NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, okay. Presume some more. Yep, I came in here expecting to be criminalized for refuting the belief that Bush should be charged with war crimes. As I said either here or elsewhere, with the bend this whole forum has, yeah, it IS like attacking the whole forum when you disagree with anything on the left side of the political spectrum or which doesn't vilify Bush.

I'll notice that you've got plenty of energy to continue this diversion. How about replying to the on-topic replies you've gotten? What's the matter? You ran out of straight out of the manual rhetoric?

If you have a reasoned argument, some people here will absolutely listen to it. I spent several years here defending Bush. I projected he would win both elections. I think he deserved to win both elections. And I've made that case repeatedly. Some people agreed. Some disagreed. But I didn't just drop every argument because arguing on a forum with a liberal bent (because the Western world has a liberal bent) is inconvenient.

Like I said, hitch up your drawers and get to it, and knock off the distractions. They're wildly transparant. While they might make you feel better, that it's just the big meanie liberals picking on you, they aren't fooling anybody here.

GITMO = full of PoWs

PoW = Prisoner of War

Logically follows, I think.

There are specific rules for the treatment of Prisoners of War that the United States is signatory to. Those rules also forbid torture, of which waterboarding is one of them. This is further backed by the United States prosecuting Japanese generals known for using similar methods of torture, waterboarding that is.

Following this logic, it is not murder if I shot you and declared that it wasn't murder.

The progression of events I saw was:

Justice Department's OLC said waterboarding's legal, was wrong --> OLC is Bush appointees --> No, not everyone in the Justice Department is an appointee --> We're not talking about everyone in the JD, just Bush's cronies --> etc

Order starts with me, alternates.

Nothing like a little convenient amnesia. Let me help you out.

You didn't deny that the senior people were Bush appointees, because, of course, they were. Instead you pretended like Bush was taking advice from cubicle workers and the like.

But, I would love to see you show me information that all the desk clerks and the cubicle-bound worker bees are all selected for Bush's exclusive use as a personal get out of jail free card.
Why don't you first show me information that desk clerks and cubicle-bound worker bees advised Bush that waterboarding was not torture?

FYI, it was political appointees that gave that "advice."

Attempting to revise history, when everyone here can look what was actually said is a stupid tactic. I would advise you to employ a better strategy in the future.

I disagree. It is fully within the rights of the President to order troops into an attack.

So if he orders and attack of Mexico because he had a Chimichanga that gave him the runs it's okay by your logic?

What's so hard to understand? If the Sec. Def. comes to Bush, or any president, with a new grenade or bomb or bullet or interrogation technique that they claim is humane, you expect him to field test it himself to be sure? He can't realistically do that. He has to rely on experts who may be wrong, and whether you consider it ethical or not, that should and probably does limit his liability. If he knew otherwise, then he should be prosecuted. I'm saying I don't really want to waste the time and money it'd take to find all that out, not because the president should be immune from prosecution, but because there would be no practical benefit. Now that the practice has been banned formally, there's really nothing to accomplish.

It wasn't "new." It was the same shit that happened in WW2, Vietnam, and countless other wars throughout history. It was illegal then and is still illegal now.

Not according to the Bush administration. POWs have to be treated a certain way under the Geneva Convention. GREAT BIG violation of international law.

But is it JUST international law? Nope. Because the Constitution says that any treaty we sign becomes US law. So Bush violated laws here and abroad and he violated them in a way that definitely made them a war crime.

That is if they were POWs. Are you actually trying to prove Bush should be prosecuted?

I notice you've conveniently ignored all of the arguments that aren't going in your favor to instead entertain a sidetrack about whether or not you're getting replies. If you want reasoned debate several people are offering it to you and TCT is one of the best.

So, tell me, what about the above makes it so it's not worth replying to? Is it that it addresses what actually happened and doesn't suddenly declare the detainees POWs (which incidentally Dems have been trying to do for 5 years). Can you address the fact that if they are, in fact, POWs that Bush blatantly violated international and US law?

So if he orders and attack of Mexico because he had a Chimichanga that gave him the runs it's okay by your logic?

The chimichanga would be classified as biological weaponry and thus a WMD.

Not according to the Bush administration. POWs have to be treated a certain way under the Geneva Convention. GREAT BIG violation of international law.

But is it JUST international law? Nope. Because the Constitution says that any treaty we sign becomes US law. So Bush violated laws here and abroad and he violated them in a way that definitely made them a war crime.

That is if they were POWs. Are you actually trying to prove Bush should be prosecuted?
Terrorists dont qualify as POW's under the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention "freedom fighters" as they would be called, have to follow 4 distinct standards, to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

1. they have to bear arms openly. This means no concealed arms, no strapping bombs to your chest and walking into enemy lines. Now this is not to be confused with Guerrilla Warfare which is legal, because the weapons being used are clearly visible and the fighters though hiding can be discerned. They dont attempt to use the civilians as cover.

2. They have to wear insignia that clearly identifies them as combatants. This means they need markings or a flag of some sort clearly visible on their clothes that can be seen at a distance. this they do not do, they attempt to blend in with the population taking out civilians and military alike.

3. They must have a leader that takes responsibility for their men. They almost come close to meeting this goal, except that the men act on their own, with no support. They only have their orders. Essentially they are like kites on a string.

4. They must operate ONLY in their occupied country. well here i capatilized only because they infact dont. Terrorism basically works with out borders. they only use borders to protect them selves against coutner attack. This is being seen on the Pakistani Afgani border. and also on the Irani Iraqi border.

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.

Was that some kind of typo or mental oversight -- or do you actually think the Justice Department is part of the Judicial Branch?

Are you unaware of how the Bush Administration politicized and litmus tested it's Justice Dep't lackeys?

Gotta reply to this that doesn't include the delusion like cubicle-bound clerks are advising the President. We both know they don't. That's what TCT pointed out.

Now, you may attack me, the poster, or you may address the argument. (I changed "can" to "may" because I suspect the other way, the choice wouldn't be a valid one.)

Terrorists dont qualify as POW's under the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention "freedom fighters" as they would be called, have to follow 4 distinct standards, to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

1. they have to bear arms openly. This means no concealed arms, no strapping bombs to your chest and walking into enemy lines. Now this is not to be confused with Guerrilla Warfare which is legal, because the weapons being used are clearly visible and the fighters though hiding can be discerned. They dont attempt to use the civilians as cover.

2. They have to wear insignia that clearly identifies them as combatants. This means they need markings or a flag of some sort clearly visible on their clothes that can be seen at a distance. this they do not do, they attempt to blend in with the population taking out civilians and military alike.

3. They must have a leader that takes responsibility for their men. They almost come close to meeting this goal, except that the men act on their own, with no support. They only have their orders. Essentially they are like kites on a string.

4. They must operate ONLY in their occupied country. well here i capatilized only because they infact dont. Terrorism basically works with out borders. they only use borders to protect them selves against coutner attack. This is being seen on the Pakistani Afgani border. and also on the Irani Iraqi border.

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.

The problem here being that many of them never had any arms. Also, none of them got to argue whether or not they should be considered freedom fighters since they didn't get their day in court.

And all of that is irrelevant since I didn't call them POWs. Our little friend did. I just pointed out that if they were actually POWs, then the Bush administration is, in fact, guilty of war crimes.

Except, of course, that it was torture at the time of the occurrence, under US law.

Conceded, except for the fact that it was possible to interpret its legality in 'extreme circumstances'. God knows what these are, but whatever.

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. Neither is "I was only following orders".

Besides, this is about Bush, not his lowest level lackies.

First straw-man thrown up by my opposition, refuting MY argument about the OLC, but then he was still allowed to use it against me. That's denial of grounds to debate, right there. Good luck getting a policy debate judge to tolerate that.

Bullshit. Every part of the US government has known that waterboarding was on the list of illegal tortures since WW2. Every American knows that torture is bad. Most Americans either know or are capable of finding out that it is also illegal. And any American, in or out of the government, is capable of figuring out that if a thing is on the illegal torture list, then it's torture and its illegal.

