Bush may not be able to visit Europe over criminal allegations

[Craig234]

Article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/07/bush_amnesty_arrest/

In short, Bush was scheduled to speak in Switzerland; Amnesty International and others demanded he be arrested for crimes if he does. Bush cancelled the trip.

As the article notes, Bush denies that was the reason and says the reason was protests - but since when has Bush cancelled a visit over protests?

I'm proud of Amnesty International and those standing up for what should be our values and laws. I advocate donating to them.

This is another story I suspect won't get a lot of coverage here.

Our Republican presidents seem to have a real knack for getting away with crimes; even the only one with some accountability, Nixon, got a pardon.

Let's review a few briefly:

George W. Bush: There was a recent official investigation that was bi-partisan and scathing into torture authorized by the White House recently.

George H. W. Bush: Actually not as much 'proven' but plenty suspected. The first gulf war began over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait which Saddam asked the US Ambassador for an opinion on, and our ambassador told him 'we have no position' on the issue. Oops, guess we did. Bush was in the middle of Iran-Contra (we'll get to that) as VP, but was not charged in it.

Ronald Reagan: Let's see - putting aside bad policies, we're discussing relevant crimes. Iran was a legally declared terrorist state where the US was somewhat at war (defending Saddam) against them, when Reagan secretly and illegally sold them missiles. Crime #1. Then, Congress passed a law prohibiting Reagan from providing any support to the terrorist army in Nicaragua wanitng to overthrow the government, which Reagan wanted to do badly. So Reagan gave them the money from the Iranian missil sales illegally.

Fourteen White House officials were charged (I forget how many convicted of them) in the constitutional crisis crimes - but not Reagan or Bush.

Then there's his backing of horrible death squads in El Salvador, for example (the ones who when they weren't killing and torturing thousands, assassinated the Arch Bishop and raped and killed nuns). The Reagan administration provided funding and training for these forces there and elsewhere.

Gerald Ford: Indonesia invaded East Timoor without justification, and killed hundreds of thousands of people. To do this, they used American-supplied weapons which under the law supplying them could only be used for defensive activities, not invasion. The invasion happened about a day after Ford and Kissinger left from a visit.

They denied any knowledge of the invasion; documents came out in recent years proving that on that visit they asked Ford for approval, and he gave it, 'just not during the visit'.

Nixon: Do we need to review him? But let's remember his treason in sabotaging the Johnson peace talks with North Vietnam to help his chances in the 1968 election.

Besides his actual crimes, there are things like his saying he was for bombing dikes that would drown hundreds of thousands of farmers, but that he preferred simply to use nuclear weapons - and this in a conversation with Kissinger where he scolded Kissinger for being squeamish about it.

It's nice to see our laws getting some effect, even if it's only in Europe and many Americans are not even informed about the crimes.

Torture is wrong, period. And even if there were some scenario argued to defend it, any approval for that scenario seems to always lead to broader use.

Democrats are not free of some crimes as well - including some Obama has continued - but it's to his credit he took a stronger position against torture.

Unfortunately, it seems that position is only in place while Obama is president, and can be rescinded any time by another president.

Amnesty International is fighting the good fight for people who are victims of government tyranny - something our right-wingers like to say they're against.

 

[randomrogue]

I'd rather see him prosecuted with some actual evidence for a crime. Say, invading Iraq despite them not being a threat. If someone could prove that we'd have something to talk about.

Is waterboarding, sensory deprevation, playing death metal, and not allowing Muslims to pray torture? Fuck if I know but I think it's way overblown. Are we really supposed to prevent terrorism by no forced interrogation techniques? I'm all for going after the root causes of terrorism but when you're at a point where you're picking up people on battlefields and trying to get intelligence about their next targets I really think asking nicely is a stupid way to go.

 

[Craig234]

I'd rather see him prosecuted with some actual evidence for a crime. Say, invading Iraq despite them not being a threat. If someone could prove that we'd have something to talk about.

Is waterboarding, sensory deprevation, playing death metal, and not allowing Muslims to pray torture? Fuck if I know but I think it's way overblown. Are we really supposed to prevent terrorism by no forced interrogation techniques? I'm all for going after the root causes of terrorism but when you're at a point where you're picking up people on battlefields and trying to get intelligence about their next targets I really think asking nicely is a stupid way to go.

There was a lot more than that - but yes, waterboarding is torture, just as Japan was prosecuted for it as a war crime in WWII.

This has always been an issue in war. George Washington would have loved information - he was facing a larger force and the country was at stake. He banned torturing prisoners.

In WWII, England captured thousands of German POWs, including generals. They'd love the info. They came up with a clever way to spy on them - I don't recall torture.

I think it's sad how some don't care about the immorality; for them, it's more persuasive that it will cause more torture of Americans, also.

