so far, i've been right you did leave out the un, so be sure to work that into your next blog

You should really stop picking apart my posts and just put forward your opinion. Then we might see whether your arguments are actually personal, based on your evident dislike of me, or rather more substantive.

[Alex+R 0]

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!

Huh? I haven't mentioned the UN.

You're angry with me for something I haven't done? Am I a war criminal?

lol cause i know as soon as you threw that out, we'd hear from fishdude about some part of some un this that or the other we violated. or some obscure international whatever. hence the statement of mine above about why do we even bother having a constitution since fishdude has never (as far as i have seen) cited it in any arguement.

International law is not 'obscure'. Just because you don't understand it outside of the context of your national constitution doesn't mean that has no validity.

In any case, Gerard was asking about the case for 'war crimes' by the US president. I never made that claim - I just said there was a case to answer for violating articles of international law.

and so far, i've been right you did leave out the un, so be sure to work that into your next blog

You should really stop picking apart my posts and just put forward your opinion. Then we might see whether your arguments are actually personal, based on your evident dislike of me, or rather more substantive.

lol don't flatter yourself. i do enjoy baiting you though

you got a hole to fill in, so get to it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suspect this term is being used as a political smear and not in any serious nature.

Please lay-out the violations of US law that would even lead to charges of being a "war criminal."

oh here we go with the un this or un that thanks a bunch!

Huh? I haven't mentioned the UN.

You're angry with me for something I haven't done? Am I a war criminal?

lol cause i know as soon as you threw that out, we'd hear from fishdude about some part of some un this that or the other we violated. or some obscure international whatever. hence the statement of mine above about why do we even bother having a constitution since fishdude has never (as far as i have seen) cited it in any arguement.

International law is not 'obscure'. Just because you don't understand it outside of the context of your national constitution doesn't mean that has no validity.

In any case, Gerard was asking about the case for 'war crimes' by the US president. I never made that claim - I just said there was a case to answer for violating articles of international law.

and so far, i've been right you did leave out the un, so be sure to work that into your next blog

You should really stop picking apart my posts and just put forward your opinion. Then we might see whether your arguments are actually personal, based on your evident dislike of me, or rather more substantive.

lol don't flatter yourself. i do enjoy baiting you though

you got a hole to fill in, so get to it

No I don't. I made my views clear on this and many other threads.

You haven't. Fill in your own hole and shut it while you're at it

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

No I don't. I made my views clear on this and many other threads.

You haven't. Fill in your own hole and shut it while you're at it

lol i do believe i annoyed fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No I don't. I made my views clear on this and many other threads.

You haven't. Fill in your own hole and shut it while you're at it

lol i do believe i annoyed fishdude

As I said, stop making this thread about me, or rather your continuing attempts to attack my opinions rather than presenting your own. To paraphrase something you said on another thread it makes you, IMO,

a minor league ####

Certainly very telling that after repeated requests you seem to be unable to provide any sort of opinion whatsoever - other than that "The US should be able to do what it likes, when it likes, with no regard for the international community". Genius. Thanks for making that one, dumb point.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[46]

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

Are you referring to the test not applying or the level of danger Germany in 1917 and Iraq in 2003 presented to the USA?

[*Robert* 2]

No I don't. I made my views clear on this and many other threads.

You haven't. Fill in your own hole and shut it while you're at it

lol i do believe i annoyed fishdude

you annoy a lot of people... don't flatter yourself... not something to be proud of

why don't you explain what the US constitution has to do with troops in Iraq?

You keep throwing out the constitution like it affects the entire world!

[Chuckles 0]

I believe technically there is a good case against Bush. However, it will never come to trial. As it was pointed out the Allied leaders could have been brought to trial for the bombings of civilians in Germany, or America for the nuking of civilians in Japan. They weren't brought to trial because they 'won' and had the power. I do not think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, but since he has the 'power', it is a moot point.

[*Robert* 2]

I believe technically there is a good case against Bush. However, it will never come to trial. As it was pointed out the Allied leaders could have been brought to trial for the bombings of civilians in Germany, or America for the nuking of civilians in Japan. They weren't brought to trial because they 'won' and had the power. I do not think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, but since he has the 'power', it is a moot point.

Well said. It's funny how when other countries commit atrocities its bad, but when the US commits then, its okay. Just love the double standards and the "holier than thou" attitude many Americans have.

[Alex+R 0]

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

Are you referring to the test not applying or the level of danger Germany in 1917 and Iraq in 2003 presented to the USA?

I'm asking why you felt the comparison between Germany 1917 and Iraq 2003 was appropriate. Just looking for more of an explanation, I guess

[46]

I believe technically there is a good case against Bush. However, it will never come to trial. As it was pointed out the Allied leaders could have been brought to trial for the bombings of civilians in Germany, or America for the nuking of civilians in Japan. They weren't brought to trial because they 'won' and had the power. I do not think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, but since he has the 'power', it is a moot point.

Well said. It's funny how when other countries commit atrocities its bad, but when the US commits then, its okay. Just love the double standards and the "holier than thou" attitude many Americans have.

Perhaps people differentiate the ends and simply regret the means.