So, what was this "bad intel" that had them pointing to the illegal torture list and saying, "But what about this one? Can we do this one? Can we, huh?"

Is "bad intel" a military euphemism for "stupid"?

Great, attack on military matters. Countered with my list of bad fuckups in military misinformation.

Who do you think told the CIA officers waterboarding was legal?

Bush fucking admitted he gave the order. Dont fight a battle when you dont know enough to at least humor me.

Bush admitted he knew about the waterboarding. Accomplice to a crime, then, for not blowing the whistle. Do not leap to the conclusion that an order came from this particular person. I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest an ORDER, not acceptance/approval. Difference between tolerating racists and being racist -- either way, you are very bad, but it's the degree of badness.

Yup, we do put him in jail. Shouldn't you be put in jail if intentionally gave me bad information that led to me torturing someone?

And, he didn't need the Justice department to tell him. We have a long history of prosecuting people for waterboarding. Ignorance is not an excuse for speeding, nor should it be an excuse for torturing hundreds of people, killing hundreds of thousands, and ignoring the rights of another thousand or so.

Yeah, sure, for intentional misleading. You're making the assumption, again, that this was engineered, when we aren't gonna know until it's all declassified half a century from now. And I love how you make the segue from torture to the war, while sorta implying they're all from one cause (Bush). Clever...

It's called being the boss, GLT. That's why being the boss sucks. No matter whether you ordered the fuck-up or not, it's still your fault, because you should have been on top of things.

And anyway, I utterly dismiss anything that even remotely suggests all this torture shit was going on without Bush knowing about it. He himself, in recent remarks, put paid to that lie by admitting that he approved waterboarding. Also, with such strong evidence -- in the form of documentation and their own public statements over the years -- against such "low level lackies" as Cheney and Rumsfeld, it is just ridiculous to think Bush was not in the loop on this.

A flaw with a single-leader system. It doesn't work. One person shouldn't be the fall guy.

He approved waterboarding. Well, tell ya what, I approve the meal that you eat tomorrow for breakfast. Am I responsible for it? Bush never said explicitly that he personally wrote an executive order to allow waterboarding. Hell, maybe Bush was told by his legal counsel that it is legal.

???

What a totally worthless and irrelevent list.

Thanks for your refusal to even think about what I was giving.

Well, get them back on that keyboard so you can type a point.

Yeah, my attempt at humor failed. So do all my points.

Why don't you first show me information that desk clerks and cubicle-bound worker bees advised Bush that waterboarding was not torture?

FYI, it was political appointees that gave that "advice."

Burden of proof lies on you. Prove to me that they're appointees. It's not my place to prove that they were Bush's drones (which I would be forced to do in order to show that they advised Bush that way because of their slant).

Nothing like a little convenient amnesia. Let me help you out.

You didn't deny that the senior people were Bush appointees, because, of course, they were. Instead you pretended like Bush was taking advice from cubicle workers and the like.

Flawed, but I appreciate the attempt:

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse. Neither is "I was only following orders".

Besides, this is about Bush, not his lowest level lackies.

^ Here is where the first presumption occurs that we were in any way talking about people of little or no political stature that are tied to Bush's agenda. That's not my screen name...

Bullshit. Every part of the US government has known that waterboarding was on the list of illegal tortures since WW2. Every American knows that torture is bad. Most Americans either know or are capable of finding out that it is also illegal. And any American, in or out of the government, is capable of figuring out that if a thing is on the illegal torture list, then it's torture and its illegal.

So, what was this "bad intel" that had them pointing to the illegal torture list and saying, "But what about this one? Can we do this one? Can we, huh?"

Is "bad intel" a military euphemism for "stupid"?

Who do you think told the CIA officers waterboarding was legal?

Bush fucking admitted he gave the order. Dont fight a battle when you dont know enough to at least humor me.

Are you unaware of how the Bush Administration politicized and litmus tested it's Justice Dep't lackeys?


Lackeys. Seems to be a common term, and I hadn't used it at all.

Conceded, except for the fact that it was possible to interpret its legality in 'extreme circumstances'. God knows what these are, but whatever.

First straw-man thrown up by my opposition, refuting MY argument about the OLC, but then he was still allowed to use it against me. That's denial of grounds to debate, right there. Good luck getting a policy debate judge to tolerate that.

Great, attack on military matters. Countered with my list of bad fuckups in military misinformation.

Bush admitted he knew about the waterboarding. Accomplice to a crime, then, for not blowing the whistle. Do not leap to the conclusion that an order came from this particular person. Likely, no empirical evidence to suggest it.

Yeah, sure, for intentional misleading. Love how you make the segue from torture to the war, while sorta implying they're all from one cause (Bush). Clever...

A flaw with a single-leader system. It doesn't work. One person shouldn't be the fall guy.

He approved waterboarding. Well, tell ya what, I approve the meal that you eat tomorrow for breakfast. Am I responsible for it? Bush never said explicitly that he personally wrote an executive order to allow waterboarding. Hell, maybe Bush was told by his legal counsel that it is legal.

Thanks for your refusal to even think about what I was giving.

Yeah, my attempt at humor failed. So do all my points.

Burden of proof lies on you. Prove to me that they're appointees. It's not my place to prove that they were Bush's drones (which I would be forced to do in order to show that they advised Bush that way because of their slant).

Flawed, but I appreciate the attempt:

Here is where the first presumption occurs that we were in any way talking about people of little or no political stature. That's not my screen name...

Lackeys. Seems to be a common term, and I hadn't used it at all.

And yet another ridiculous attempt. These aren't all one person, my friend. Don't assume they are all agreeing with one another.

For example, KoL would gladly tell you that he fervently dislikes me. In fact, every one of them has been downright pissed off at me and occasionally one another at times. Liberals aren't a hive-mind. You are, in fact, going to have to deal with actual arguments and not use varying points of view to erect some ridiculous bastardization of reason just so you can argue against it. I know it's convenient. So convenient that it has a whole logical fallacy attributed to it. It would be nice if you avoided it and made debunking your posts more difficult. Please? Thanks.

You can't use KoL's argument to change the context of TCT's no matter how convenient you think that will be.

KoL is not TCT's screenname either. You responded to an argument made by TCT stating that Bush didn't appoint the cubicle jockeys. Not only wasn't TCT talking about low-level people, but every other person you quoted pointed out the same thing.

By the by, lackey doesn't mean low-level (that's why KoL had to add the qualifier). TCT was referring to people who are yesmen. So was everyone else.

Incidentally, please look up strawman. Talking about the argument you JUST made is not a strawman. Seriously, if you don't recognize a term, look it up or ask someone to define it for you. Many, many people here are quite magnamous about such things.

Now, on to the burden of proof.

First, are you honestly claiming you're unaware of the furor over Bush basically applying a litmus test to the varying levels of attorneys for the US Government? I'm not poking. I'm serious. Are you claiming you've not heard of it at all?

Second, YOU claimed that Bush was simply following legal advice. The burden is on YOU to prove that someone gave him this advice and who those people were if you want it to exonerate him. Bush DOES get the presumption of innocence but that does not require the prosecution (or anyone making an prosecutorial argument) to openly explore every hypothetical alternative. It's unreasonable for anyone to assume that low-level people are advising the President, but if you have some evidence that he was listening to someone not chosen by him during his political appointments, please feel free to present some support.

Terrorists dont qualify as POW's under the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention "freedom fighters" as they would be called, have to follow 4 distinct standards, to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

1. they have to bear arms openly. This means no concealed arms, no strapping bombs to your chest and walking into enemy lines. Now this is not to be confused with Guerrilla Warfare which is legal, because the weapons being used are clearly visible and the fighters though hiding can be discerned. They dont attempt to use the civilians as cover.

2. They have to wear insignia that clearly identifies them as combatants. This means they need markings or a flag of some sort clearly visible on their clothes that can be seen at a distance. this they do not do, they attempt to blend in with the population taking out civilians and military alike.

