Bush: Pardons HIMSELF from being a War Criminal

[Equilibrium]

Impeach. Please. (It won't happen, but its still okay to hope for justice)

Under the Geneva convention, George Bush could be sentenced to death. To protect his ass, he put a bill in congress that pardons him of any violations of the geneva convention because of "extenuating circumstances."

Why did 50% of this country elect a murderer?

Worst. President. Ever.

Check it out yourself on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

[Powdered Water]

He's been there for 8 years... You're just now noticing that he may be an idiot? I'm not trying to start a fight, I guess I'm just saying why bother with this now?

[Equilibrium]

He's been there for 8 years... You're just now noticing that he may be an idiot? I'm not trying to start a fight, I guess I'm just saying why bother with this now?


Would you rather everyone turn the other way? You realize everytime he passes a bill and no one says anything more of your rights and mine dissappear? Think about that. Think about what this means for the next president. It means he or she will have UNLIMITED power. That is not good.

[Powdered Water]

I'm not smart enough to really have this debate. I'm also a conspiracy theorist that doesn't have much faith in the system you're talking about. I will say that I have a lot of great theories as to why our country is the way it is, but I have no credibility and no way to base most of it in fact. So, I stay quiet. Otherwise I'll come off sounding even crazier than I probably do now.

[7thson]

Bush is a good president.

[Mrs. Darcy]

Bush has to prepare in case a democrat gains the presidency. There is no way they'd pardon him for anything, and they might be spiteful enough to go after him for GC violations or issues of war and/or the occupation of Iraq.
Some people even thought George Bush Sr. would pardon himself for Iran Contra business after he pardoned others involved.
There's not anything in the constitution that would forbid it, but it wouldn't look good.

[7thson]

Please. even if this farce were true, he cannot pardon anything with consideration to Genva laws. Whatever. Bush is not an Island...give it a rest.

[Mrs. Darcy]

Bush doesn't need anyone to defend him, he's done what he's thought was right, whether the liberal media has supported it or not. Nixon contemplated self-pardon, as did Clinton. I don't think it's something to get upset about.

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
No standards, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached.
What the Founders said
The whole subject of presidential pardons stirred little debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. No less estimable Founding Father than Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 74 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed74.htm), suggests that, "... in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth." So, except for impeachment, the Constitution places no restrictions whatsoever on the president in granting pardons.

[7thson]

Hell I am not upset about that, I am upset about those who think our freedom (in the U.S) is nothing more than a right they were born with instead of a privledge they have no gratitude for. If this statment does not apply to you then no need to rebut it.
It is easy to forget the past and blame the present and whine about 9/11 "Bush did it" theories. Wake up, the hatred of ones own country and ones own leader is what the Axis wants...do not lay down and give it to them. Hell maybe I am just posting drunk again and my thoughts and sacrifices mean nothing. BRB gonna go guzzle a fifth.

[Equilibrium]

Bush doesn't need anyone to defend him, he's done what he's thought was right, whether the liberal media has supported it or not. Nixon contemplated self-pardon, as did Clinton. I don't think it's something to get upset about.

With all do respect that is a ridiculous comment. Nixon didn't commit WAR CRIMES. Its definitely an issue when you could stand trial as a criminal but use your presidency to apply retroactive immunity.

[Equilibrium]

Hell I am not upset about that, I am upset about those who think our freedom (in the U.S) is nothing more than a right they were born with instead of a privledge they have no gratitude for. If this statment does not apply to you then no need to rebut it.
It is easy to forget the past and blame the present and whine about 9/11 "Bush did it" theories. Wake up, the hatred of ones own country and ones own leader is what the Axis wants...do not lay down and give it to them. Hell maybe I am just posting drunk again and my thoughts and sacrifices mean nothing. BRB gonna go guzzle a fifth.

What are you on about? No one here hates their own country....I don't think i even mentioned the word america in my op. I said BUSH, the emphasis here is on a person, not a country. Do you really blindly love bush? I will never truely understand anyone who has any respect or compassion for such an evil man.

[7thson]

Do you really blindly love bush?



Do you blindly hate him?

