-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Bush et al. War Criminals?
- Thread starter Aught3
- Start date
ImprobableJoe
New Member
It depends. Is America a nation of laws, or not? If it is a country that respects the rule of law, then we follow the evidence and start prosecutions, and if that leads the to the former president and vice-president then so be it.
Ozymandyus
New Member
If they broke laws they should be prosecuted. Seems like a pretty simple thing to me. Isn't that what laws are for? I'm not an expert on the laws in this area, so I'm not quite qualified to make a decision.
I do believe that if they DIDN'T break any laws by using some strange definition of torture, then we need to more precisely define 'torture' so that it doesn't happen again. We also need to greatly apologize to the japanese 'war criminals' who we jailed and executed for performing very similar tortures in WW2 (apparently they were doing it because they were worried we were going to use WMD's on them... Apparently torture didn't work out that well in their case.)
I do believe that if they DIDN'T break any laws by using some strange definition of torture, then we need to more precisely define 'torture' so that it doesn't happen again. We also need to greatly apologize to the japanese 'war criminals' who we jailed and executed for performing very similar tortures in WW2 (apparently they were doing it because they were worried we were going to use WMD's on them... Apparently torture didn't work out that well in their case.)
ImprobableJoe
New Member
The weird thing is that the same Republicans who want to shield the Bush administration from even being looked at critically are the same ones who were willing to derail President Clinton for getting a blowjob. Talk about your misplaced priorities!Ozymandyus said:
Here, by the way, is a place where you can tell the difference between the anti-American right-wing, and the patriotic progressive movement: those of us on the left who support prosecutions are doing so against the current White House position, and with full knowledge that if we get Cheney and Bush then at least a few Democrats are going down too... and we don't care. The law is the law, and if it takes convicting Republicans AND Democrats in order to return this country to the rule of law, then so be it.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Considering it was a guy on the Fox "News" payroll... yeah, pretty surprising!GoodKat said:
desertedcities
New Member
Heh, vehement, wasn't he?
Though I just have to say that I would like to use the same torture techniques that Cheney advocates on him, and see how he likes it. I blame him for the past administration. Bush was vice-president the last eight years.
And I do think that they could be tried for Crimes Against Humanity, but no one (but Spain, it seems) has the balls to accuse them of such.
Though I just have to say that I would like to use the same torture techniques that Cheney advocates on him, and see how he likes it. I blame him for the past administration. Bush was vice-president the last eight years.
And I do think that they could be tried for Crimes Against Humanity, but no one (but Spain, it seems) has the balls to accuse them of such.
If those that drafted the laws demanding torture aren't war criminals, than every prosecution we got out of the Tokyo Trials is invalid. After all, these were government officials torturing enemy combatants who were prepared to use and did use two weapons of mass destruction against their country.
Besides, almost all war crimes have some form of justification (some goal they are trying to achieve). When we arbitrarily say 'they worked' any kind of validity of laws against war crimes goes out the window.
If laws against war crimes are too impractical (as has been proven with most international law... at least those applied to governments), so be it but to me it sounds like they're trying to have it both ways.
If laws against war crimes are too impractical (as has been proven with most international law... at least those applied to governments), so be it but to me it sounds like they're trying to have it both ways.
Torture is only one war crime of a list that Bush did. Nail that sonofabitch for everything you can, IMO.
But seriously, yes I think he should be put in jail, if not for all the other things he did, at least the torture, whatever they can get him with, works for me.
I've hated Bush since he invaded Iraq. The moment I read about that I knew it was going to be a shitty 8 years of the U.S. run by a moron.
But seriously, yes I think he should be put in jail, if not for all the other things he did, at least the torture, whatever they can get him with, works for me.
I've hated Bush since he invaded Iraq. The moment I read about that I knew it was going to be a shitty 8 years of the U.S. run by a moron.
Here's what George Bush said in 2003:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
Bush said:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
Beautifully put. I would love to see him on trial just to hear what defenses he comes up with.
But in line with what I was saying before, I think the issue is are we in the West going to hold our leaders to a higher standard? I mean everyone just accepts politicians lie and decieve, have shady dealings on the side etc.
I think this is the best place to start.
But in line with what I was saying before, I think the issue is are we in the West going to hold our leaders to a higher standard? I mean everyone just accepts politicians lie and decieve, have shady dealings on the side etc.
I think this is the best place to start.
Throughout history, the ability to prosecute those who broke the law in office has been seen as a crucial safeguard against tyranny.
If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted, and punished. As a Brit, i'm not sure if there's a precedent for this. Anyone able to shed some light?
If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted, and punished. As a Brit, i'm not sure if there's a precedent for this. Anyone able to shed some light?