3. They must have a leader that takes responsibility for their men. They almost come close to meeting this goal, except that the men act on their own, with no support. They only have their orders. Essentially they are like kites on a string.

4. They must operate ONLY in their occupied country. well here i capatilized only because they infact dont. Terrorism basically works with out borders. they only use borders to protect them selves against coutner attack. This is being seen on the Pakistani Afgani border. and also on the Irani Iraqi border.

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.
In failing those standards, they may not be eligible to be regarded as soldiers and thus be treated as POWs. But international law only makes two distinctions, does it not? So wouldn't those people have to be treated and tried as civilian criminals before a civilian court of law? I would think so!

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

EDIT: Is that there is no need for edit. My point remains that mistakes are made, and you aren't gonna tell me that the Judicial Branch was somehow steered by Bush into giving planted information about torture -- yeah, sorry, not gonna buy it.

Was that some kind of typo or mental oversight -- or do you actually think the Justice Department is part of the Judicial Branch?

Are you unaware of how the Bush Administration politicized and litmus tested it's Justice Dep't lackeys?

Typo.

But, I would love to see you show me information that all the desk clerks and the cubicle-bound worker bees are all selected for Bush's exclusive use as a personal get out of jail free card.

Why don't you first show me information that desk clerks and cubicle-bound worker bees advised Bush that waterboarding was not torture?

FYI, it was political appointees that gave that "advice."

Burden of proof lies on you. Prove to me that they're appointees. It's not my place to prove that they were Bush's drones (which I would be forced to do in order to show that they advised Bush that way because of their slant).

All the above is quoted to make clear the flow of the argument and where it started. You claimed Bush, if prosecuted for war crimes, could claim that his actions were legal (or he thought they were legal) because the Office of Legal Counsel had told him so.

Among the many objections to this argument is that legal "advice" from hand-picked political appointees isn't much of a sheild (or fig leaf).

You asserted that the advice didn't come from political lackeys. I disagreed.

It seems to me you have the burden of proof regarding (1) that Bush & Co received legal advice they could rely on that torture was legal and (2) that such advice did not come from politicized sources.

Nonetheless, I can show the "advice" was more political than legal, that the "legal" arguments were facile, and that the "advice" came from politicos -- namely John Yoo and Jay Bybee. See, e.g., link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080428/gillers), link (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050114.html).

Terrorists dont qualify as POW's under the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention "freedom fighters" as they would be called, have to follow 4 distinct standards, to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

1. they have to bear arms openly. This means no concealed arms, no strapping bombs to your chest and walking into enemy lines. Now this is not to be confused with Guerrilla Warfare which is legal, because the weapons being used are clearly visible and the fighters though hiding can be discerned. They dont attempt to use the civilians as cover.

2. They have to wear insignia that clearly identifies them as combatants. This means they need markings or a flag of some sort clearly visible on their clothes that can be seen at a distance. this they do not do, they attempt to blend in with the population taking out civilians and military alike.

3. They must have a leader that takes responsibility for their men. They almost come close to meeting this goal, except that the men act on their own, with no support. They only have their orders. Essentially they are like kites on a string.

4. They must operate ONLY in their occupied country. well here i capatilized only because they infact dont. Terrorism basically works with out borders. they only use borders to protect them selves against coutner attack. This is being seen on the Pakistani Afgani border. and also on the Irani Iraqi border.

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.

So, that makes them civillians. Which is it? There is no third catagory, no matter how much you or Mr. Bush may wish there was.

Wow, my thread has some stars on it!!! *eyes wet*

Wow, my thread has some stars on it!!! *eyes wet*

I just gave you an extra star! :eek:

First straw-man thrown up by my opposition, refuting MY argument about the OLC, but then he was still allowed to use it against me. That's denial of grounds to debate, right there. Good luck getting a policy debate judge to tolerate that.

Its a strawman eh? You never brought up underlings, hmmmmm?

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course,


Sucks that we can remember what you type.


EDIT: What is the Justice Department? Oh right, his underlings. And who, exactly gave the order to said underlings?

I'm too tired to read through this whole thread looking for the answer, but I suspect it hasn't been posted. Can one of you lawyer types tell me the answer to this question?

Who has the power to bring Bush to The Hague?

I'm thinking "no one, unless the US chose to extradite him" is the correct answer. I'm thinking that even if Dubya booked a flight to Schipol, hopped onto a train to Den Haag Centraal, and bought tickets for him and Laura to tour Mauritshuis; the Den Haag Politie wouldn't have the authority to drive him across town to the ICJ, much less toss him in the dock for a trial.

Seems to me that all the justification for charges are irrelevant unless someone is prepared and able to press them. I just don't ever see the US cooperating with that. Does it matter? Could they try him in absentia without cooperation from the USA? Do they have the power to enforce any decision concerning a former chief exec from a permanent member of the Security Council, or have we managed to gut any actual power preemptively?

Just curious.

I think we all agreed that Bush wont be answering to anything or anyone for his actions. And yea even if Bush goes to the Hague, in the netherlands, dutch police wont be able to arrest him. Too powerful to be messed with. :(

I just gave you an extra star! :eek:

:hail:

I'm too tired to read through this whole thread looking for the answer, but I suspect it hasn't been posted. Can one of you lawyer types tell me the answer to this question?

Who has the power to bring Bush to The Hague?

I'm thinking "no one, unless the US chose to extradite him" is the correct answer. I'm thinking that even if Dubya booked a flight to Schipol, hopped onto a train to Den Haag Centraal, and bought tickets for him and Laura to tour Mauritshuis; the Den Haag Politie wouldn't have the authority to drive him across town to the ICJ, much less toss him in the dock for a trial.

Seems to me that all the justification for charges are irrelevant unless someone is prepared and able to press them. I just don't ever see the US cooperating with that. Does it matter? Could they try him in absentia without cooperation from the USA? Do they have the power to enforce any decision concerning a former chief exec from a permanent member of the Security Council, or have we managed to gut any actual power preemptively?

Just curious.

Upon reading your post I did some reading on La Hague and realized something. Following your line of thinking, since the US is a member of the International Court of Justice (Thomas Brueghel being representative since 2000) and member of the Security Council of the UN, it's highly probable (if not certain) that an extradition of a former US president won't be possible.

What's more, only the country in question, in this case, the United States of America, is the only one who can ask the ICJ to process, criminally or otherwise, an ex Chief of State like GWB was, following the status of both the UN Security Council and the General Assambley. Individuals, be them in personal character or juridical character, cannot appeal to the ICJ on a contentious or consultive way.

This means that I cannot go to the ICJ and ask the council to judge GWB for war crimes. Only the US, in accordance with the UN Security Council, can do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Upon reading your post I did some reading on La Hague and realized something. Following your line of thinking, since the US is a member of the International Court of Justice (Thomas Brueghel being representative since 2000) and member of the Security Council of the UN, it's highly probable (if not certain) that an extradition of a former US president won't be possible.

What's more, only the country in question, in this case, the United States of America, is the only one who can ask the ICJ to process, criminally or otherwise, an ex Chief of State like GWB was, following the status of both the UN Security Council and the General Assambley. Individuals, be them in personal character or juridical character, cannot appeal to the ICJ on a contentious or consultive way.

This means that I cannot go to the ICJ and ask the council to judge GWB for war crimes. Only the US, in accordance with the UN Security Council, can do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

That sounds really familiar. In fact, I remember someone who looks exactly like me saying something pretty similar a couple of days ago and being roundly scorned by the know-it-alls at large for it.

That sounds really familiar. In fact, I remember someone who looks exactly like me saying something pretty similar a couple of days ago and being roundly scorned by the know-it-alls at large for it.

Mind linking to the post?

That sounds really familiar. In fact, I remember someone who looks exactly like me saying something pretty similar a couple of days ago and being roundly scorned by the know-it-alls at large for it.

The way I recall it, you werent scorned for saying it probably wont happen (everyone agrees), but you were scorned for saying it shouldnt happen.


Or perhaps I am mixing you up for someone else.

Mind linking to the post?