[mark f]

If a U.S. President were ever tried for War Crimes, it would be before the ICJ ("World Court") in the Hague. I don't believe a "U.S. pardon" would have an effect on the World Court, but I also don't believe the U.S. toes the line with all the United Nations' regulations, so I'm not sure the trial would carry any more weight here. In this specific case, the other nations of the world have already registered complaints so it's nothing new. I would have expected them to file charges much earlier if they were going to. However, it does seem like a bizarre thing to be buried in a bill, if, in fact, it's true.

P.S. This is all I have to say.

[Equilibrium]

Do you blindly hate him?




Bush the man? I've never met him so i can't hate him or like him.



Bush the President?

No, I don't hate him any more than any of the inmates on death row. But that is where he belongs for the many of the crimes he is guilty of.

[7thson]

Where is all the hatred for Saddam? Is he a better human than Bush? Where is your outrage against the things he did?

[Lennon]

I mean, I don't hate nor like Bush, but if someone does something wrong, he does deserve to be punished

[Equilibrium]

Where is all the hatred for Saddam? Is he a better human than Bush? Where is your outrage against the things he did?


What about hitler or Stalin?

Oh yeah...they've been dealt with.

Just because I'm focusing my attention on the current world's most hated man it doesn't mean that I don't remember the previous ones.

what arguement are you making? That I don't hate saddam? Saddam is dead man. Wtf does he have to do with anything. If bush were hung too trust me id be happy and we can then focus on the world's second most hated man..osama bin laden.

[Lennon]

.we can then focus on the world's second most hated man..osama bin laden.

who may already be dead

[Sci-Fi-Guy]

If bush were hung too trust me id be happy and we can then focus on the world's second most hated man..osama bin laden.

Do... people really hate Bush more than Bin Laden?
That just...
Blows my mind, I think.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/139/56613771fa3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Yoda]

I had a serious reply mostly written up, but now I'm not so sure. Nothing in this thread makes me believe you want to have an actual discussion about this, Eq. Are you investigating the issue, or just seeking out the bits and pieces that validate your hatred?

I'll have to ask you (and anyone else to whom this may apply) to tread carefully when talking about hangings. You are all free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but if those opinions involve openly calling for (or supporting) the death of a public figure like President Bush, I'm going to have to draw the line. That's just beyond the pale, and it's the kind of thing you only hear from people who are speaking from a place of anger and emotion, rather than reason and logic.

[Sir Toose]

As 7thson said, Bush is not an island. Due to the American system of checks and balances an executive, a legislative, or a judicial branch cannot become too powerful because its very nature requires it to seek approval from the other two. You can hate Bush but be aware that he works within the system and everyone who gives their approval to his particular set of proposals is also worthy of your hate.

bush <> dictator.

[adidasss]

I had a serious reply mostly written up, but now I'm not so sure. Nothing in this thread makes me believe you want to have an actual discussion about this, Eq. Are you investigating the issue, or just seeking out the bits and pieces that validate your hatred?

I'll have to ask you (and anyone else to whom this may apply) to tread carefully when talking about hangings. You are all free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but if those opinions involve openly calling for (or supporting) the death of a public figure like President Bush, I'm going to have to draw the line. That's just beyond the pale, and it's the kind of thing you only hear from people who are speaking from a place of anger and emotion, rather than reason and logic.
Would you have the same objection if this was a thread about Saddam Hussein?

[Yoda]

Would you have the same objection if this was a thread about Saddam Hussein?
I anticipated such a reply. The answer is no. And if I have to explain the difference to you, then I'm sorry to say you're too far gone to waste an explanation on.

[adidasss]

I wouldn't call for the execution of either (but that doesn't mean Bush shouldn't be held responsible for his actions).http://www.gay.hr/web/smilies/peace.gif

[Sir Toose]

Specifically what actions are we talking about?

[adidasss]

The illegal invasion of a foreign country.:yup:

[7thson]

You mean the foreign country that invaded Kuwait. The country that violated U.N. Sanctions. That one?

[adidasss]

Are you saying its past transgressions justify the invasion or was there another, possibly more intelligent point you were trying to make? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/treptrep-1.gif

[Sir Toose]

Sure you know what you're talking about?

