Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court

[Elias824]

Didn't some little town put out an arrest warrant for bush already? don't see hos this is any better.

 

[EXman]

:roll:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Cool, so when's the trial?

:clock:.......



:clock:.......



:clock:.......

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You should email BHO, since apparently he isn't aware of this "proof".

I did, and he is. :thumbsup:

You're late, but since you had such a good idea, it's your turn to do the same. :light:

Cool, so when's the trial?

:clock:.......



:clock:.......



:clock:.......

Soon, I hope. Sooner is better. Glad you agree. Don't forget to send your own e-mail to support their prosecution. :thumbsup:

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I want to issue a warrant against the ICC for crimes against humanity. By issuing a warrant against the president of Sudan, knowing full well they can never enforce it and thus the only thing this warrant would result in is the expulsion of humanitarian aid groups from Sudan, they have indirectly caused the deaths of millions of innocents.

Pretty much. The ICC, and the rest of the UN for that matter, are a huge bunch of bullshit. ICC member nations, and their corporations have engineered unrest and famine in Africa (DRC for starters) and other areas for economic gain.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: Craig234

What a terrible position - let the criminals have the power to prevent the truth being told, by threatening to do even more wrong.

You fight evil by not letting it have that power, not by caving in and happily rewarding them with hiding the truth of what they've done. That's surrender.

The ICC did jack shit to actually HELP the situation... they issued a piece of paper that says some prick in Sudan did some naughty things.

Now that prick wants aid workers out of the country.

If the ICC wants to do some good the signing member should organize a member armed force and go remove that guy by force... problem is, that job they leave up to some else... like the US.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eleison
10 years from now, Harvey will still be saying the same thing.. 80 years from now, Bush will be dead.. but Harvey will still be saying: "BRING IT ON!"... Obviously, when Harvey does yell this out, he will be in a retirement home and he will be shaking his cane at the image of bush on the History Channel.. But old habits, die hard. Image Harvey yelling: "BRING IT ON!" "Nurse!! wheres my dentures!!! Nurse I think I soiled myself" Hehehehe...

I dont know....he seems to have forgotten about Kennedy's war of lies and Clinton's adventures in Africa in a much shorter time frame than 80 years.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eleison
10 years from now, Harvey will still be saying the same thing.. 80 years from now, Bush will be dead.. but Harvey will still be saying: "BRING IT ON!"... Obviously, when Harvey does yell this out, he will be in a retirement home and he will be shaking his cane at the image of bush on the History Channel.. But old habits, die hard. Image Harvey yelling: "BRING IT ON!" "Nurse!! wheres my dentures!!! Nurse I think I soiled myself" Hehehehe...

I dont know....he seems to have forgotten about Kennedy's war of lies and Clinton's adventures in Africa in a much shorter time frame than 80 years.

I envision you sitting in your moms basement in your underwear with old computer parts all around you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eleison

10 years from now, Harvey will still be saying the same thing.. 80 years from now, Bush will be dead.. but Harvey will still be saying: "BRING IT ON!"... Obviously, when Harvey does yell this out, he will be in a retirement home and he will be shaking his cane at the image of bush on the History Channel.. But old habits, die hard. Image Harvey yelling: "BRING IT ON!" "Nurse!! wheres my dentures!!! Nurse I think I soiled myself" Hehehehe...

I'm 67, now, so I doubt I'll be saying much in 80 years, but DAMN!!! If you actually understood my post in context, you'd know that you just slammed yourself and other Bushwhacko ass lickers, not me. :laugh:

Originally posted by: winnar111

I dont know....he seems to have forgotten about Kennedy's war of lies and Clinton's adventures in Africa in a much shorter time frame than 80 years.

So, assuming you can prove any of your attempts to divert attention away from the horrific crimes committed by your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang, you're stupid enough to think that any wrongs committed by any previous President justify the Bushwhackos' crimes. :roll:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil? This is a pipe dream.

Obama and Pelosi would make sweet sweet love on the front lawn of the White house if it happened. Then Obama would sign the order for someone to go get Bush. Only problem is Bush is in Texas and can legally defend himself with deadly force against anyone coming to get him on a non enforceable warrant. If I were him, I'd tell anyone that came after me to piss off.