 

[randomrogue]

The British did torture Germans.

I'm actually not going to get into what everyone else did since I'm not familiar with it. I do think that it's absurd to think that asking nicely is a productive method for extracting information from fundamentalist enemies of a country. Yes we hanged Japanese for water boarding Americans but I haven't read ay of these sentences and don't know if that's just something we say or if that was just part of a greater accusation.

I'm pretty open minded. I think it's a bit naive to sit on a high horse and say that torture should never be allowed. I can think of so many situations where I would justify it even if I of course would prefer not to. Make it personal if you have to. If someone buried your daughter alive would you torture them to get the location or would you just ask nicely and hope it ends well?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter all day long but if you have information that your enemy has then you better be prepared to get tortured if you're not going to give it up. Torturing just to torture is a whole other thing. I'm not advocating the whole Han Solo torture "They didn't even ask me any questions."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe that a lot was done wrong by US presidents and Bush has a lot to answer for. That said the thread title is somewhat misleading. Its main emphasis is listing bad things about Republican presidents. Perhaps a more accurate title would be "another list of things I don't like about Republicans".

 

[sandorski]

Not quite Prison, but a taste of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not quite Prison, but a taste of it.

at the moment there's no basis for any punitive actions whatsoever, and our politicians wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[dud]

Article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/07/bush_amnesty_arrest/

In short, Bush was scheduled to speak in Switzerland; Amnesty International and others demanded he be arrested for crimes if he does. Bush cancelled the trip.

As the article notes, Bush denies that was the reason and says the reason was protests - but since when has Bush cancelled a visit over protests?

I'm proud of Amnesty International and those standing up for what should be our values and laws. I advocate donating to them.

This is another story I suspect won't get a lot of coverage here.

Our Republican presidents seem to have a real knack for getting away with crimes; even the only one with some accountability, Nixon, got a pardon.

Let's review a few briefly:

George W. Bush: There was a recent official investigation that was bi-partisan and scathing into torture authorized by the White House recently.

George H. W. Bush: Actually not as much 'proven' but plenty suspected. The first gulf war began over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait which Saddam asked the US Ambassador for an opinion on, and our ambassador told him 'we have no position' on the issue. Oops, guess we did. Bush was in the middle of Iran-Contra (we'll get to that) as VP, but was not charged in it.

Ronald Reagan: Let's see - putting aside bad policies, we're discussing relevant crimes. Iran was a legally declared terrorist state where the US was somewhat at war (defending Saddam) against them, when Reagan secretly and illegally sold them missiles. Crime #1. Then, Congress passed a law prohibiting Reagan from providing any support to the terrorist army in Nicaragua wanitng to overthrow the government, which Reagan wanted to do badly. So Reagan gave them the money from the Iranian missil sales illegally.

Fourteen White House officials were charged (I forget how many convicted of them) in the constitutional crisis crimes - but not Reagan or Bush.

Then there's his backing of horrible death squads in El Salvador, for example (the ones who when they weren't killing and torturing thousands, assassinated the Arch Bishop and raped and killed nuns). The Reagan administration provided funding and training for these forces there and elsewhere.

Gerald Ford: Indonesia invaded East Timoor without justification, and killed hundreds of thousands of people. To do this, they used American-supplied weapons which under the law supplying them could only be used for defensive activities, not invasion. The invasion happened about a day after Ford and Kissinger left from a visit.

They denied any knowledge of the invasion; documents came out in recent years proving that on that visit they asked Ford for approval, and he gave it, 'just not during the visit'.

Nixon: Do we need to review him? But let's remember his treason in sabotaging the Johnson peace talks with North Vietnam to help his chances in the 1968 election.

Besides his actual crimes, there are things like his saying he was for bombing dikes that would drown hundreds of thousands of farmers, but that he preferred simply to use nuclear weapons - and this in a conversation with Kissinger where he scolded Kissinger for being squeamish about it.

It's nice to see our laws getting some effect, even if it's only in Europe and many Americans are not even informed about the crimes.

Torture is wrong, period. And even if there were some scenario argued to defend it, any approval for that scenario seems to always lead to broader use.

Democrats are not free of some crimes as well - including some Obama has continued - but it's to his credit he took a stronger position against torture.

Unfortunately, it seems that position is only in place while Obama is president, and can be rescinded any time by another president.

Amnesty International is fighting the good fight for people who are victims of government tyranny - something our right-wingers like to say they're against.

OP, I'm an Independent but was formally a Republican. People like you and diatribes like this are one of the few reasons that I am considering rejoining the party. It's scarry to think what people like you would do with this country.

Do everyone a favor and take this to P&N. I specifically AVOID that place to get away from crap like this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

OP, I'm an Independent but was formally a Republican. People like you and diatribes like this are one of the few reasons that I am considering rejoining the party. It's scarry to think what people like you would do with this country.