The US in Iraq isn't illegal because a state of war was declared under Bush senior. The UN resolution resulted in a cease fire which was dependent on Iraq holding to roughly 45 items on a laundry list that included things like demilitarizing and not pursuing a nuclear program of any kind. Iraq went on to violate over half of them in the years of the Clinton presidency.

A new state of war declaration was not necessary as it was already provided for under the UN and Iraq was clearly in violation of several of the items on the contract.

Now, do I think going back in was a good idea? I'm not really sure to tell the truth. John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and an august assembly of left wingers (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) sure thought it was a good idea to revisit Iraq before it became political taboo.

Damn that internet for providing a way to go back and look up what people actually said at that time.

[Equilibrium]

You mean the foreign country that invaded Kuwait. The country that violated U.N. Sanctions. That one?

Do you want me to list all of the UN policies that Israel and a hosdt of other middle east countries have violated? I assure you the list runs much higher than Iraq's breaking of the UN sanctions.

[Sir Toose]

Do you want me to list all of the UN policies that the USA has violated?

yes, please.

[Yoda]

Are you saying its past transgressions justify the invasion or was there another, possibly more intelligent point you were trying to make? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc220/diezelpower/treptrep-1.gif
Regardless of what he was saying, there's a very good underlying point: namely, that opponents of the war talk about international law (which is pretty murky to begin with) when it suits them, and not when it doesn't. IE: it's a complete outrage when someone invades Iraq, but Iraq violating countless resolutions is never met with any real consequences.

In other words, the U.S. is being criticized by proponents of international law for actions which, among other things, enforced those same laws.

Frankly, the fact that the war was considered "illegal" speaks more to the absurdity of the law than it does the invasion. Iraq did a number of things in the decade leading up to the invasion that could reasonably be considered acts of war.

[Sir Toose]

Iraq did a number of things in the decade leading up to the invasion that could reasonably be considered acts of war.

Including violating standing UN sanctions that they were contractually obligated to uphold.

[Equilibrium]

I anticipated such a reply. The answer is no. And if I have to explain the difference to you, then I'm sorry to say you're too far gone to waste an explanation on.



That's hardly fair. There really are people on this planet who have not been affected by saddam negatively, but have had their lives change dramatically for the worse because of Bush. Are you telling me its not ok for them to hate bush more then they hate saddam? saddam's approval rating was very high in Iraq. Bush's approval rating is really low in the us, around 32%. I assure you Yoda, more people in the world than not have feelings of animosity towards Bush. And don't understand why calling for a hanging is crossing the line when it is the Geneva convention punishment for being a war criminal. Even the CNN video mentions it as "death."

If its ok to put video's of saddam's hanging all over the internet, then it should be ok to speculate about whether or not george bush would be hung if he were ever charged with being a war criminal. If you disagree with me still, I will not mention this anymore.

[mark f]

So, does anyone know if the report about Bush being pardoned for any possible "war crimes" is actually in the mentioned bill. If it is, I would like to understand the reasons behind it. Who put it in the bill and why?

[Equilibrium]

yes, please.



Whoops I didn't mean to write USA, I meant "Israel and a host of other middle east countries" I've put the resolutions below as well as the country or countries in violation.

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

896 (1994) Russia
"Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

[Equilibrium]

So, does anyone know if the report about Bush being pardoned for any possible "war crimes" is actually in the mentioned bill. If it is, I would like to understand the reasons behind it. Who put it in the bill and why?



Its in there, and the bill was passed.

[adidasss]

Sure you know what you're talking about?

The US in Iraq isn't illegal because a state of war was declared under Bush senior. The UN resolution resulted in a cease fire which was dependent on Iraq holding to roughly 45 items on a laundry list that included things like demilitarizing and not pursuing a nuclear program of any kind. Iraq went on to violate over half of them in the years of the Clinton presidency.

A new state of war declaration was not necessary as it was already provided for under the UN and Iraq was clearly in violation of several of the items on the contract.


