• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush admin not likely to be charged with war crimes

XMan

XMan

Lifer
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15707">Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, "In the United States, no."

"These things are not going to happen," said Leahy, D-Vt.
</a>

In other news, Harvey's head just exploded.

In all seriousness, this to me is kind of a "well, duh" story that's not likely to be received very well by the Code Pink crowd as it unfolds. Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation. Not to mention opening up a whole can of worms for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden survivors and our descendents, or, more similarly, to Japanese-Americans interned during WW2.
 
I think there's a huge difference between the whole "War on Terrorism" and certain events that happened in World War II. Things were much more black and white back then...
 
Originally posted by: Tab
I think there's a huge difference between the whole "War on Terrorism" and certain events that happened in World War II. Things were much more black and white back then...
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like the potus cutting japan off from her oil and prodding japan into attacking to gain popular support from the people to enter a war.
 
Originally posted by: XMan
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15707">Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, "In the United States, no."

"These things are not going to happen," said Leahy, D-Vt.
</a>

In other news, Harvey's head just exploded.

In all seriousness, this to me is kind of a "well, duh" story that's not likely to be received very well by the Code Pink crowd as it unfolds. Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation. Not to mention opening up a whole can of worms for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden survivors and our descendents, or, more similarly, to Japanese-Americans interned during WW2.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it would cause serious pause, he wasnt defending the nation....maybe he was defending the nation financially

but honestly i wouldnt mind future presidents giving pause when it comes to attacking people for financial reasons
 
In other news, Obama also parrots the Leahy position. Which may be the conventional wisdom as of now.

What the conventional wisdom is six or nine months down the road may be more telling, with both domestic and international opinions being moving targets.

There are limits on what paper shredders can shred, the truth has an annoying habit of coming out, and GWB&co may well end up facing a command performance at the Hague when the full truth emerges.

And very often, those good German type defenses that confounded at the domestic level, last only milliseconds before an international tribunal.

Only time will tell, but at a minimum, its not rocket science to predict we now know very little about the full extent of the GWB&co abuses.
 
It's obvious that they will not stand trial, and it has nothing to do with America being exceptionally corrupt or cynical.

Name a single Western 1st world leader that has faced criminal murder or war crimes charges for his official actions in office. There are none since Nuremberg. Not for Vietnam, not for Iran-Contra, and it will certainly not happen for Iraq. It doesn't get much more black and white than a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation. The idea of preventive war is a joke, it's how the Nazis justified Operation Barbossa, and the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor.

It is simple reality that as long as the United States is dominant and does not have to cooperate with the world, you will never ever see a president face these kinds of charges. That has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, Neo Con or Liberal.

It's a myth that these guys are not above the law. In many cases they are.

Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation.
Click to expand...

Charging Bush would give future Presidents serious pause in manipulating intelligence to justify their agenda. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with defending the nation.
 
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
It's obvious that they will not stand trial, and it has nothing to do with America being exceptionally corrupt or cynical.

Name a single Western 1st world leader that has faced criminal murder or war crimes charges for his official actions in office. There are none since Nuremberg. Not for Vietnam, not for Iran-Contra, and it will certainly not happen for Iraq. It doesn't get much more black and white than a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation. The idea of preventive war is a joke, it's how the Nazis justified Operation Barbossa, and the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor.

It is simple reality that as long as the United States is dominant and does not have to cooperate with the world, you will never ever see a president face these kinds of charges. That has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, Neo Con or Liberal.

It's a myth that these guys are not above the law. In many cases they are.

Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation.
Click to expand...

Charging Bush would give future Presidents serious pause in manipulating intelligence to justify their agenda. Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with defending the nation.
Click to expand...

I don't think even Germany was tried for starting the war, it was more about the mass genocide, was it not?
 
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Can we charge Clinton for murder as well for his attack on an aspirin factory to try to draw attention away from Monica?
Click to expand...

While I don't think he did it because of Monica, I would be 100% for this. Again, this has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican, and what he did was absolutely a war crime.
 
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
thats okay, I really want him tried for murder instead
Click to expand...

I'll Paypal you $5 if Obama does it. Never gonna happen.
Click to expand...

The good news is that, according to the author, any district attorney in the US has the jurisdiction.

edit to add: Once bush leaves office that is. While in office, he's of course immune to prosecution.


 
There are going to be no criminal consequences for the last administration's actions. The sooner everyone comes to grips with this reality, the better off you'll be simply because you are going to keep beating yourselves across the head for nothing.
 
Originally posted by: XMan
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15707">Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, "In the United States, no."

"These things are not going to happen," said Leahy, D-Vt.
</a>

In other news, Harvey's head just exploded.

In all seriousness, this to me is kind of a "well, duh" story that's not likely to be received very well by the Code Pink crowd as it unfolds. Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation. Not to mention opening up a whole can of worms for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden survivors and our descendents, or, more similarly, to Japanese-Americans interned during WW2.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps, the slightly peripheral fact that, well, he's not guilty of war crimes.
 
if you want to charge Bush with murder, you could charge every single president with murder also as we have had military personel somewhere since WWII and if 1 is killed during that term it is now murder?

Idiots, him and all of you who agree with him.
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Tab
I think there's a huge difference between the whole "War on Terrorism" and certain events that happened in World War II. Things were much more black and white back then...
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like the potus cutting japan off from her oil and prodding japan into attacking to gain popular support from the people to enter a war.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top