Do everyone a favor and take this to P&N. I specifically AVOID that place to get away from crap like this.

Near as I can tell, your complaint is solely based on the OP's viewpoints. Censoring viewpoints is not what this place is about. Its goal is to provide a place where people can post viewpoints without getting personal insults in response.

If you disagree with his argument, counter-argue it.

 

[waggy]

what about the fact that obama continues to drop bombs from drones killing innocent? no proof given that they are actually combatants?


anyway anyone who thinks Bush or any president is ever going to be arrested for such shit is insane. The SS and guards sure in the hell won't allow it and if they tried its going to be bloody.

Not to mention even if there is a Dem in office they won't allow it. NO president wants that precedent set.

 

[Anarchist420]

what about the fact that obama continues to drop bombs from drones killing innocent? no proof given that they are actually combatants? anyway anyone who thinks Bush or any president is ever going to be arrested for such shit is insane. The SS and guards sure in the hell won't allow it and if they tried its going to be bloody. Not to mention even if there is a Dem in office they won't allow it. NO president wants that precedent set.

Excellent points.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What's wrong with what Kennedy did, escalating Vietnam. Along with Johnson.

Did not Clinton fire missiles into a foreign country without provocation.

Obama authorizing killings of US citizens abroad.

Every president has dirt under their fingernails.

The OP just likes the smell of the Democrat's shut more.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The British did torture Germans.

I'm actually not going to get into what everyone else did since I'm not familiar with it. I do think that it's absurd to think that asking nicely is a productive method for extracting information from fundamentalist enemies of a country. Yes we hanged Japanese for water boarding Americans but I haven't read ay of these sentences and don't know if that's just something we say or if that was just part of a greater accusation.

I'm pretty open minded. I think it's a bit naive to sit on a high horse and say that torture should never be allowed. I can think of so many situations where I would justify it even if I of course would prefer not to. Make it personal if you have to. If someone buried your daughter alive would you torture them to get the location or would you just ask nicely and hope it ends well?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter all day long but if you have information that your enemy has then you better be prepared to get tortured if you're not going to give it up. Torturing just to torture is a whole other thing. I'm not advocating the whole Han Solo torture "They didn't even ask me any questions."

What is water boarding?

CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale. When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaida operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. Anonymous CIA sources report that Mohammed's interrogators were impressed.
Many CIA officials see water boarding as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you. Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a POW during the Vietnam War, says water boarding is definitely a form of torture. Human rights groups agree unanimously that "simulated drowning," causing the prisoner to believe he is about to die, is undoubtedly a form of psychological torture. The international community recognizes "mock executions" as a form of torture, and many place water boarding in that category. In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime.
In September 2006, the Bush administration faced widespread criticism regarding its refusal to sign a Congressional bill outlawing the use of torture techniques against all U.S. prisoners. That same month, the U.S. Department of Defense made it illegal for any member of the U.S. military to use the water-boarding technique. The CIA and its interrogators were unaffected by that new policy, as the CIA is not a branch of the U.S. military.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding1.htm

 

[werepossum]

Gotta give Craig credit. He may only have one tune, but he never tires of singing it.

 

[smackababy]

I don't have a problem with water boarding. Personally, I don't have a problem with mild forms of torture / advanced interrogation tactics either. The idea that they will tell you want you want to hear implies the people doing the interrogation are asking questions they have no information on.

I highly doubt Bush is going to be arrested by any country, let alone one not the United States.

 

[Craig234]

What's wrong with what Kennedy did, escalating Vietnam. Along with Johnson.

Did not Clinton fire missiles into a foreign country without provocation.

Obama authorizing killings if US citizens abroad.

Every president has dirt under their fingernails.

The OP just likes the smell of the Democrat's shut more.

That's an extremely weak response - nothing but 'b-b-but Democrats'. So no topic can every be raised, without you ignoring Republicans and attacking Democrats.

Now to the points.

You misrepresent history by saying Kennedy escalated Vietnam. Like most falsehoods, there's a grain of truth to it - he did increase some things - but the real story is that he fought very hard with his whole administration and military to prevent sending combat troops, while he was under great pressure to do so. The real story is, 'JFK refused war in Vietnam'.

Johnson, on the other hand, you're right. He had closely allied with Diem, calling him the 'Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia' in praise on a visit without authorization from Kennedy. Johnson strongly backed Diem, and was furious when the US government, in a long story, approved his removal resulting in his assassination.

Johnson told the military, 'wait until I'm elected, and the you can have your damn war', and he was good to his word. The fact that Republicans were very pro-war doesn't excuse Johnson's choice to launch it - after the false reports from the Gulf of Tonkin - complete with claims that 'if we don't fight them over there, we'll fight them in San Francisco' (which should sound familiar).

