Shud Bush face War-Crimes tribunal?

[H-Dawg]

He did break International Law invading Iraq, he is holding many suspected "terrorists" in Guatanamo bay without due judicial process, and he has been called by a British poll "the most dangerous threat to the world." How many innocent people have lost their lives, homes, families in Afghanistan and Iraq because of his hawkish militaristic approach to foreign policy? If there were any justice in the world, perhaps it should be Bush behind bars right now possibly facing execution, and not Saddam!

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

This topic should have a ´´Warning: Flamewar up ahead`` sign on it.

[JMHX]

*puts on flame shield*

No, he shouldn't.

*dive*

[bumcheekcity]

Yes, he should. Ah, the joy of three-word posts...

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

No he shouldn`t.

*Grabs a flameshield, and a oversized fishing hook*

*Looks around menacingly*

WHO WANTS SOME? HUH?

[BWS]

At 1/14/04 05:44 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Yes, he should. Ah, the joy of three-word posts...

You realize that Bush didnt send them there and keep them there himself? We have this crazy thing called Congress, and this pesky document give them authority for some odd reason. I know, its complicated for some of you to comprehend this, but its actually real.

[mrpopenfresh]

The whole guantanamo bay thing really pissed me off. Why does the US still have an army base in Cuba, country toally shunned by them? Kind of ironic if you ask me.

[JMHX]

Congress gave President Bush sole power to wage war under the War Powers Act. It's really there. Huzzah.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 1/14/04 07:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Congress gave President Bush sole power to wage war under the War Powers Act. It's really there. Huzzah.

Well THAT´s going to make life easier for us all. We´ll begin by arresting all people within the American government, and anyone who has had contact with people from the American government. That way, we´ll have to arrest ourselves and everybody we know, so that in the end, everyone will be in prison, and we can restart the way that the world is run.

This all depends if you can put a governmental official under citizen arrest, of course.

[Dagodevas]

Well, theoretically speaking, he didn’t do anything wrong, though I will admit that the war has seemed almost fruitless so far.

[JoS]

OK so your against rounding up top American Offcials that were involved int he decision to go to war and what happens? Then why is it so different when we round them up from other countries. This goives me an Idea. The United States playing card deck. Make the President of Exxon the ace of spades.

[JMHX]

Or maybe George W?

[pharoh2bsoon]

What crimes did Bush do? He has done nothing wrong.

[RedSkunk]

When was the last time the winning side of a conflict was successfully brought up on war charges?

[karasz]

yes bush should... so should clinton, bush sr., reagan, carter, nixon (kissinger too), kennedy, eisenhower, truman and fdr...

and thats just since 1940...

[adrshepard]

At 1/14/04 05:16 PM, H-Dawg wrote: He did break International Law invading Iraq, he is holding many suspected "terrorists" in Guatanamo bay without due judicial process, and he has been called by a British poll "the most dangerous threat to the world." How many innocent people have lost their lives, homes, families in Afghanistan and Iraq because of his hawkish militaristic approach to foreign policy? If there were any justice in the world, perhaps it should be Bush behind bars right now possibly facing execution, and not Saddam!

Actually you are dead wrong. I don't know if you realize what you are saying, which is that the leader of a government that conducted mass murders, torture, and rape should be let free and the leader of the force that ousted this person should be punished. I think you are just inviting flames here.
Don't ever trust polls. They are very deceptive. Plus, why not poll the US citizens who recognize this "dangerous" man first-hand?

Hawkish military approach? What are you talking about? You mean using overwhelming force? That's the only way to do it. Plus, you're actually bringing in the Afganistan war, which had broad international support. What would you suggest, going in nicely and ask bin Laden not to be a zealous terrorist anymore?
It's like all those anti-Bush things where they say, "He said bring it on. Now my nephew is dead." Yeah, as if that was the last straw, and the enemy bomber would have refrained if Bush hadn't "provoked" him. Please.

They don't have due judicial process because they are terrorists. They don't deserve it. And these ARE terrorists, captured in Afghanistan. There is no doubt about it.

And another thing. The US military is hardly barbaric as you suggest. In fact, if there was one army that had to fight a war without killing innocents, I would choose the US military. The military was very careful in using precision weapons and bombs. But there is little they can do if there is an AA emplacement on top of a residential apartment, or if there is a barracks in the middle of a community.

[AleksM]

At 1/15/04 12:03 AM, pharoh2bsoon wrote: What crimes did Bush do? He has done nothing wrong.

LMAO. Bush is probably the biggest nazi in the world today. Let me ask you a queestion "pharoh2bsoon" What did Saddam do to Bush? Huh? Nothing!!!

[lapslf]

At 1/15/04 07:41 AM, adrshepard wrote: They don't have due judicial process because they are terrorists. They don't deserve it. And these ARE terrorists, captured in Afghanistan. There is no doubt about it.

