Source, justice department unlikley to prosecute over torture.

[ProfJohn]

Here... let me help you liberals out.

Stop thinking about this as George Bush war criminal, torturer and traitor in chief

and think about this as

George Bush former President of the United States

Once you do that you will realize how foolish your 'turn him over to some foreign court' idea is.

Just think about it for a second.

Bill Clinton authorized the use of missiles in Yemen to kill some terrorists linked to the USS Cole attack. Would you approve of Clinton being arrested and charged with accessory to murder for that action??

What about the attack on Sudan that killed some poor janitor??

Or the attack against the Chinese embassy in Serbia?

What about the kidnappings he ordered under the extrajudicial rendition program?

What about Obama's authorizing the use of Predators to launch missile in Pakistan? Should Pakistan be allowed to charge Obama for accessory to murder for ordering these attacks without their permission?

 

[Lemon law]

Where does this idea come from that the target number one will be GWB, and that will be therefore the foreign indictment acid test will be a former President.

More likely any foreign indictment would target miscreats lower down on the food chain, people like Yoo, Rumsfeld will due every bit as well.

 

[Whitecloak]

if found guilty, the convict should be subject to any means of coercion, if it means that people can be saved. (IF FOUND GUILTY). coercion should not be used to establish guilt.

 

[Xellos2099]

WE won't. Technically speaking we didn't do anything illegal either. Under the code of the Geneva Convention, only enemy combatant that belong to a sovereign nation can be treated as a legal POW. These.... people do not belong to any sovereign nation thus doesn't need to be treated as a POW does.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You are still copping out, you have not yet named an international body to try those war criminals.

Sorry, I don't see where I am required to name an international body to try any accused person. You are the one to bring up international organizations. I am simply posting opposition to having an organization such as the ICC or any international organization composed of other governments harboring war criminals.

Also, I question whether Yoo would be able to receive a fair trial in an international court given his ethnicity. Also the same concerns with Bybee given his Mormon background.

Chinese and Mormons - it's no law for you! Go commit any international crimes you like and you can't be tried for them because CoW says you can't get a fair trial. Idiocy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here... let me help you liberals out.

Stop thinking about this as George Bush war criminal, torturer and traitor in chief

and think about this as

George Bush former President of the United States

Once you do that you will realize how foolish your 'turn him over to some foreign court' idea is.

Just think about it for a second.

Bill Clinton authorized the use of missiles in Yemen to kill some terrorists linked to the USS Cole attack. Would you approve of Clinton being arrested and charged with accessory to murder for that action??

What about the attack on Sudan that killed some poor janitor??

Or the attack against the Chinese embassy in Serbia?

What about the kidnappings he ordered under the extrajudicial rendition program?

What about Obama's authorizing the use of Predators to launch missile in Pakistan? Should Pakistan be allowed to charge Obama for accessory to murder for ordering these attacks without their permission?

You think anyone but you gives a shit about your delousions?

I sure as fuck don't, it doesn't matter in the least who ordered it or sacncioned it, if it was Blair, hang the fucker high, if it was Brown, shoot him dead, the point is that it was wrong.

I wouldn't expect you tu understand something like right and wrong but others do.

I do.

 

[ProfJohn]

John, do you think your opinion matters??

Not one it bit. It won't happen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
John, do you think your opinion matters??

What is your problem? This is a public discussion forum. What was your point, other than an obnoxious pointless attack?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
John, do you think your opinion matters??

What is your problem? This is a public discussion forum. What was your point, other than an obnoxious pointless attack?

psst read the post above his. he was attacked first. bitch them both out if you want but don't single one out.





IF they go after some lawyers and advisers and not bush and such then its nothing more then something for show.

anyone that thinks that if bush (not going to happen) is found guilty that the us is going to give him up OR he is going to go out of the country is insane. BUT if he does it will be a nasty situation if some othe country try's to get him. Obama does nto want that.

 

[Robor]

Just because we or another country aren't going to hold GWB&Co accountable doesn't mean they're innocent and the rabid defense by the righties explains a lot.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

What country is actually going to look at the United States and say "hand us one of your former Presidents, or we're going to impose economic sanctions on you"? Be realistic, what country will actually do that.

They wouldn't have to impose sanctions. If Spain indicts any of the Bushwhackos for war crimes, torture, etc., they could be arrested in any nation that is a member of the EU. The could also be cited by the International Court of Justice, in which case, any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions is mandated to turn them over for trial at the Hague.

If American administration officials and political representatives are too weak willed to call the Bushwhackos out as the criminals they are, I hope the rest of the planet will stand up and hold them accountable for their crimes.

Keep dreaming. The best that might happen is that Bybee or Yoo might be sanctioned. Even that is politically motivated bullshit.

It's like Fitzmass all over again. Except you won't even get a Scooter this time.