Too bad it was done without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council...;)

[Yoda]

That's hardly fair. There really are people on this planet who have not been affected by saddam negatively, but have had their lives change dramatically for the worse because of Bush. Are you telling me its not ok for them to hate bush more then they hate saddam?
I'm not commenting on who they should hate more at all. But I do think that people should be able to step outside of themselves and judge the two men objectively. Case in point: I may hate a guy who cuts me off in the parking lot more than a serial killer I read about in the paper, but objectively, I know the latter is worse. Similarly, even people who have never been hurt by Saddam should be able to see why he's worse, even if he never harmed them, specifically.

saddam's approval rating was very high in Iraq. Bush's approval rating is really low in the us, around 32%.
How was Saddam's approval rating measured? Because, while he was in power, he also apparently received 100% of the vote...and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. :)

And don't understand why calling for a hanging is crossing the line when it is the Geneva convention punishment for being a war criminal. Even the CNN video mentions it as "death."

If its ok to put video's of saddam's hanging all over the internet, then it should be ok to speculate about whether or not george bush would be hung if he were ever charged with being a war criminal. If you disagree with me still, I will not mention this anymore.
Well, first off, it's not okay for people to put videos of Saddam's hanging on my site, either. I can't speak for the rest of the Internet.

As for speculating about what Bush's fate might be, that's fine, too, if a little crude to my mind. I didn't ban anyone or even warn them that they were in danger of being banned. I simply suggested that everyone be careful, because there's a very fine line between simply wondering how Bush might fare in the World Court, and wishing for his death. I'm simply trying to nip this in the bud in hopes that this rather potent topic doesn't explode into a flame war.

[Sir Toose]

Too bad it was done without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council...;)

That's inaccurate. The US did not act illegally. It was upholding the sanctions drawn and formalized within the UN.

Also, the video in the OP isn't dated but it mentions in the scroller in the bottom that Jefford's said goodbye to the senate. The date for that event was 9/27/2006 so the video is likely 4+ months old.

Finally, Equilibrium, how do sanctions against other countries support your point that bush is a war criminal?

[Yoda]

Too bad it was done without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council...;)
Pointing out that the U.S. (or any allied countries) also violated U.N. resolutions completely misses the point, which is that anyone who cites a lack of U.N. authorization as their reason for opposing the war is shooting themselves in the foot.

Why? Because the U.N. itself issued countless resolutions and threatened the use of force. In 1998, UNSCR 1154 (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/03/98030406_tpo.html) stated that failure to grant full and total access to weapons inspectors would result in the "severest consequences for Iraq." Other resolutions used similarly threatening language. So, naturally, the moment a U.N. member state invades Iraq, it's suddenly a micarriage of justice. Say wha?

The appropriate analogy would be a police force that orders someone to stop killing, threatens the use of force if they don't stop, and then reprimands the cop who shoots him when he continues.

You can make an argument for the importance of process, but the U.S. made a considerable effort to persuade the U.N. of the necessity of invading Iraq. They were unconvinced, and refused to follow-through on their own threats and resolutions. It's hard to make a case for the war being a "crime" under the laws of a body that was refusing to enforce said laws. Harder still when you consider that Iraq had done several things that could easily be considered grounds for war.

So, if anybody wants to oppose the war, they're entitled. I'll be the first to admit there are some reasonable arguments against it. But the lack of authorization from the U.N. Security Council isn't among them, in my opinion.

[Sir Toose]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

read it for yourself (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html)

[adidasss]

That's inaccurate. The US did not act illegally.

Sure it did. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm
http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/ilaw-m26.shtml

Prominent international legal experts regard the US-British invasion of Iraq as a clear breach of international law. Earlier this month the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

According to the ICJ, such “a war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” The commission emphasises that Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. The ICJ standpoint contradicts that of US President Bush, who has continually sought to use this resolution as the basis for war.

The ICJ added: “The competency of the Security Council to authorise the use of force is not unlimited. It may only do so to ‘maintain or restore international peace and security.’” The evidence presented by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain is “less than convincing,” the ICJ declared.

And now I have become bored of this discussion...:|

[Sir Toose]

Sure it did.

No it still didn't.

The commission emphasises that Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. The ICJ standpoint contradicts that of US President Bush, who has continually sought to use this resolution as the basis for war.
While 1441 didn't specify the use of force directly it did specifically vow to uphold prior resolutions which did call for the use of force.