Oh please, how would you be able to know weither they're terrorists or not, if they haven't even had a trial at all? All you are saying "they were captured in Afghanistan so they must be terrorists". Well then, let's arrest everyone in Afghanistan, the country the US was going to "liberate". Besides, just because the of course dead honest US govenment says they're terrorists doesn't mean that's true. "What say you? Is it possible that the US government lies?"

And another thing. The US military is hardly barbaric as you suggest. In fact, if there was one army that had to fight a war without killing innocents, I would choose the US military. The military was very careful in using precision weapons and bombs. But there is little they can do if there is an AA emplacement on top of a residential apartment, or if there is a barracks in the middle of a community.

You think those (at least) 7968 deaths in Iraq so far were all either accidents or war acts?

[D2Kvirus]

I believe the inmates of Guantanamo should be freed because of Bush perverting the course of justice by referring to them as "Bad Guys" in the media.

That's enough to have any other prisoner, without charge or trial, released from custody (Blunkett made this error a couple of months back), so why not in this case?

[adrshepard]

At 1/15/04 09:19 AM, Veggiemeal wrote:

At 1/15/04 07:41 AM, adrshepard wrote:

Oh please, how would you be able to know weither they're terrorists or not, if they haven't even had a trial at all? All you are saying "they were captured in Afghanistan so they must be terrorists". Well then, let's arrest everyone in Afghanistan, the country the US was going to "liberate". Besides, just because the of course dead honest US govenment says they're terrorists doesn't mean that's true. "What say you? Is it possible that the US government lies?"

Yes, of course they're lying! It's impossible that they ever captured any members of Al-Queda. In fact, EVERYTHING the US government says is a lie! We actually live on planet Talbort and there is only one continent. The world is flat, and its just really long! We live upside down and the government lies to us because they control all the scientists. Shit and candy are exactly the same, except the government has convinced you that they are different, Neo. Conspiracy, I tell you! LIES LIES LIES! We should all move to Canada and bitch! Or is it really Canada...?!

You think those (at least) 7968 deaths in Iraq so far were all either accidents of war acts?

Yes. What possible reason would the US have to wantonly kill civilians? None. If you aren't saying that, than you must be saying that US soldiers are all bloodthirsty, which is wrong, or that they are incompetent, which is wrong.

[adrshepard]

At 1/15/04 10:41 AM, D2KVirus wrote: I believe the inmates of Guantanamo should be freed because of Bush perverting the course of justice by referring to them as "Bad Guys" in the media.

Yeah, they should release all the Iraqi rebels, too since there's no court that found them guilty. All the soldiers are lying.

That's enough to have any other prisoner, without charge or trial, released from custody (Blunkett made this error a couple of months back), so why not in this case?

They aren't US citizens. They aren't entitled to our rights. They are terrorists. All terrorists deserve to rot in hell.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/15/04 01:15 PM, adrshepard wrote: They aren't US citizens. They aren't entitled to our rights. They are terrorists. All terrorists deserve to rot in hell.

Yup, but they aren't terrorists, they haven't been formally accused of any crime. They are INNOCENT until proven guilty.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 1/15/04 07:47 AM, Aleks777 wrote: LMAO. Bush is probably the biggest nazi in the world today.

Kindly read up on your understanding of Nazi, before you decide to kindly label everyone who doesn´t agree with your political affliation a Nazi.

Let me ask you a queestion "pharoh2bsoon" What did Saddam do to Bush? Huh? Nothing!!!

So by your logic, why don´t you love Bush? What did he ever do to you?

[JoS]

At 1/14/04 10:04 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Or maybe George W?

Well isnt GW just a puppet for the big business? OK onto Guantonomo BAy, they have been held without charge, and never will be charged. There could vey well be, and probally are some innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This has nothing to do with US law, its internatiional law, something the current administration has no regard for. What has BUsh done wrong that could constitute war-crimes? Well we invaded a sovergien country with no approval from the UN and without provication(real provocation not the obsurd idea of unprove allegation about WMD ready to hit the USin 45 minutes). What about the somewhere near 10 000 civilian death in the last year as a result of the war and the following occupation. Hmmm, you dont suppose those protesters were protecting an AA gun on a building, or that the old man shot in the street posed a threat to the soliders. HE has bombed several hospitals killing hundreds, water treatment plants, power grids. US troops have killed people in custody and/or beaten them. They invaded homes "looking" for top officials. Killed people in cars just because they tried to pass a slow moving convoy. Are these the actions of a hero or a war criminal. HE is at the least guilty of break international laws and treaties.

[stonedpimp69]

At 1/14/04 05:16 PM, H-Dawg wrote: He did break International Law invading Iraq, he is holding many suspected "terrorists" in Guatanamo bay without due judicial process, and he has been called by a British poll "the most dangerous threat to the world." How many innocent people have lost their lives, homes, families in Afghanistan and Iraq because of his hawkish militaristic approach to foreign policy? If there were any justice in the world, perhaps it should be Bush behind bars right now possibly facing execution, and not Saddam!

having a vision:
I'm gonna get banned for this post because i'm gonna lose control half way through.