As my OP said, Democrats are definitely guilty of things as well - but there's no comparison. But that's not something you can discuss - you can only ignore any Republican issue.

That's not useful and is a derail to the topic. It'd be fine if I had said nothing about Democrats and you provided counter-balance, if you could make a case that Democrats are comparable to the incidents I listed (you don't), if you actually responded to the topic of the Republican issues in the OP. You just ignore the topic.

 

[Craig234]

what about the fact that obama continues to drop bombs from drones killing innocent? no proof given that they are actually combatants?

Mentioned in the OP. There are clear issues with Obama's policies.

anyway anyone who thinks Bush or any president is ever going to be arrested for such shit is insane. The SS and guards sure in the hell won't allow it and if they tried its going to be bloody.

Not to mention even if there is a Dem in office they won't allow it. NO president wants that precedent set.

Wrong. It could happen. Now, on the one hand, purely because 'might makes right', any country is going to be hesitant to arrest a former president, because it would cause a lot of conflict, but on the other hand, these countries are not very happy to not enforce these laws, either, which rightly have strong support with their people, who would be very unhappy with their not being enforced.

If it did come down to their enforcing them, it would likely be with a more than sufficient force surrounding Bush's group - probably his hotel - and presenting the orders for the arrest to the US delegation. The Secret Service isn't about to have a violent confrontation with the foreign authority putting the president in danger - they'd hand him over and let the government resolve the issue with whatever diplomacy and military response.

But that's very unlikely. What's more likely is for the country to not want the visit putting them in that position, and to communicate that privately.

Which is consistent with Bush cancelling his visit and coming up with a face-saving but not plausible cover story.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bush may not be able to visit Europe over criminal allegations

The only thing our representatives should have to fear is our people, in a court of our law. Not some foreign court. I deny them any standing and would demand military force to back ANY present or former member of our government.

In short, such an action would be an act of war.

 

[Craig234]

The only thing our representatives should have to fear is our people, in a court of our law. Not some foreign court. I deny them any standing and would demand military force to back ANY present or former member of our government.

In short, such an action would be an act of war.

Luckily for the enforcement of morality in the law, there is such a thing as international law.

If a US president ordered the use of nukes to kill millions of civilians for no good reason, for example, he'd be guilty of war crimes under internantional law and subject to arrest.

Former heads of state, such as Pinochet, have been arrested and convicted by these laws.

Ultimately, if there is not agreement about the international law, then yes, it becomes an issue of war, just as Chile could have gone to war over the arrest of Pinochet.

But in fact these laws are responsible and have broad popular support for good reason, so that going to war over them would not get much support around the world.

If you simply want the US to rule as dictator of the world at the point of a gun who enforces laws on others but exempts itself - then we have your system.

But others don't accept that sort of lawless, immoral system.

There is a legitimate concern if a US official were to be arrested without justification, and war could be a response. But that's not the case here; they're guilty.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The only thing our representatives should have to fear is our people, in a court of our law. Not some foreign court. I deny them any standing and would demand military force to back ANY present or former member of our government.

I agree. And I say that as someone who would love to see Bush and Cheney both wearing orange jumpsuits.

 

[cwjerome]

Arafat gets the Nobel Peace Prize and Time's Man of the Year, while Bush gets threatened with arrest overseas. LOL world.

The OP amounts to a simplistic "Republican's are da EVAL" diatribe, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form. I will not engage in the substance of it, just comment on the form... an almost comical appraisal of the world that is so blissfully one-sided.

 

[Craig234]

Arafat gets the Nobel Peace Prize and Time's Man of the Year, while Bush gets threatened with arrest overseas. LOL world.

The OP amounts to a simplistic "Republican's are da EVAL" diatribe, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form. I will not engage in the substance of it, just comment on the form... an almost comical appraisal of the world that is so blissfully one-sided.

No, it doesn't. That's an inaccurate reading, and that's actually the sort of simpistic attacks you say you are against.

Time's Person of the Year is not a compliment necessarily - Hitler got it also, as he should. The Nobel Peace Prize has a controversial history - including Henry Kissinger.

Basically the prize often seems to be given to people to endorse a direction they're helping; Kissinger was a war criminal, but he helped reach peace in Vietnam.

Similarly, Arafat was a terrorist for a period, but he helped with some better things for the prize.

 

[Fern]

Near as I can tell, your complaint is solely based on the OP's viewpoints. Censoring viewpoints is not what this place is about. Its goal is to provide a place where people can post viewpoints without getting personal insults in response.

If you disagree with his argument, counter-argue it.

The OP takes it into blog territory.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The OP takes it into blog territory.

Oh, please. It's a news article, with commentary, clearly political in nature and specific points made. If it's "blog territory" then that's only because these days there's a blog about anything and everything.