And now I have become bored of this discussion...:|

Me too, but you're still wrong :D

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html

[meatwadsprite]

good thing

[Sir Toose]

good thing

Did you have an opinion or were you just rubbing your fingers on the thread to let people know you read it?

[John McClane]

Did you have an opinion or were you just rubbing your fingers on the thread to let people know you read it?I like real California cheese. There's an opinion!

[r3port3r66]

I love the MoFo threads that involve either religion or politics because other than the first 3 replies the structure of the conversation goes completely arwy.

I've "skimmed" through this conversation, and since I'm not a political genius, I will only say that a President that pardons himself of all criminal responsibility is FISHY at the least, but I think that the real question the thread offers is this (and forgive me if I'm wrong here):

Does anyone think that a President should pardon HIMSELF of possible war crimes? why or why not?

[meatwadsprite]

I like real California cheese. There's an opinion!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1246547264_2c2312e3a7.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/03/wbush103.jpg

coiencidence ?

[7thson]

Alright, just to let everyone know that I am not a close-minded fool and a war lover, I would like to share a few thoughts. I think this country and a not so small part of the world has become more brainwashed than ever before. Why do I say this? Because it seems so many of us (me included sometimes so I cannot lie) truly are so emotional about an issue that anything other than what we want to believe must be a lie. The media in and of itself is partly to blame, but more so - we are to blame. We get so blinded by our own convictions that everything else must be blasphemy or just a plain lie. I think this is healthy in some ways, but truly destructive in others. In other words: it is okay to feel strongly about something, but no matter how adamantly we want to think something is true, it just does not make it so. I honestly do think that the war in Iraq was needed; do I think our government went about it the right way? Hell no! Do I think the American people were lied to? Yes, and in this country it has been that way since before George Washington was in office, so to feel scorned now is kind of a bit foolish. I apologize for getting my feathers all ruffled sometimes, and I know that does nothing but hurt my respect from most of you all here. It is nothing personal (well usually) when I rant, it is just that I truly love this country and I try to stand by what we have fought and stand for. Does that make me right? Again, Hell NO! I guess that all I ask for from you guys is a little open-mindedness and I will do my best to do the same.

[r3port3r66]

Ths is going to be a great election year--exciting and dismal at the same time! Almost like a great football game! Hey! where's Dan Rather?!

[thebest]

As an Irish person who has never visited America maybe I should'nt even try to give an opinion on such a sensitive topic . . . .

but

If George Bush pardons himself for anything he's done during his presidency there is only one, slightly slangy, Irish colloquialismistic adverb that describes how such an act would be percieved: dodgy.

A more serious collection of words to describe it would be :abuse of power. Or, in an attempt to be more accurate: covering one's own ass.

[Sir Toose]

I apologize for getting my feathers all ruffled sometimes, and I know that does nothing but hurt my respect from most of you all here.

No sir, you are incorrect. You're one of very few here (if any) who have actually been on the ground in combat. Your respect reservoir is over-flowing.

[Equilibrium]

Wake up, the hatred of ones own country and ones own leader is what the Axis wants


So when a mother spanks her young child she does so out of hatred?

You're really messed up in the head. A mother spanks her child out of love because she doesn't want her child to grow up being hated, just as being critical of your country's action is a sign of patriotism because you want this country to be the best possible thing that it can be.

Think outside the bun, go grab yourself a taco bell and stay out of politics ;).

[7thson]

Think outside the bun, go grab yourself a taco bell and stay out of politics ;).

Ok

[Piddzilla]

A few thoughts....

Why does violations of UN restrictions give USA the right to invande Iraq?

If there was a state of cease fire between Iraq and USA and USA basically (according to Sir Toose) had the right to "go back" at any given moment, why did USA bother with the whole WMD debacle before they went in 2003? They wouldn't have needed the approval of the Security Council it they allready had the authority to continue a war that never ended, would they?