Alrighty. DO YOU FUCKING REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? ARE YOU FUCKING RETAERDED, OR ARE YOU JUST A FUCKING SADIST, WHO LIKES HEARING, AND SHARING DETAILS OF HOW EXACTLYSADDAMS POLITICAL ENEMIES WERE TORTURED TO DEATH?
Are You trying to tell me, you want a leader of a country, who has used chemical weapons on his own people, mass murdered his people, tortured his political enemies, and even just random people, conudcted a campaign of genocide against the kurds, licensed his son to torture athletes for losing, invaded Kuwait(face it if we wouldn't have been there after the first gulf war, he would have invaded again within the day),tortured and killed sons in law etc. etc beeing set free?
And the leader of the country, who got rid of his regime, beeing put before country.

Let' see Bush invaded Aghanistan, because:
a)Bin Laden was fucking hiding there. But no, wait, you think the war in Afghanistan was wrong, Are a great fan of Bin Laden, and think he is the greates man in the history of the world, for killing so many americans and jews, although he killed some other poeple too, but hey, anything for the cause.
b)They were fucfking muslim extremists, who bombed ancient statues of fucking buddha, therefore they deserved beeing invaded. But hey you probably think the taliban was great for bombing those statues, fucking religios symbols, hey you probably think that we should bomb the ten commandment, maybe burn some churches in the process eh?
c) this belongs under b) but i'm too fucking pissed to make this post coherent. They forced all women to wear shawls under threat of ?public stoning? They should all be executed(the taliban leaders), but hey you htink that's a good idea, you would probably enjoy jacking of to a video of your wife beeing publicly stoned, you would label this file, bondage and sadism porno. hif (iaf=h-dawg is a fuckhead) .(this is also one of the reasons why i belive lots of other arab countries should be invaded, and their leadership tried and executed.
d)they were dictators
Oh and I realize that by my criterias we should invade half of the asia, and africa, and guess what i think we should.
Now Iraq:
a)read the first paragraph of this post
b)You suck
c)fuck you
d) You suck even more
e)I hate you
f)I hate you
g)I hate you
h)I hate you evn more
i)..|..(thats my finger aren't I witty)

NOw go fuck off and do something blatantly homosexual

[stonedpimp69]

Oh nad about Guantanomo bay, fuck that, have you never thought there maybe a reason why we hold them there? They are terrorrists, and therefore deserve to be executed in some sadistic way.Trial? for terrorrists? I'd like to see you give fair triall to someone who blew up say half your family.
Dickweed.
P.S. FUCK H-DAWG(i'm gonna get banned anyway so i should do it all the way)
FUCKING HOMOSEXUAL BASTARD, I HOPE YOU DIE, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR PENIS SAWED OF WITH A BLUNT KNIFE. ONCE AGAIN ..|..

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/15/04 04:01 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: a)Bin Laden was fucking hiding there. But no, wait, you think the war in Afghanistan was wrong, Are a great fan of Bin Laden, and think he is the greates man in the history of the world, for killing so many americans and jews, although he killed some other poeple too, but hey, anything for the cause.

Funny. I thought they didn't know where Bin Laden was. Anyway, even if he was in Afghanistan, then you can't have done it very well, because he made a tape a week ago and released it.

b)They were fucfking muslim extremists, who bombed ancient statues of fucking buddha, therefore they deserved beeing invaded. But hey you probably think the taliban was great for bombing those statues, fucking religios symbols, hey you probably think that we should bomb the ten commandment, maybe burn some churches in the process eh?

Absolutely true. makes you wonder why America installed them in the first place, really.

d)they were dictators
Oh and I realize that by my criterias we should invade half of the asia, and africa, and guess what i think we should.

Technically "they" can't be dictators, because a dictator is a single person.

Now Iraq:

So, you have no reasonable argument WHATSOEVER for America attacking Iraq? Thought not.

NOw go fuck off and do something blatantly homosexual

I REALLY want a person to come on this board who is actually gay, because that would be funny.

[stonedpimp69]

I'm already regretting t\doing this, but then again...

[JoS]

Well, IM sure they wont use the ban stick on you for those posts. I think maybe the ban noose. It doesnt matter if we hate them or not, first of all the taliban fighters are soliders of a country, not terrorists and therefore are POW's not terrorists. The Al Quida fighters cannot be held without charge. They have not yet committed a criminal act and you cannot hold someone in prison for the fact that they may do something wrong. We may not like them but they atleast deserve a fair trial. Hell Hitlers top generals got a trial, but we cant give the bottom rung guys from Afganistan a 60 minutes interview?

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/15/04 04:14 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: We may not like them but they atleast deserve a fair trial.

True. People are now "Innocent until Demonised by Media" and it's so true.