Here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=580669&highlight=Heinleinites&page=10

The way I recall it, you werent scorned for saying it probably wont happen (everyone agrees), but you were scorned for saying it shouldnt happen. Or perhaps I am mixing you up for someone else.

I think you might be.

Here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=580669&highlight=Heinleinites&page=10



I think you might be.


Oh, thats why. You were correct, for the wrong reasons. You also brought in a bit of classism and racism.

Bush isnt going to avoid trial because "no one has the stones...no one has the muscle to make it stick", but because he legally cant be under the Hague's rules.

Uhu... LBJ's government killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Did he get put on trial? No. Ought he to have? Yes.
Indeed. So?

Since Bushs' crime was an international one, then it only makes sense that he should be tried by an international Tribunal as I previously suggested. Where the trial is held is irrelevant; however they did try German war criminals in Germany.
It also makes sense to have the trial in his home country, to have the US reaffirm it's commitment to (international) justice.

As far Jim Garrison goes, there is a world of difference between trying a local businessman and an insurance agent, and trying a President, even an ex-President.
So what's the difference?

(And we're talking about a former president, so you can forget the implications of trying a sitting president)

Also, from your source:
"Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources."
So? That doesn't back up your idea that it's "ludicrous" to think that a States Attorney or a District Attorney wouldn't try.

How sure are you that a trial for George W. Bush, in an American court, would be fair and just? Presumption of innocence or not?
How sure are you that a trial in an international court would be fair and just?

Fair enough. But I'm still of the idea that an international court of law would fare better. Of course, if one must be fair, and one must at all costs, have a jury or a judge be an American or Americans.
Having an American jury would negate the whole point of bringing it before an international court, wouldn't it?

I don't recall there being a rule anywhere that says war criminals can only be considered for their crimes while they are in office?
Nope. It's quite the opposite, actually. The immunity a head of state enjoys while being in charge comes to an end when he steps down. It should be much easier to go after a former president than the current one.

Exactly. Take, lets take, for example, Augusto Pinochet, ex President of Chile (1973-1990). He was accused of committing crimes againts humanity and war prisoners long after he left office. It's a pity he died awaiting trial, but he was accused after leaving office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial
I agree. It's a bit sad that the trial was never completed.

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.
This is incorrect.

Even the constructed "illegal combatant" is protected against torture, for example.


Bush admitted he knew about the waterboarding. Accomplice to a crime, then, for not blowing the whistle. Do not leap to the conclusion that an order came from this particular person. I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest an ORDER, not acceptance/approval. Difference between tolerating racists and being racist -- either way, you are very bad, but it's the degree of badness.
So? Commander in chief. He had the responsibility. If there was a crime, and there was, he wouldn't be an accomplice if he knew. He would be obligated to stop it. When he didn't, and directly or silently condoned torture, he became a criminal.

In failing those standards, they may not be eligible to be regarded as soldiers and thus be treated as POWs. But international law only makes two distinctions, does it not? So wouldn't those people have to be treated and tried as civilian criminals before a civilian court of law? I would think so!
There are some very narrow excemptions, like spies.

Upon reading your post I did some reading on La Hague and realized something. Following your line of thinking, since the US is a member of the International Court of Justice (Thomas Brueghel being representative since 2000) and member of the Security Council of the UN, it's highly probable (if not certain) that an extradition of a former US president won't be possible.

What's more, only the country in question, in this case, the United States of America, is the only one who can ask the ICJ to process, criminally or otherwise, an ex Chief of State like GWB was, following the status of both the UN Security Council and the General Assambley. Individuals, be them in personal character or juridical character, cannot appeal to the ICJ on a contentious or consultive way.

This means that I cannot go to the ICJ and ask the council to judge GWB for war crimes. Only the US, in accordance with the UN Security Council, can do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

I'm not sure why you bring in the ICJ here. The ICJ has no authority or juridistictions over criminal prosecutions. Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the ICJ. That means that the individual GWB cannot be brought before the court in any matter. The court simply has no juridistiction over him.

The closest you can get is that one of the countries effected by the reign of GWB can sue the US, and the US can agree to meet before the court.

Oh, thats why. You were correct, for the wrong reasons. You also brought in a bit of classism and racism.

Eh. 'right for the wrong reasons' is still right. It's like winning a court case on a technicality, hey, you still won. Somebody else brought up 'racist' too, where was I racist?

I'm too tired to read through this whole thread looking for the answer, but I suspect it hasn't been posted. Can one of you lawyer types tell me the answer to this question?

Who has the power to bring Bush to The Hague?

I'm thinking "no one, unless the US chose to extradite him" is the correct answer. I'm thinking that even if Dubya booked a flight to Schipol, hopped onto a train to Den Haag Centraal, and bought tickets for him and Laura to tour Mauritshuis; the Den Haag Politie wouldn't have the authority to drive him across town to the ICJ, much less toss him in the dock for a trial.

Seems to me that all the justification for charges are irrelevant unless someone is prepared and able to press them. I just don't ever see the US cooperating with that. Does it matter? Could they try him in absentia without cooperation from the USA? Do they have the power to enforce any decision concerning a former chief exec from a permanent member of the Security Council, or have we managed to gut any actual power preemptively?

Just curious.

First of all, the ICJ has no jurisdiction here. When we're speaking of the Hague and war crimes we should think of the International Criminal Court, the ICC.

Now, who has the power to bring Bush to The Hague and the ICC?

The ICC has a problem with jurisdiction here also, but at least that's a court that's set up to deal with these kinds of crimes, so we're on a better track.

The ICC only has jurisdiction if the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state that's a member of the court (party to the treaty). Since the US isn't a member of the court, the court cannot try an American.

Of course, there are exceptions.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of
registration of that vessel or aircraft
(This all follows, by the way, from the Rome Statute of the Criminal Court (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm) Article 12 para. 2) I.E. where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a member state.

Neither Cuba or Iraq are members. Since Afghanistan is a member, you may go via them. Of course you can probably make an argument for war crimes in Afghanistan, but it wouldn't be nearly as strong as many of us would like to see.

But would the ICC have jurisdiction if we base it upon the claim of crimes in Afghanistan? Not necessarily.

Article 17 sets boundries, most notably litra a and d.

a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
The first part limits the jurisdiction. IF the US starts an investigation, the ICC won't have jurisdiction over the case (as long as it's a proper investigation.)

The court may also decide that the case isn't serious enough to warrant further action. (In the case that it's only actions in Afghanistan that's being investigated it'll be a legitimate concern.)

Also, it should be mentioned that a situation can be referred to the Court by the UN Security Council. But also the opposite; the UNSC may block an investigation or prosecution. According to Article 16
No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.
So would the UNSC do something contrary to what the US wanted in these cases? Doubtful.

So for the sake of the argument, if the court were to start an investigation, it would still be dependent on the US to extradite him. Or that he'd be arrested in another country.

Oh, and I forgot:

Could they try him in absentia without cooperation from the USA?
No, the ICC cannot try a person in absentia. This follows from Article 63, first paragraph:
The accused shall be present during the trial.
My emphasis.

Do they have the power to enforce any decision concerning a former chief exec from a permanent member of the Security Council, or have we managed to gut any actual power preemptively?

If the court ever got so far as to actually convict Bush, they have the power to enforce such a judgement. See Part 10 of the Rome Statute. I'll only include litra a from the first paragraph of Article 103 here:
A sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a State designated by the Court from a list of States which have indicated to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons

Keep wishing for your... 'justice'.

I'm surprised that NSG is so Liberal. I mean, this isn't minor, everyone here lives, breathes, and dies Democrat. Or anti-Bush, which I gather is synonymous ATM. I figured this forum for a Conservative hangout.

Considering how many NSers aren't even American, trying to pigeonhole them as 'Democrats' seems like a thankless job.

GITMO = full of PoWs

PoW = Prisoner of War

Logically follows, I think.

Curious - what makes you think they were 'PoW'?

You understand that there are specific rules governing that, yes?

They fail to meet these standards so they have no protection in international law.