According to the UN and international law there's a prohibition of violence between countries. It means that one country can't use military force towards another country unless it's being used in self defense or if it's being sanctioned by the Security Council. Clearly, the invasion wasn't backed by the Security Council. And no matter how you twist and turn this issue it's really difficult to make this look like self defense. The invasion was a violation of international law, there is absolutely no question about that. Then you can, of course, think what you will of international law and UN in general.

Another thing that I think is important is something that Chris brought up. In one post he discussed the ambiguity of sometimes complaining about one country violating international humanitarian law (USA) and at the same time ignoring the acts carried out by another country (Iraq). In other words, why should USA abide by international law when Iraq did not? That's a good question. A statesman once said: "Either you're with us or you're against us". I would like to believe that what differs the civilized world from the not so civilized can be measured by how soon we relent to violence and by the amount of respect we show to other people. So, is the Bush administration with us, the civilized world, or against us? Is it really plausible to defend a war with arguments like "For every mistake we're doing, Saddam made one too"? Post-empitve strike?

7, why do you think the war in Iraq was needed?

[Piddzilla]

r66... long time no seeing. How the hell are you?

[r3port3r66]

Piddy! I Love You!

[Piddzilla]

Piddy! I Love You!

Well now, let's not get carried away, my dear Sir! :D

I love you too

[7thson]

I am done with my Taco, now EQ:) . I think I was pretty clear when I posted early and said: If this statement does not apply to you then no need to rebut it. So I guess it did apply to you. All well and good you have that right, a right that you and many others I think take for granted. I know this thread was supposed to be about Bush Pardoning himself, but how does one debate that issue without discussing everything else related? I mentioned the 9/11 “Bush did it” fanatics also, so I guess you think 9/11 was staged by our government?

Seriously EQ, and I am speaking from the heart and sharing what I think is true: I know you are a good person, otherwise why would you be so angry about these things? I know you think what you do because you are concerned and angry and upset and just plain sick of this war. It is tough having a great country like we do, it takes sacrifice and heartache and war sometimes. I know you only mention “Bush” here, but what gets to me is the lack of (at least as far as I know) any mention of many other horrible things that go on. I see everyday awful things on the news, the man who threw his kids off a bridge, the thousands of many other awful things that happen all over our country, and all over the world. The children that are brainwashed by terrorists that is okay to strap explosives to themselves in the name of Allah, the woman that was ordered to be lashed hundreds of times after being raped, etc… Where is the reciprocated hatred and anger? The country of Iraq, when it was invaded by the U.S. had a bad man ruling it, he needed to go. What I have seen first hand that was done or ordered by Saddam lives with me every single day; every single night I go to sleep the horrors I witnessed are there like a slideshow reminding me of how evil people can be. I am sorry; Bush is not that evil, not even close. He may be misguided and he may be a dumb arse, but I honestly do not think he is an evil person.

Another problem of mine is that I am a take action type of person, and by God that does not make me like War, I hate it actually. Everyone knows what I mean by the Axis, and I do not hide my hatred for those organizations/governments/radicals, they have no respect for human life, and for some reason their respect for the woman, gays, Christians, Jews, etc…is about as medieval as it can be. How can people sit by and hope they will change by ordering sanctions and waiting and even ignoring threats they make?

I can agree with you about my lack of expertise in politics my friend, but my knowledge of people and cultures and war and many other things comes from life and the things I have seen and done. My philosophies and my vocabulary may be a bit “Southern”, but I know when something feels right.

I guess you are right about me needing to stay out of politics, so I will not run for any office, although we need a really good School Superintendent here in Pensacola, hmmmmmmmmmmm, but I have been given the right to discuss what I think by my brothers and sisters who made this country free, so even if I make a fool of myself I am going to go ahead and butt heads with you political gurus.

And Piddy, I think you know my answer as to why the war was needed, you asked me before havent you? Anyway I will continue you this later I have exceeded my typing quota for the day.:) Seriously though I have to go cook dinner.

[nebbit]

Piddy! I Love You!
Me too :yup:

[Piddzilla]

Me too :yup:

Wow. Look at me. I've got a harem.

[7thson]

Wuv ya also Pid.

[Monkeypunch]

All arguments for the war or against the war aside, why is anyone surprised anymore when Bush does things like this? We already know he's going to, so wouldn't it stop being shocking after awhile?