Wow, so crimes are OK to commit now? Good to see you keeping up with your outstanding morals.

Even Scooter? He broke the law, and got convicted of it. Is that so hard to understand? I guess when you don't believe in following the law, it must get confusing on what you can ignore,a dn what you can't. There is no doubt that he was guilty, except in Dick and your minds.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Wow, so crimes are OK to commit now?

A very good question...but instead of asking for an answer from TLC...perhaps you should be looking for your answer from the Justice Department and the current administration...no?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Did anyone actually believe this was ever going to end up in the courts?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a word YES.

Any fool who says no self admits that only raw and unchecked might makes right. Thereby self admitting anything, any depravity should be permitted and there ain't nothing we can do about it.

I for one say piss on that, it only leads to inhumanity and futility.

If you really believe that you need to open your eyes. This was a political move from the start and the Dem leadership will never allow this to progress to an actual hearing.

 

[PokerGuy]

I can't help but laugh at some of the silly and naive people here. A former president, extradited or allowed to be tried in some other country? LOL Yeah, that's about as likely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow. Same thing for Bush, Cheney etc ever getting tried or indicted for anything --- ain't gonna happen.

 

[Lemon law]

Its no more ludicrous than Nixon being forced out by the watergate scandal, like anything else, its a public opinion moving target.

What was unthinkable a year ago is already being considered, and the denials about it ever happening is starting to sound more desperate every day.

And like Nixon, wait until the next set of revelations come out, and they will just keep a coming as we learn more about what these torture folks were up to.

Its just a matter of time before the first set of indictments come out. And the next and the next. It may never reach GWB, but many others are starting to sweat. And some of the smarter ones will have kept those fink on the other guy get out of jail early cards.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

What country is actually going to look at the United States and say "hand us one of your former Presidents, or we're going to impose economic sanctions on you"? Be realistic, what country will actually do that.

They wouldn't have to impose sanctions. If Spain indicts any of the Bushwhackos for war crimes, torture, etc., they could be arrested in any nation that is a member of the EU. The could also be cited by the International Court of Justice, in which case, any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions is mandated to turn them over for trial at the Hague.

If American administration officials and political representatives are too weak willed to call the Bushwhackos out as the criminals they are, I hope the rest of the planet will stand up and hold them accountable for their crimes.

Keep dreaming. The best that might happen is that Bybee or Yoo might be sanctioned. Even that is politically motivated bullshit.

It's like Fitzmass all over again. Except you won't even get a Scooter this time.

Wow, so crimes are OK to commit now? Good to see you keeping up with your outstanding morals.

Even Scooter? He broke the law, and got convicted of it. Is that so hard to understand? I guess when you don't believe in following the law, it must get confusing on what you can ignore,a dn what you can't. There is no doubt that he was guilty, except in Dick and your minds.

Never said Libby wasn't guilty of what he got convicted of. Where are pulling that bullshit from? You have to make stuff up to go on a rant now? Libby got railroaded by the partisan express on a legal technicality that actually had nothing to do with the Plame issue. Sucks for him but he got nabbed and has to do the time. Legal technicalities also made waterboarding as used by the CIA legal. But, of course, you LOVE legal technicalities if it sends a Scooter to jail but whine like a schoolgirl having a bad hair day when legal technicalities work against you, so you'd rather ignore them instead. Is that so hard to understand?

Good to see you keeping up your outstanding moral hypocrisies. :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: railer
common sense prevails over idiotic partisan politics.


good, now let's move on.

That's how we should have handled the OJ Simpson murders and Nazi war criminals, too.

No trials. Just let 'common sense' dictate that there are no trials, instead of letting 'idiotic partisan politics' create big publicity-creating trials.

And then 'move on'.

In fact that's the answer for all crimes. Think how much money we'll save on the criminal justice system. Now I understand what Republicans' 'mean by small government'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
John, do you think your opinion matters??

What is your problem? This is a public discussion forum. What was your point, other than an obnoxious pointless attack?

psst read the post above his. he was attacked first. bitch them both out if you want but don't single one out.

You have a point. I viewed the first post as attacking PJ's opinions as delusional - which is within bounds, and may well be correct for that matter - and PJ as crossing a line to simply attacking JoS as not having any justification for posting his opinions, which is outside the bounds. But clearly PJ was mirroring what JoS said in part, and it's enough of a gray area to let is slide.

IF they go after some lawyers and advisers and not bush and such then its nothing more then something for show.

anyone that thinks that if bush (not going to happen) is found guilty that the us is going to give him up OR he is going to go out of the country is insane. BUT if he does it will be a nasty situation if some othe country try's to get him. Obama does nto want that.

When top leaders do wrong, it gets awkward.

With watergate, you ran into things like Nixon being the boss of the people in charge of investigating him. "Awkard".

You had the president abusing the power he had to say things were national security secrets, to cover up his own staff's crimes, and ordered the CIA to do so. "Awkward".