If you are right - they have no protections as PoW. Which means that the US are imprisoning, without charge or trial, civilians of sovereign powers. And, on top of that, they are engaging these civilians, as a miltary exercise - which would be in breach of Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

Conceded, except for the fact that it was possible to interpret its legality in 'extreme circumstances'. God knows what these are, but whatever.
Illegal is illegal. Period. What you and people like Alberto Gonzalez call "interpreting" is what other people call lying. Sorry to be that blunt, but there it is.


Great, attack on military matters. Countered with my list of bad fuckups in military misinformation.
What attack on military matters? You put this whole thing down to "bad intel." It has been made abundantly clear that waterboarding was obviously and famously illegal under US law well before Bush became president. That was common knowledge and public information. All of a sudden, they need "intel" about it? All of a sudden nobody in "intel" can look up the law? That's bullshit. There are only three ways anyone can work in the US government and claim that waterboarding is legal. They must be either (a) lying, (b) stupid, or (c) both. So with your constant insistance that it was not a deliberate lie, but all down to "bad intel" I had to wonder if you meant "intel" as intelligence in the sense of basic brain function.

And as to your addressing of that with your list, I'm still waiting for you to make the point that will render that list in any way relevant to anything we are talking about here.

Bush admitted he knew about the waterboarding. Accomplice to a crime, then, for not blowing the whistle.
The commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, one of whose primary functions is to maintain national security, does not get to be a "whistleblower" on rogue underlings. You don't "blow the whistle" on the people below you in the power structure. When you are the boss and your underlings are misbehaving, you put a stop to it. He didn't. He is culpable.

Do you think we're in the school yard here? This stuff is serious. The President of the United States carries a heavy load of responsibility for what happens during his term(s), and he does not get to weasel out of it by making excuses and blaming his employees.

Do not leap to the conclusion that an order came from this particular person. I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest an ORDER, not acceptance/approval. Difference between tolerating racists and being racist -- either way, you are very bad, but it's the degree of badness.
More equivocations. Bush had certain things he was required to do. He did not do them in a way that, in and of itself, constitutes a crime. He's on the hook, and you are not succeeding in getting him off it.

A flaw with a single-leader system. It doesn't work. One person shouldn't be the fall guy.
Wah, wah, wah for Mr. Bush then, because that's the system we've got, that's the system he was all too eager to exploit for his own interests, and that's the system that, hopefully, will be his downfall for what he did within it.

He approved waterboarding. Well, tell ya what, I approve the meal that you eat tomorrow for breakfast. Am I responsible for it? Bush never said explicitly that he personally wrote an executive order to allow waterboarding. Hell, maybe Bush was told by his legal counsel that it is legal.
Are you kidding now? Seriously, are you? Are you really going to try to win this argument by just repeating all the statements that have already been debunked? Did you think we would have forgotten by now how ridiculous your argument is?


Yeah, my attempt at humor failed. So do all my points.
Work on improving the points first, and maybe the humor will follow.

Waterboarding is the only thing he may be responsible for. Killing civilians in Iraq, no. Get used to massive civilian casualties in future wars too

Waterboarding is the only thing he may be responsible for. Killing civilians in Iraq, no. Get used to massive civilian casualties in future wars too

That's not really an argument.

How do you believe he's not responsible (as Commander in Chief, yes?) for civilian casualties?

Whether or not you expect to see it as a trend is irrelevent. Where's the absolution in this case coming from?

That's not really an argument.

How do you believe he's not responsible (as Commander in Chief, yes?) for civilian casualties?

Whether or not you expect to see it as a trend is irrelevent. Where's the absolution in this case coming from?
No I don't hold him personally responsible for a marine who turns his M16 on a civilian. No its quite relevant, large conventional battles in rural areas are a thing of the past. The future of combat is urban, where the enemy may dress like civilians. Obviously this will lead to greater civilian casualties, no matter what the "commander and chief" does.

Waterboarding is the only thing he may be responsible for.

Gee, he is only responsible for TORTURE!! I feel so much better. :rolleyes:

Also, you appear to have overlooked this from my earlier post:

The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international. It begins with illegal wiretapping and surveillance (which in the view of many experts violated the Fourth Amendment, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for starters), the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine US attorneys, and numerous instances of obstruction of justice—from the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes to the willful misleading of Congress and the public. Perhaps the paramount charge that legal experts have zeroed in on is the state-approved torture that violated not just the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment and other "outrages upon personal dignity."

There is of course the problem that even amongst a left-leaning group such as NSG the support for criminal proceedings isn't topping 50. Clinton was impeached for lying about where he stored his cigars, and the last President to pull off even half these stunts resigned in disgrace.

There is of course the problem that even amongst a left-leaning group such as NSG the support for criminal proceedings isn't topping 50. Clinton was impeached for lying about where he stored his cigars, and the last President to pull off even half these stunts resigned in disgrace.
Does not speak well for the ethics of the American people.

Does not speak well for the ethics of the American people.

I could have told you that America cares more about infidelity then torture and the killing of innocents.

GOD DAMMIT people, I want 5 stars. I'll post my naked pics!

War crimes and high treason. Let's begin.

High treason? Treason against himself?

High treason? Treason against himself?

Against the free market!

Against the free market!

I was trying to think of something funny to say with this but couldn't think of anything so I will just smile.

GOD DAMMIT people, I want 5 stars. I'll post my naked pics!Well I did my part. Could you private message your pics? :p

High treason? Treason against himself?
If a president committed treason it would be treason against the United States and against the Constitution the United States. Contrary to what Bush might think, he is not the state.

Contrary to what Bush might think, he is not the state.This. ^

GOD DAMMIT people, I want 5 stars. I'll post my naked pics!Somebody's SRS. :p

Should we try Roosevelt for Civilian Casualties? Lincoln? Churchill?

No I don't hold him personally responsible for a marine who turns his M16 on a civilian.


We're not talking about 'a marine who turns his M16 on a civilian' - we're talking about the ENTIRE paradigm of a war.


No its quite relevant, large conventional battles in rural areas are a thing of the past. The future of combat is urban, where the enemy may dress like civilians.


The enemy ARE civilians.


Obviously this will lead to greater civilian casualties, no matter what the "commander and chief" does.

His (or her) problem, not mine. I'm not a state, so I didn't sign to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

It also makes sense to have the trial in his home country, to have the US reaffirm it's commitment to (international) justice.
Absolutely!!

Yes, whether or not he is a war criminal I wouldn't want to pronounce judgement. But I think there's enough of a case for him to be called to answer it and let a court decide.

Should we try Roosevelt for Civilian Casualties? Lincoln? Churchill?

Those guys won... and if I had my way Bush would be wishing he didn't allow the execution of the retarded.

and if I had my way Bush would be wishing he didn't allow the execution of the retarded.
Another crime against humanity, although there is no way Bush could be tried for that assholish move.

Should we try Roosevelt for Civilian Casualties? Lincoln? Churchill?

Did any of those actually scared the country into a war of choice and actually endorsed torture? If so, yes, let them be raped with a broom stick for it, repeatedly, until they die and go to Hell for eternity. If not, the analogy makes no sense.

Should we try Roosevelt for Civilian Casualties? Lincoln? Churchill?
Two problems with your analogy: (1) None of them did what we are accusing Bush of doing, namely endorsing and supporting torture of prisoners and illegally intiating an attack against an non-threatening country. (2) They are dead.

(1) If any of them had done what Bush did, then yes, they should have been investigated, charged, tried, and if convicted, imprisoned. Your attempt to imply an inconsistent standard fails.

2) As soon as Bush is dead, we'll stop calling for him to be investigated for war crimes because the dead cannot be punished nor can they make restitution. That attempt to equate dead potential criminals to a live potential criminal fails, too.

Waterboarding is the only thing he may be responsible for. Killing civilians in Iraq, no. Get used to massive civilian casualties in future wars too

You do know what waterboarding means, right? But just to make sure, here your go. Waterboarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding).