Bush saying "Yeah, I just really wanted the oil" would surprise me. this doesn't.

[7thson]

All arguments for the war or against the war aside.


I wish debates about this topic could be so easily brushed "aside", but they cannot and they will not even if on the surface. "I just wanted the oil" There is that Bush is an Island thought process again. When the war started it was all a popularity balance, the dems, the reps, the 50%+ American population agreed.......If anyone does not think oil makes the world go round then you might be wrong. Go buy a bike and sell your car. Fight for alternative methods, be staunch in your refusual to use the blood red oil that goes into your gas tank, otherwise spouting hypocritic statements may be unwise.

My response has nothing to do with what you said MonkeyP, other than it reminded me of something, so nothing personal here.:)

[mark f]

My question to you, 7th, and I feel you are the most qualified to discuss it, not only for what you participated in, but why you did it (your wonderful family), is, what do we do now? How do we get out without making things worse than before we got there? Is this a never-ending story ("the war on terror") or is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

You don't have to answer these. You've been doing some heavy hitting lately. But if anything piques your interest, fire away. :)

[Monkeypunch]

I wish debates about this topic could be so easily brushed "aside", but they cannot and they will not even if on the surface. "I just wanted the oil" There is that Bush is an Island thought process again. When the war started it was all a popularity balance, the dems, the reps, the 50%+ American population agreed.......If anyone does not think oil makes the world go round then you might be wrong. Go buy a bike and sell your car. Fight for alternative methods, be staunch in your refusual to use the blood red oil that goes into your gas tank, otherwise spouting hypocritic statements may be unwise.

My response has nothing to do with what you said MonkeyP, other than it reminded me of something, so nothing personal here.:)

ok, no offense taken.:)

And I don't own a car. I gots mah feets. lol.

[7thson]

My question to you, 7th, and I feel you are the most qualified to discuss it, not only for what you participated in, but why you did it (your wonderful family), is, what do we do now? How do we get out without making things worse than before we got there? Is this a never-ending story ("the war on terror") or is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

You don't have to answer these. You've been doing some heavy hitting lately. But if anything piques your interest, fire away. :)

In regards to the Iraqi war:
I wish it could be as simple as a vote, seriously, let the Iraqi people decide, let them vote on different solutions that can be varied, and the majority rules, but we must ensure that a majority of the citizens that want to vote can vote without fear. I know some families in Iraq and we stay in touch as much as possible. They are frightened by what will happen when we leave, but they were more frightened by living under the thumb of Saddam. Iraq truly is two or three or even four different countries when it comes to ideals and convictions. The dogmatic fog that blinds so much of Iraq (and other countries) is causing its citizens to choke on any solution. The problem that a lot of Americans cannot seem to swallow is that these people do not have a freedom of religion, even if it were given to them, this freedom, they might deny it. They are brainwashed from birth, there is no deciding what religion or no religion at all if desired, or if I am gay ( you are hanged if you are and admit it), or if I am a woman who wants to drive, etc.... After saying that, I can accept it if those who want to practice the Muslim (the true Muslim ideals which includes many gender specific obsticals that most American women would scoff at)
faith did so without persecuting those who do not want to. However, if we could give a voice to those who need one, then whatever they desore we should comply with.

I honestly do think that the "war on terror" is a never ending battle, but what is the alternative, give up? Terrorists will always be here and I hope I am wrong, but do you not feel that an event that will overshadow 9/11 100 times over is in the making? I do not say it will happen soon or maybe never at all, but I feel that it is being thought of everday by enemies of the free world.

[mark f]

Thanks for a quick response. I just wish that what we are doing could somehow make the world safer, guaranteed. I realize that there are no guarantees, and when we saber-rattle in response to violence against us, we may err in our choices. It just seems that this "war on terror" is so fruitless because every time we are successful, it just steels the enemy's resolve, but the depressing thing is that the vice versa is true. It's really one of those no-win situations where you can only relax when you're dead, and I keep telling my daughter, when she's having problems, that there's no such thing as a no-win situation. I hate being correct about 9/11 being the most significant moment of my life and all our progeny's lives.