War crimes of the Bush administration

[libs0n]

Every now and then on these boards you'll see an outraged member call out for the impeachment of the President. This will be followed by a counterargument that one needs to have committed a crime in order to be impeached, and I certainly agree with a position the impeachers then posit, that Bush, Cheney, and their cabal are guilty of planning and waging a war of aggression, the most supreme crime, and that they must be indicted and tried on this regard. That's not all Bush has done, of course. In this piece by the blogger Andrew Sullivan, he details how the torture techniques the Bush administration favours and enacted were also used by the Nazis, in fact were pioneered by them, and were rightly recognized after the war as war crimes, with their perpetrators put to death. He also makes several other congruent points on the matter, and I highly recommend reading the entry. So, chock up two for Bush, at least.

"Verschärfte Vernehmung"

Now, the usual suspects may declare that I, for even putting this up for discussion, and the author are sufferers of their hear-no-evil see-no-evil meme de jour, Bush Derangement Syndrome, for comparing the actions of the Bush administration to those of the Nazis, but in defense of that I'll quote the author himself in his final paragraph:

Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death.

 

[Fern]

Nazi germany interogation techniques?

Can't these people get their stories straight?

Yesterday the complaint was that they're using 1950's era Soviet techniques

Somebody forgot to send the memo to Sullivan.

Fern

Edit: Link to the thread

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern
Nazi germany interogation techniques?

Can't these people get their stories straight?

Yesterday the complaint was that they're using 1950's era Soviet techniques

Somebody forgot to send the memo to Sullivan.

Fern

weak

 

[imported_Shivetya]

when all else fails play the NAZI card.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
when all else fails play the NAZI card.

when all else fails ignore the content of the OP without responding to it's merit or lack thereof.

That said, the Soviets/Commies learned a LOT from the Nazis in their working procedures. Look at the Stasi for example, I have a great book which describes how they adopted many Gestapo techniques for their own purposes, thanks to the meticulous record-keeping and documentation by the Germans from the '30s into '45.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
when all else fails play the NAZI card.

When all else fails accuse them of playing the Nazi card when they didn't.

Edit: Arkaign posted first...

 

[Jaskalas]

Put forth a guideline, a set of rules and regulations regarding interrogation. Do we not already have those, and do we not already follow them?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Nazis... :disgust:

 

[THUGSROOK]

they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

Prescott or the entire family? I guess GHWB's Naval service was all just a big cover. :disgust:

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

Prescott or the entire family? I guess GHWB's Naval service was all just a big cover. :disgust:

care to explain how naval service makes you not a nazi sympathizer?

the bush family is sickening.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

Prescott or the entire family? I guess GHWB's Naval service was all just a big cover. :disgust:

care to explain how naval service makes you not a nazi sympathizer?

the bush family is sickening.

I dunno... care to point out how one man's actions indict his entire family for the next three generations? Do people still look at the Kennedys as mafia bootleggers becasue of what Joe did? Is Teddy a mafia sympathizer?

It's an equally stupid comparison.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I dunno... care to point out how one man's actions indict his entire family for the next three generations?

are you blind? or just stupid?

list them for yourself.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

link?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

Prescott or the entire family? I guess GHWB's Naval service was all just a big cover. :disgust:

care to explain how naval service makes you not a nazi sympathizer?

the bush family is sickening.

So this isn't about our actions at all. Once again it's just about sheer hatred. You play on issues that shouldn't even be issues. Then again, you've yet to mention the OP or the topic so maybe you're not playing those at all. You're just here espousing trash about the Bush family, GTFO.

 

[ntdz]

Doesn't there have to be a war for there to be war crimes? Iraq and Afghanistan aren't officially declared wars and we aren't fighting another country, we're fighting insurgents and terrorists...

 

[Aimster]

George Bush is a terrorist

 

[Starbuck1975]

are you blind? or just stupid? list them for yourself.

Actually, since you are the one making such accusations, it is somewhat on you to provide evidence for those accusations...unless of course you are just another anti-Bush cheerleader pulling anything that strikes your fancy out of blogland.

care to explain how naval service makes you not a nazi sympathizer? the bush family is sickening.

Kind of hard to be a sympathizer if you are fighting in a war against those who you are sympathetic towards, and their allies.

By your logic, the Kennedy family deserves equal criticism.

 

[Arglebargle]

George Bush -- The Torture President.


...And he seemed like such a likeable nebbish when he was governor....