It isn't, as I'm sure YOU know, a watersport. It's torture, something sanctioned by the UN and punishable by jail-time. Ironic, really, because GWB had Saddam Hussein accused and convicted, not to leave executed too, for pretty much the same thing.:rolleyes:

-snip-


Theres nothing that this American man would hate more than to see his president be tried on the international stage for warcrimes as well as crimes against humanity. I can think of no greater shame for this great country. HOWEVER! He and his puppet-master Dick Cheney are both quite guilty of war crimes. They have violated many international laws, particularly concerning those involved in the Geneva Convention as well as the statute of law forbiding the invasion of a sovereign nation. Now, am I in favour of the war in Iraq? Yes. I believe, in person, that there was nothing wrong with it, and I fail to see why anyone is so upset by the disposal of that bastard Saddam Hussein. What does anger me is that they lied to the American people, but I'll get to that later. My own feelings are, however, completely irrelevant in this situation: what matters is whats legal under international sensitivities and law. Thus! Yes, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Rumsfeld should stand trial before the International Tribunal at the Hague, or somewhere. Additionally, I believe it only just that the American people try them for crimes against their own countrymen in the form of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, for which I truly despise all those named above. Granted, I am quite aware of legislative procedure, and that it is our Congress who passed those acts. Thus I similarly believe that the entirity of the American government should stand trial. But thats just my personal opinion...

Did any of those actually scared the country into a war of choice and actually endorsed torture? If so, yes, let them be raped with a broom stick for it, repeatedly, until they die and go to Hell for eternity. If not, the analogy makes no sense.
I do not see how you can complain about torture whilst condoning it yourself. :eek:

I do not see how you can complain about torture whilst condoning it yourself. :eek:

Oh, hey, CH, didn't see you there. If I had, I might be careful not to use any hyperbole at all, lest you jump on it to hijack the thread due to an old argument of ours regarding Obama (how did that turn out BTW?). But, then again, I might not have taken such care, as I don't find your endearing rants particularly worth the bother I would endure to (try to) prevent them.

Another crime against humanity, although there is no way Bush could be tried for that assholish move.

Considering they were legally convicted for a crime in a court of law, no, its not a "crime against humanity". And all he did was not pardon them, he didnt actually convict them.


It was a totally dick thing to do, and speaks volumes about his character (or lack there of), but its not a "crime against humanity".

No I don't hold him personally responsible for a marine who turns his M16 on a civilian. No its quite relevant, large conventional battles in rural areas are a thing of the past. The future of combat is urban, where the enemy may dress like civilians. Obviously this will lead to greater civilian casualties, no matter what the "commander and chief" does.
Did he approve anny ROE that might have caused unnecessary civilian casualties? Did he approve of the degrading treatment of Iraqi detainees? The torture of them? The killing of them?

That would make him culpable, would it not?
Should we try Roosevelt for Civilian Casualties? Lincoln? Churchill?
Maybe we should have.

You do know what waterboarding means, right? But just to make sure, here your go. Waterboarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding).

It isn't, as I'm sure YOU know, a watersport. It's torture, something sanctioned by the UN and punishable by jail-time. Ironic, really, because GWB had Saddam Hussein accused and convicted, not to leave executed too, for pretty much the same thing.:rolleyes:
I hope the UN doesn't sanction torture :p

Did he approve anny ROE that might have caused unnecessary civilian casualties? Did he approve of the degrading treatment of Iraqi detainees? The torture of them? The killing of them?
I seriously doubt that the President is so involved in the day-to-day minutiae of war. In fact, I hope he isn't.

I hope the UN doesn't sanction torture :p

I take it you like water sports yourself.:tongue:

I take it you like water sports yourself.:tongue:

I like the double meaning of the word "sanctioned (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctioned)" more ;)

I seriously doubt that the President is so involved in the day-to-day minutiae of war. In fact, I hope he isn't.Unfortunately, W has already acknowledged taking some of his decisions upon himself.

I seriously doubt that the President is so involved in the day-to-day minutiae of war. In fact, I hope he isn't.
Why?

I like the double meaning of the word "sanctioned (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctioned)" more ;)

Len Len, don't be like that. :tongue:

Why?

Why? Just think of the damage admitting Bush screwed up big time would do to the conservative circle-jerk. Won't someone please think of the circle-jerk?

Why? Just think of the damage admitting Bush screwed up big time would do to the conservative circle-jerk. Won't someone please think of the circle-jerk?
Yeah, I guess. You take one guy out and the whole thing falls apart. ;)

so former bush admin asshole, john yoo, has publicly accused bush of committing at least 3 war crimes. oh, he presumably doesn't think he did, but that's what he does right here in this op-ed in the wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html).

[Bush] could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11

so former bush admin asshole, john yoo, has publicly accused bush of committing at least 3 war crimes. oh, he presumably doesn't think he did, but that's what he does right here in this op-ed in the wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html).
John Yoo is an idiot.

Really.

Yeah, I guess. You take one guy out and the whole thing falls apart. ;)

What if that guy is Ann Coulter?

John Yoo is an idiot.

Really.

worst. lawyer. ever.

What if that guy is Ann Coulter?
Just another penis in the line. The effect is the same.

worst. lawyer. ever.
Seriously. He makes me think it should be possible to disbar someone just for being that stupid. "We don't care what your test scores were or how carefully you follow the rules, you're just too dumb to be a lawyer. We're yanking your license and taking your degree back."

Why?

I don't like micromanagement. Plus, the President shouldn't ever be liable for things like this.

I don't like micromanagement.
So rather than have the president "micromanage" war, you would rather put command over the entire US military and the responsibility for such deployment in defense of the nation, into the hands of a person who has no idea what the military is actually doing?

Plus, the President shouldn't ever be liable for things like this.
Why not?

I don't like micromanagement. Plus, the President shouldn't ever be liable for things like this.

Jesus, what should he be liable for?

So rather than have the president "micromanage" war, you would rather put command over the entire US military and the responsibility for such deployment in defense of the nation, into the hands of a person who has no idea what the military is actually doing?
Are we talking about the President here? That's what it sounds like. I'd like Generals running war.

Why not?
The President needs a layer of insulation from war. I have little doubt that crimes have been committed during the Iraq War, and every other war. But the President is the leader of our country (a very important symbol), he shouldn't be directly (and legally) involved in these crimes on the ground. I'm not saying if he commits a crime he shouldn't be responsible, but he should be smarter than to involve himself in crime. Obviously.

Are we talking about the President here? That's what it sounds like. I'd like Generals running war.
Who tells the generals what to do? Who tells them what countries to attack? Who has to sign off on their tactics? Who was it who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in his execution of the duties of his office?

Oh, right, THAT one is the president.

So my question stands: You prefer to have a president giving orders to a military but having no idea what that military does or whether it is breaking the laws that president swore to uphold?

The President needs a layer of insulation from war. I have little doubt that crimes have been committed during the Iraq War, and every other war. But the President is the leader of our country (a very important symbol), he shouldn't be directly (and legally) involved in these crimes on the ground. I'm not saying if he commits a crime he shouldn't be responsible, but he should be smarter than to involve himself in crime. Obviously.
That makes no sense.

Why does he need a layer of insulation from war?

Why can't he get that insulation by not starting wars?

If he chooses to start a war, why should he get that insulation rather than be deemed to have forfeited it by doing something he did not have to do?

If he chooses to start and carry on that war by breaking the law he swore to uphold, why should he be insulated from his own crime? Bear in mind that you have already conceded that if he committed crimes, he should be held accountable for them.

What difference does it make that the president is the symbolic leader of the nation? He's not an elected dictator. He isn't a demi-god. He's just a man who holds a job for four years with the option to compete for another four years. We don't really need him all that much. I mean him, as in any given individual who happens to be president at any given time.

Also, why should a symbol trump the law? What possible harm could it do the country to hold its leaders accountable to the law -- you know, seeing as how we based our nation on the principle of the rule of law, not of men.

Finally, he's not the president anymore, so what does he symbolize now? What insulation does he earn now?