A lot of people argued that the harm to the nation - the removal of the elected president (by the then-largest margin in history, by the way) - all the disruption it would cause - was a reason not to proceed over 'some two-bit alleged break-in'. What about the harm to the US image globally, the showing of weakness, during the cold war? It was 'awkward' to put the nation though that.

There's always this temptation to let the top people get away with things because of the pain, the price, the 'awkwardness' of holding them accountable.

And moreso with the President than anyone else.

And yet, the rule of law requires it more with the President than with anyone else.

Richard Nixon said 'if the President does it, it's not illegal'. Most thought he was wrong. Now, we're finding he may have been right, and the rule of law doesn't exist.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's how we should have handled the OJ Simpson murders and Nazi war criminals, too.

No trials. Just let 'common sense' dictate that there are no trials, instead of letting 'idiotic partisan politics' create big publicity-creating trials.

And then 'move on'.

In fact that's the answer for all crimes. Think how much money we'll save on the criminal justice system. Now I understand what Republicans' 'mean by small government'.

The stupidity exhibited by liberals like Craig is amusing to watch I must say. A couple months back I was pulled over for going about 5 over the limit. The cop ended up letting me go without giving me a ticket. I'm sure that was akin to letting OJ and Nazis off scot free too.

Silly liberals.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Never said Libby wasn't guilty of what he got convicted of. Where are pulling that bullshit from? You have to make stuff up to go on a rant now? Libby got railroaded by the partisan express on a legal technicality that actually had nothing to do with the Plame issue. Sucks for him but he got nabbed and has to do the time. Legal technicalities also made waterboarding as used by the CIA legal. But, of course, you LOVE legal technicalities if it sends a Scooter to jail but whine like a schoolgirl having a bad hair day when legal technicalities work against you, so you'd rather ignore them instead. Is that so hard to understand?

Libby's conviction was related to the Plame affair - specifically, he was part of a criminal coverup of the Plame affair to protect his boss, Cheney in the Plame affair.

He was not 'convicted of a technicality'. He was convicted of clear, black and white crimes, that he fully and knowingly committed.

You're lying - in terms of making up conclusions based on ignorance to fit your bias, since I don't think you have a clue on the actual issue - to say otherwise.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libby's conviction was related to the Plame affair - specifically, he was part of a criminal coverup of the Plame affair to protect his boss, Cheney in the Plame affair.

He was not 'convicted of a technicality'. He was convicted of clear, black and white crimes, that he fully and knowingly committed.

You're lying - in terms of making up conclusions based on ignorance to fit your bias, since I don't think you have a clue on the actual issue - to say otherwise.

Talk about lying......was Cheney charged with any criminal wrong doing regarding Plame? If not, what makes you think he was actually protecting Cheney? What hard concrete evidence do you have that points to Cheney being the mastermind of the Plame affair.....and more telling, why haven't you passed on that evidence to the Justice Dept to have Cheney prosecuted?

Silly lying liberals.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Richard Nixon said 'if the President does it, it's not illegal'. Most thought he was wrong. Now, we're finding he may have been right, and the rule of law doesn't exist.

Evidently your pal Obama is to blame this time around. This just has to be tearing you up inside doesn't it Craig? You could say Obama's inaction is torturing you. I think we should prosecute!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Wow, so crimes are OK to commit now? Good to see you keeping up with your outstanding morals.

Even Scooter? He broke the law, and got convicted of it. Is that so hard to understand? I guess when you don't believe in following the law, it must get confusing on what you can ignore,a dn what you can't. There is no doubt that he was guilty, except in Dick and your minds.

Never said Libby wasn't guilty of what he got convicted of. Where are pulling that bullshit from? You have to make stuff up to go on a rant now? Libby got railroaded by the partisan express on a legal technicality that actually had nothing to do with the Plame issue. Sucks for him but he got nabbed and has to do the time. Legal technicalities also made waterboarding as used by the CIA legal. But, of course, you LOVE legal technicalities if it sends a Scooter to jail but whine like a schoolgirl having a bad hair day when legal technicalities work against you, so you'd rather ignore them instead. Is that so hard to understand?

Good to see you keeping up your outstanding moral hypocrisies. :thumbsup:

Haha, the legal technicalities were so powerful that it appears quite likely that an independent investigation within the justice department is going to recommend professional sanctions, perhaps even disbarment for those memos.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, the legal technicalities were so powerful that it appears quite likely that an independent investigation within the justice department is going to recommend professional sanctions, perhaps even disbarment for those memos.

Haha just like the Dem's hero Bill Clinton!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, the legal technicalities were so powerful that it appears quite likely that an independent investigation within the justice department is going to recommend professional sanctions, perhaps even disbarment for those memos.

Haha just like the Dem's hero Bill Clinton!

What's your point?