Can we hold Clinton resposible for the death of all the somli's in Mogadishu because he wanted the troops to go in and get some warlord and it lead to a giant cluster fuck that killed US servicemen and countless Somalis including women and children.

Or is there a magic number and political motivation required to do so?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil? This is a pipe dream.

Umm... Could it be... umm... President Obama?

Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
by Thomas P. Kilgannon
02/10/2009

Waterboarding. Abu Ghraib. Detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Dissing Hans Blix. These, as seen by the Left, are the cardinal sins of George W. Bush?s administration. Set aside the fraternity party-like nonsense that took place at Abu Ghraib and what?s left are actions taken to protect U.S. interests.

With that in mind, one more ?offense? must be included in the list of Bush?s sins. It occurred May 6, 2002, when John Bolton, on orders from the President, withdrew the U.S. from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Oh, there were terrible tantrums in Turtle Bay that day! Globalists were dismayed because Mr. Bush?s rejection of the ICC was a vote for American sovereignty -- a refusal to cede authority to international government and a court that is not bound to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, far less our laws. That could change under the Obama administration.

Two weeks ago, hope returned to the House of Hammarskjold when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed Security Council meeting, voiced support for the ICC. ?The International Criminal Court.? She said it, ?looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur.?

The mere mention of the International Criminal Court by the U.S. Permanent Representative drew her colleagues? attention. ?What she said on human rights and international law I could have written myself,? French ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert told Bloomberg News. Costa Rica?s Jorge Urbina said Rice?s speech ?raises expectations? that the United States will submit to the authority of the Court.

Urbina is on point. Senator Obama said little about the Court during his campaign for the White House. But in his first weeks as President, his actions speak less to constituents in Peoria and the Bronx, than to admirers in Paris and Brussels. Obama?s trans-American constituent service includes his decision to shutter ?Gitmo? and grant his first presidential interview with Al Arabiya television.

In his inauguration speech, Obama declared that ?America is ready to lead once more.? He said American power ?does [not] entitle us to do as we please.? In the parlance of the Left, these suggest submission to international authority, which was raised again last week when Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, echoed Rice?s comments about the Court. In the context of an ICC indictment for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, Chang told the Washington Times, ?We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who?ve perpetrated war crimes.?
.
.
(continues)

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Can we hold Clinton resposible for the death of all the somli's in Mogadishu because he wanted the troops to go in and get some warlord and it lead to a giant cluster fuck that killed US servicemen and countless Somalis including women and children.

Or is there a magic number and political motivation required to do so?

If you can prove the charge, file the complaint, and see where it goes. I already e-mailed President Obama, my Senators and my Represenatives to support prosecuting your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers under all applicable U.S. and International laws.

And yes, I can support those charges against the Bushwhackos. Just search for one of my "macros" in a number of my previous posts.

 

[NoStateofMind]

It's all hot air. No one is going to charge bush with anything or even "offer up" bush for trial, including mr change himself obama. No matter how much I would love to see it happen, it won't.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Link

Ex-UN prosecutor: Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court
03/07/2009 @ 3:52 pm
Filed by Stephen C. Webster

An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.

"David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for [Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects," reported the New Zealand Herald.

The indictment of Bashir was a landmark, said Crane, because it paved a route for the court at The Hague to pursue heads of states engaged in criminality.

"Crane also said that the [Bashir] indictment may even be extended to the former president George W. Bush, on the grounds that some officials in terms of his administration engaged in harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects which mostly amounted to torture," said Turkish Weekly.

"All pretended justifications notwithstanding, the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations," Brockmann told the Human Rights Council. "The illegality of the use of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It sets a number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand."

The Bush administration boycotted the Human Rights Council. The day Brockmann made his accusations happened to be the first in which the United States had observers at the council, on orders from President Obama.

According to Iranian news network PressTV, the Iranian government called the Bashir indictment "a blow to International justice" and an "insult directed at Muslims."