And if the president should not be involved in crimes, then let him not commit crimes. I see no reason to let him off the hook for crimes just because some people hero worship the job title he used to hold.

And finally, yes, a president should be smarter than to involve himself in crimes. Too bad for Bush that he wasn't.

I don't think you understand.

I don't think you understand.
I think I do. So there, nyah.

Except, of course, for the parts that don't make sense. Those I don't understand. :p

I think I do. So there, nyah.

Except, of course, for the parts that don't make sense. Those I don't understand. :p

I'm going to try to explain myself, and you can respond. But if you choose to respond know that I won't answer back. I debate in order to not only advance my views but try and sway others, and since we disagree and neither of us is changing our minds, I really can't find the heart to continue.

Unless its more like what I think, in that we don't really disagree that much and we're just misunderstanding each other.

Here goes: I'm not saying the President is above the law. I'm saying that in humanity, people always commit crimes. On an aggregate level. There are going to be members of the military, of an administration, of anything, who will break the law. And we, as responsible citizens, try and find the root of the problem. In an organization, this involves looking upwards for directives or individuals who are the source of a way of thinking. And in government, all roads (up) lead to the President.

So, the President needs to distance himself from the groundwork. When you say that you want someone running the military who understands it, I don't disagree. But when you say "running the military" I think you're seeing that as a larger operation than I am. Where the troops attack, after they have invaded the country they are supposed to invade, should be a decision left to the generals who are familiar with the situation. A President should be kept abreast of course, but he should not make day-to-day military decisions. He has not been through the training nor have the experience to do so.

Also, if members of his administration are going to knowingly do something illegal, like torture, they should not involve the President. He is the President, he is the face of our country throughout the world and certainly at home and accusations such as these tarnish the office.

I'm going to try to explain myself, and you can respond. But if you choose to respond know that I won't answer back. I debate in order to not only advance my views but try and sway others, and since we disagree and neither of us is changing our minds, I really can't find the heart to continue.

Unless its more like what I think, in that we don't really disagree that much and we're just misunderstanding each other.

Here goes: I'm not saying the President is above the law. I'm saying that in humanity, people always commit crimes. On an aggregate level. There are going to be members of the military, of an administration, of anything, who will break the law. And we, as responsible citizens, try and find the root of the problem. In an organization, this involves looking upwards for directives or individuals who are the source of a way of thinking. And in government, all roads (up) lead to the President.

So, the President needs to distance himself from the groundwork. When you say that you want someone running the military who understands it, I don't disagree. But when you say "running the military" I think you're seeing that as a larger operation than I am. Where the troops attack, after they have invaded the country they are supposed to invade, should be a decision left to the generals who are familiar with the situation. A President should be kept abreast of course, but he should not make day-to-day military decisions. He has not been through the training nor have the experience to do so.

Also, if members of his administration are going to knowingly do something illegal, like torture, they should not involve the President. He is the President, he is the face of our country throughout the world and certainly at home and accusations such as these tarnish the office.

"All roads lead up to the President".

Exactly. Hoist by your own petard.

He's the Commander in Chief. Every time a soldier farts, it's HIS responsibility.

I'm going to try to explain myself, and you can respond. But if you choose to respond know that I won't answer back. I debate in order to not only advance my views but try and sway others, and since we disagree and neither of us is changing our minds, I really can't find the heart to continue.

Unless its more like what I think, in that we don't really disagree that much and we're just misunderstanding each other.

Here goes: I'm not saying the President is above the law. I'm saying that in humanity, people always commit crimes. On an aggregate level. There are going to be members of the military, of an administration, of anything, who will break the law. And we, as responsible citizens, try and find the root of the problem. In an organization, this involves looking upwards for directives or individuals who are the source of a way of thinking. And in government, all roads (up) lead to the President.

So, the President needs to distance himself from the groundwork. When you say that you want someone running the military who understands it, I don't disagree. But when you say "running the military" I think you're seeing that as a larger operation than I am. Where the troops attack, after they have invaded the country they are supposed to invade, should be a decision left to the generals who are familiar with the situation. A President should be kept abreast of course, but he should not make day-to-day military decisions. He has not been through the training nor have the experience to do so.

Also, if members of his administration are going to knowingly do something illegal, like torture, they should not involve the President. He is the President, he is the face of our country throughout the world and certainly at home and accusations such as these tarnish the office.

The flaw in your thinking is this... no one is saying he should be held accountable for crimes individual soldiers commit without his having any knowledge of them. We're talking about criminal activities he admitted to authorizing. You can't claim an layer of insulation that does not exist.

The President can, by executive order, set the rules as far as what is and is not acceptable for the US military to do. Those rules, by law, must adhere to the Constitution, which itself conveys that it must adhere to treaties we've signed.

President Bush violated both when he directly authorized activities by his own admission, activities that have been illegal in the US for 100 years.

I'm going to try to explain myself, and you can respond. But if you choose to respond know that I won't answer back. I debate in order to not only advance my views but try and sway others, and since we disagree and neither of us is changing our minds, I really can't find the heart to continue.

Unless its more like what I think, in that we don't really disagree that much and we're just misunderstanding each other.

Here goes: I'm not saying the President is above the law. <snip>
Nixon proved that wrong. The president is NOT above the law. Thanks for trying. We have some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

The rest of your argument about why we should just look the other way while our military and other officials commit crime and abuses wholesale and willy-nilly is noted and rejected as ridiculous. Since you don't want to defend your argument, I won't bother pointing out all the obvious reasons why.

Wasn't going to bother with this one, but what the hell....

"War Crimes" are committed by defeated nations whom we don't agree with. Our leaders only "liberate" people. These two things can look very similar, and indeed are actually the same physical actions, only one is illegal, and is carried out by our enemy of the week. For this one, we depose you and either execute or imprison you. The other one is applied to our rulers (whom are powerful) and makes them "Great" or "Visionary".

This might seem rather odd, but you must remember that these rules were made by the victors in a previous conflict whom set up the idea of a trial for war criminals, whom also happen to be the same people on the powerful (if not exactly winning) side in the current wars.

No ruler gets tried in their own court as long as their government stands. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

Wasn't going to bother with this one, but what the hell....

"War Crimes" are committed by defeated nations whom we don't agree with. Our leaders only "liberate" people. These two things can look very similar, and indeed are actually the same physical actions, only one is illegal, and is carried out by our enemy of the week. For this one, we depose you and either execute or imprison you. The other one is applied to our rulers (whom are powerful) and makes them "Great" or "Visionary".

This might seem rather odd, but you must remember that these rules were made by the victors in a previous conflict whom set up the idea of a trial for war criminals, whom also happen to be the same people on the powerful (if not exactly winning) side in the current wars.

No ruler gets tried in their own court as long as their government stands. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
Just because a corrupt practice is common, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to do things a different way. The principle of the rule of law would make a political leader being tried in their nation's own court perfectly sensible.

Also, the President of the United States is not a ruler, and the courts and the government do not belong to him, nor are they answerable to him. Since we are talking about a US president here, that is important to keep in mind.

He committed the war crime of aggression. That's what we hanged the top Nazi's for at Nuremberg. At the very least, he should be tried and put away for a long time.

In the words of the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

No ruler gets tried in their own court as long as their government stands.

So... you're saying we should overthrow the government?

That's pretty radical, man.

Wow, my thread has some stars on it!!! *eyes wet*Ayup. They used to obscure my nipples for poster shots. Enjoy!

No ruler gets tried in their own court as long as their government stands.
Maybe it's time to change that?

I'm going to try to explain myself, and you can respond. But if you choose to respond know that I won't answer back. I debate in order to not only advance my views but try and sway others, and since we disagree and neither of us is changing our minds, I really can't find the heart to continue.

Unless its more like what I think, in that we don't really disagree that much and we're just misunderstanding each other.

Here goes: I'm not saying the President is above the law. I'm saying that in humanity, people always commit crimes. On an aggregate level. There are going to be members of the military, of an administration, of anything, who will break the law. And we, as responsible citizens, try and find the root of the problem. In an organization, this involves looking upwards for directives or individuals who are the source of a way of thinking. And in government, all roads (up) lead to the President.