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Doesn't there have to be a war for there to be war crimes? Iraq and Afghanistan aren't officially declared wars and we aren't fighting another country, we're fighting insurgents and terrorists...

Ever tried reading the article?

"The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force."

So you people advocate actions which people 60 years ago recognized as war crimes. And then you get mad and cry like mama's boys when people call you a bunch of ****** retarded troglodytes?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I dunno... care to point out how one man's actions indict his entire family for the next three generations?

are you blind? or just stupid?

list them for yourself.

Are you retarded? Or just a really bad troll?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
they are all guilty many times over.

and in case you forgot ~ the bush family ARE nazi sympathizers. (fact)

Prescott or the entire family? I guess GHWB's Naval service was all just a big cover. :disgust:

care to explain how naval service makes you not a nazi sympathizer?

the bush family is sickening.

I dunno... care to point out how one man's actions indict his entire family for the next three generations? Do people still look at the Kennedys as mafia bootleggers becasue of what Joe did? Is Teddy a mafia sympathizer?

This is a rare occassion I agree with Whoozyerdaddy, at least logically if not in fact (the Joe Kennedy 'bootlegging' is way overblown by the right wing).

Prescott's descendants are not guilty of his crimes with Nazi financing.

But they are guilty of their own. It'd take a book to go into them, so I'll suggest one, pretending the right has any interest in the facts:

Kevin Phillips, who left the republican party over Bush, Sr. becoming president

 

[Lemon law]

Well cheer up some of you GWB sympathizers---you may in future may only become disillusioned and embarrassed---but GWB and Cheney are betting their future freedom.---and they are also staking their future freedom on a court recognizing the arguments of people like Yoo and Gonzales as something legitimate. And given past international precedents, those arguments don't last more than a few milliseconds before being laughed out of Court.

I am not saying Bush and Cheney will definitely be before various courts---I am just saying that they may well end up there. And that decision may well depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan turns out---and given their record as total bumblers there, that kites the probability of the latter.

It somewhat depend on the unknowable future---but as future facts come out---the positions of many could radically change. Until then, the winners of a war seldom get prosecuted, and as bad as Hitler was, Stalin was arguably worse.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
Doesn't there have to be a war for there to be war crimes? Iraq and Afghanistan aren't officially declared wars and we aren't fighting another country, we're fighting insurgents and terrorists...

Ever tried reading the article?

"The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force."

So you people advocate actions which people 60 years ago recognized as war crimes. And then you get mad and cry like mama's boys when people call you a bunch of ****** retarded troglodytes?

It doesn't make torture legit, I just dont think it falls under the tag of a "war crime."

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
Doesn't there have to be a war for there to be war crimes? Iraq and Afghanistan aren't officially declared wars and we aren't fighting another country, we're fighting insurgents and terrorists...

Ever tried reading the article?

"The victims, by the way, were not in uniform. And the Nazis tried to argue, just as John Yoo did, that this made torturing them legit. The victims were paramilitary Norwegians, operating as an insurgency, against an occupying force."

So you people advocate actions which people 60 years ago recognized as war crimes. And then you get mad and cry like mama's boys when people call you a bunch of ****** retarded troglodytes?

It doesn't make torture legit, I just dont think it falls under the tag of a "war crime."

A war crime is when you violate international treaties pertaining to the laws of war. In the case of this thread, the Geneva Conventions, although there are others that are beyond my purview at the moment that may be relevant. The GC does not require a formal declaration of war to come into effect, just that a state of de facto armed conflict exists. I'll make a secondary point on how the GC applies with the next paragraph even though it's not what you were asking about. Armed conflict exists in both Iraq and Afghanistan between occupational forces and insurgent groups. The war in Iraq is essentially a guerrilla war. So, a declaration of war does not need to be made in order for established treaties to come into effect and for their violation to be criminal and for those violators to be labeled war criminals.

The Bush administration has made the detention of its suspects extra-judicial in nature so as to bypass the civilian criminal justice system and its inherent rights by classifying the suspects as captured enemy soldiers and thus under the jurisdiction of the executive. They then argue that these detainees are not afforded the rights of a prisoner of war as they are not in uniform, that they are "enemy combatants", a category which is a creation of their own and is not found in the Geneva Conventions. The GC states that if a subject does not qualify as POW, they are to be treated as one until their status is determined by a relevant tribunal. As the piece I linked to suggests, the concept of "enemy combatants" has been ruled to be invalid in the past and the detainees must receive their rights under the Geneva Convention, the standards of which have already been violated.