Iran's plainly stated sentiment toward the court's legitimacy is similar in spirit to that of the United States. Because the US Government has refused to recognize the court by becoming a signatory in its statute, "the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the [UN] Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member," said the Herald.

Due to the International Criminal Court's lack of any real police force, it has traditionally relied upon signatory states for enforcement of its rulings. But when the leader of one such state is indicted, the court's authority and enforcement capability is called into question. Even the arrest of Bashir is a far cry, for now. And without a UN Security Council order, former US President Bush would not go on "trial" before the court any time soon.

However, on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be served.

Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to proceed with the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior administration's abusive interrogation tactics.

The following video was published to YouTube on March 6 by the non-profit, Web-based news service LinkTV.

See link for video and additional links.

Here's the issue. US has not ratified the ICC and Bush & Co cannot be held accountable to that court. Yet Sudan has not ratified the ICC either but an arrest warrant for Sudans' president was issued, which is probably not going to be enforceable. Similarly the ICC could issue a warrant for Bush which would not be honored by the US.

But imagine the publicity and humiliation worldwide. Not to forget something like this will ramp up the pressure within the US to bring Bush & Co to some kind of justice even though Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table.

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Comparing what the President of Sudan has done and condoned, to the Iraq war is a stupid at best.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

Ratifying the ICC treaty would go AGAISNT, the US Constitution.

 

[Wreckem]

Also,

the ICC has previously wanted the same thing done to Clinton.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

Keep dreaming :moon:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

Obama is currently a war criminal if Gitmo is what you are going to go after Bush for Harvey. Funny how easily that works huh?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

Obama is currently a war criminal if Gitmo is what you are going to go after Bush for Harvey. Funny how easily that works huh?

There's nothing funny about it, but damn, you make it easy to reply. All I had to do was cut, paste and slightly edit my reply from your bullshit lies in this thread

Obama has directed that Gitmo is to be closed and that torture, including waterboarding, kidnapping and "rendition," is to cease immediately.

Do you think the entire legal and logistical mess created by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal can be unwound and undone in a single day, or week, or month? Please explain :roll:

Please explain how anything President Obama has done constitute war crimes when his specific actions and directions to end the horrific crimes committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and generally corrupt liars.

Rather than closing Gitmo, once the current prisoners are gone, we should use it as a place to stash the Bushwhacko criminals for the rest of their miserable lives.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

Obama is currently a war criminal if Gitmo is what you are going to go after Bush for Harvey. Funny how easily that works huh?

There's nothing funny about it, but damn, you make it easy to reply. All I had to do was cut, paste and slightly edit my reply from your bullshit lies in this thread

Obama has directed that Gitmo is to be closed and that torture, including waterboarding, kidnapping and "rendition," is to cease immediately.

Do you think the entire legal and logistical mess created by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal can be unwound and undone in a single day, or week, or month? Please explain :roll:

Please explain how anything President Obama has done constitute war crimes when his specific actions and directions to end the horrific crimes committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and generally corrupt liars.

Rather than closing Gitmo, once the current prisoners are gone, we should use it as a place to stash the Bushwhacko criminals for the rest of their miserable lives.

The Obama admin has repeatedly said it will continue the practice of rendition (which was put into full implementation by Clinton). What say ye, Harvey?

And let's not forget continuing the practice of attacking and killing innocents in Pakistan, a sovereign country.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Simply put, the UN doesnt exist without US support.

Which is exactly why we should support the ICC when they charge the thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang with crimes. If we expect other nations to respect our laws and extradition treaties and to hand over criminals who have attacked our citizens and violated our laws, we must likewise respect our own commitments under international laws and treaties.

If we can't do that, we announce ourselves to the world as a nation of hypocrites. :thumbsdown:

Obama is currently a war criminal if Gitmo is what you are going to go after Bush for Harvey. Funny how easily that works huh?

There's nothing funny about it, but damn, you make it easy to reply. All I had to do was cut, paste and slightly edit my reply from your bullshit lies in this thread

Obama has directed that Gitmo is to be closed and that torture, including waterboarding, kidnapping and "rendition," is to cease immediately.

Do you think the entire legal and logistical mess created by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal can be unwound and undone in a single day, or week, or month? Please explain :roll:

Please explain how anything President Obama has done constitute war crimes when his specific actions and directions to end the horrific crimes committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and generally corrupt liars.

Rather than closing Gitmo, once the current prisoners are gone, we should use it as a place to stash the Bushwhacko criminals for the rest of their miserable lives.

As I stated, he is currently unlawfully imprisoning people without charges. He is willingly doing this which in itself can be considered a war crime by ICC definitions. His promises don't really mean shit Harvey. He can promise everything in the world but the fact is he is currently willingly committing war crimes by ICC definitions .

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey

There's nothing funny about it, but damn, you make it easy to reply. All I had to do was cut, paste and slightly edit my reply from your bullshit lies in this thread

Obama has directed that Gitmo is to be closed and that torture, including waterboarding, kidnapping and "rendition," is to cease immediately.

Do you think the entire legal and logistical mess created by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal can be unwound and undone in a single day, or week, or month? Please explain :roll:

Please explain how anything President Obama has done constitute war crimes when his specific actions and directions to end the horrific crimes committed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and generally corrupt liars.

Rather than closing Gitmo, once the current prisoners are gone, we should use it as a place to stash the Bushwhacko criminals for the rest of their miserable lives.

As I stated, he is currently unlawfully imprisoning people without charges. He is willingly doing this which in itself can be considered a war crime by ICC definitions. His promises don't really mean shit Harvey. He can promise everything in the world but the fact is he is currently willingly committing war crimes by ICC definitions .

Prove it. Links and quotes, please, or STFU.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Prove it. Links and quotes, please, or STFU.

Get your head out. Gitmo isnt closing, it is being transferred off of US Soil.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...2008/05/17/2247920.htm

US to build new prison in Afghanistan
Posted Sat May 17, 2008 4:00pm AEST

The United States intends to build a big new prison at its main military base in Afghanistan, a shift from earlier aims to transfer most detainees to Afghan custody, The New York Times reported.


Obama Grants CIA permission for continuation of Rendition Program

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...cas/article5636297.ece

"Under executive orders signed on January 22, the CIA appears to have preserved its authority to carry out renditions ? by which hundreds of terrorist suspects have been abducted and transferred to prisons in countries with questionable human rights records such as Egypt, Morocco or Jordan"




And from just today for good measure:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...akistan_missile_strike

Suspected US missiles kill 7 in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD ? Missiles believed fired from a U.S. unmanned plane slammed into a house used by militants in northwestern Pakistan on Thursday, killing seven people, a government official and a witness said,



Striking a state that we are not technically at war with is against both US and International Law.


If Bush goes, Obama goes.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: StormRider
I want to issue a warrant against the ICC for crimes against humanity. By issuing a warrant against the president of Sudan, knowing full well they can never enforce it and thus the only thing this warrant would result in is the expulsion of humanitarian aid groups from Sudan, they have indirectly caused the deaths of millions of innocents.

What a terrible position - let the criminals have the power to prevent the truth being told, by threatening to do even more wrong.

You fight evil by not letting it have that power, not by caving in and happily rewarding them with hiding the truth of what they've done. That's surrender.

Why is it a terrible position? You think the world doesn't already know about what is going on in Sudan? No one was preventing the truth to be told. But what exactly would be accomplished by issuing such a warrant? Can the president of Sudan be arrested? Who is going to do this? So, this group of people decided to issue a warrant while having no power to back it up.

Again, what the hell were they thinking? Did anyone bring up the thought that such a warrant would cause a backlash against innocents? They are intelligent people so I'm sure that thought has come up in their discussions.

But they went ahead and issued the warrant anyways. They decided that public grandstanding was more important than innocent people's lifes. To me that's a callous disregard or indifference for the safety of others.

Using Harvey's definition of murder:

MURDER:

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another.

In my opinion, the ICC should be investigated for crimes against humanity by placing their grandstanding of their ideology ahead of the welfare of innocents. If there is any evidence suggesting that the ICC knew it was possible for Sudan to evict humanitarian aid groups as a result of issuing this warrant then they should all go to jail for the crime of murder.