So, the President needs to distance himself from the groundwork. When you say that you want someone running the military who understands it, I don't disagree. But when you say "running the military" I think you're seeing that as a larger operation than I am. Where the troops attack, after they have invaded the country they are supposed to invade, should be a decision left to the generals who are familiar with the situation. A President should be kept abreast of course, but he should not make day-to-day military decisions. He has not been through the training nor have the experience to do so.

Also, if members of his administration are going to knowingly do something illegal, like torture, they should not involve the President. He is the President, he is the face of our country throughout the world and certainly at home and accusations such as these tarnish the office.
So what you're saying is that the President shouldn't be in charge of the country...

So what you're saying is that the President shouldn't be in charge of the country...

Pay attention, you moron. He's saying the President is a figurehead and not some stupid position like commander-in-chief of the military. And I, for one, hope he's right.

So... you're saying we should overthrow the government?

That's pretty radical, man.

No. I'm saying trying him would be futile. To attempt to would be like trying to move water up hill with a rake.

Just because a corrupt practice is common, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to do things a different way.

As I said in reply to Grave n Idle. Trying him would be futile, and futile actions are rarely sensible ones.

The principle of the rule of law would make a political leader being tried in their nation's own court perfectly sensible.

As a principle it sounds reasonable, if optimistic. However in practice, things very rarely pan out that way. If there world were run according to the principles most of it's ruler espouse, it'd be a very different place indeed to the actual world we inhabit. Realpolitik ensures the two will never meet.

Also, the President of the United States is not a ruler

In principle, or in reality?

, and the courts and the government do not belong to him, nor are they answerable to him. Since we are talking about a US president here, that is important to keep in mind.

They don't belong to Bush, not anymore anyway. But do you think the top levels of the US judiciary will hand over one of their own elite to The Hague? They won't go against him, for it would open up a whole bucket of messy issues that no one wants to look at too closely, and risk their own positions. Not going to happen. And IMHO, better that way, at least for the foreseeable future.

somebody's srs. :p

srs?

No. I'm saying trying him would be futile. To attempt to would be like trying to move water up hill with a rake.



As I said in reply to Grave n Idle. Trying him would be futile, and futile actions are rarely sensible ones.
I am not persuaded that you are right.

As a principle it sounds reasonable, if optimistic. However in practice, things very rarely pan out that way. If there world were run according to the principles most of it's ruler espouse, it'd be a very different place indeed to the actual world we inhabit. Realpolitik ensures the two will never meet.
We don't need the world to work that way, only the US legal system. That's real realpolitik -- not caring about ideals and ideas, only about getting the job done.

In principle, or in reality?
In reality. It's called three separate and co-equal branches of government with separate powers. It's also called an independent judiciary. If you think the president owns the government, ask Obama what he thinks right now.

They don't belong to Bush, not anymore anyway.
They never did. The Congress chose to collude with him for political reasons, and the judicial branch was circumvented by deliberate corrupt practices.

But do you think the top levels of the US judiciary will hand over one of their own elite to The Hague? They won't go against him, for it would open up a whole bucket of messy issues that no one wants to look at too closely, and risk their own positions. Not going to happen.
Your cynical fortunetelling is very stylish but lacks substance.

And IMHO, better that way, at least for the foreseeable future.
Your opinion is noted, but as its foundation lacks substance, it is dismissed. I do not believe it would be better to do nothing. I believe it would be a political bloodbath, a wholesale purging of US government, and maybe a few others, that would last for many years, and I say the sooner the better. These crooked, murderous bastards are like black mold growing in the walls -- they don't get less troublesome if we ignore them.

Pay attention, you moron. He's saying the President is a figurehead and not some stupid position like commander-in-chief of the military. And I, for one, hope he's right.

Flaming has no place in civilised debate.

Flaming has no place in civilised debate.

I can assure you that it was done in jest, though I realize that it's probably damn near impossible to tell by just reading the post. :wink:

We don't need the world to work that way, only the US legal system. That's real realpolitik -- not caring about ideals and ideas, only about getting the job done.

Getting what job done? Why on earth would the US judicial system want to allow the extradition of Bush to The Hague, and why would the other powers be so keen to push for a trial in the first place? I don't see anyone with the power to bring it about being in a position to win by it. Ergo, I don't see it happening.


In reality. It's called three separate and co-equal branches of government with separate powers. It's also called an independent judiciary. If you think the president owns the government, ask Obama what he thinks right now.

Obama probably thinks how he can use same deliberate corrupt practices to gain the upper hand over the judiciary in just the same way as Bush did, and now his faction dominates congress can use their collusion in exactly the same way to consolidate his power. I imagine he will probably be better at it, too. One can go along with the legal fiction of checks and balances, whilst rendering it totally ineffectual in reality, just as one can do the opposite.

They never did. The Congress chose to collude with him for political reasons, and the judicial branch was circumvented by deliberate corrupt practices.

Thus giving him a power base to make it essentially his own. The fact he used others to maintain it doesn't mean he wasn't able to use that power, provided he shared around the goodies, making checks and balances a nice phrase on paper, and not much else. "All in favour, bleat like sheep. All against, feel free to use the office printer to run off a few CVs"

Your cynical fortunetelling is very stylish but lacks substance.

I think it's nearer to the truth then believing the legal checks and balances are in any way meaningful, either in the US system or the UK. Both were corrupted by short sightedness and self interest long before now.

Your opinion is noted, but as its foundation lacks substance, it is dismissed. I do not believe it would be better to do nothing. I believe it would be a political bloodbath, a wholesale purging of US government, and maybe a few others, that would last for many years, and I say the sooner the better. These crooked, murderous bastards are like black mold growing in the walls -- they don't get less troublesome if we ignore them.

I despise most of the people in the parliament of my country. However much I would love to see the front benchers on both sides get taught a lesson with the sceptre that would never forget, and put in their place once and for all time, I do not desire it to be brought about by the mob rule of public opinion, nor by the judgement of a foreign court.

Getting what job done? Why on earth would the US judicial system want to allow the extradition of Bush to The Hague, and why would the other powers be so keen to push for a trial in the first place? I don't see anyone with the power to bring it about being in a position to win by it. Ergo, I don't see it happening.
Your lack of vision is not convincing to me. As I have already stated more than once, it is clear that Bush will never be tried for war crimes in any court, because there is no will to prosecute him. But that is not what you and I are arguing. Your argument is a rather formless mish-mash of cynical but uninformed assumptions, errors of fact about US government, and conflations of lack of political will with vague notions of "realpolitik."

If Bush will never be tried in the Hague, it will be for the same reason he will never be tried in a US court, and that has nothing at all to do with there being some vague, undefined reason why no power would want to extradite him. It is because there is a lot of blame to go around, and not just among US officials, for the conduct of that war, and a full and proper investigation and prosecution of Bush, would very likely open yet others to indictment as well. That has everything to do with guilty individuals covering their own asses and nothing at all to do with national sovereignty or the authority of one government versus another.

As for why any nation would want to extradite one of their own leaders to appear before the Hague, there are several possible and pragmatic reasons -- most notably relieving the nation of the direct responsibility to prosecute an action of their own government which could be politically tricky even for those not in danger of indictment themselves, the diplomatic political gesture of sacrificing the guilty leader to international law, or possibly even just a judicial impediment to prosecution within the nation.

But of course, in this case, the opposite of that last one is true. Actually the US courts have better jurisdiction over the matters which Bush could be investigated and potentially tried for.

Other powers would be so keen to push for such a trial if they themselves had been the victims of the alleged actions -- a power such as, oh, say, for instance, the sovereign state of Iraq.

Obama probably thinks how he can use same deliberate corrupt practices to gain the upper hand over the judiciary in just the same way as Bush did, and now his faction dominates congress can use their collusion in exactly the same way to consolidate his power. I imagine he will probably be better at it, too. One can go along with the legal fiction of checks and balances, whilst rendering it totally ineffectual in reality, just as one can do the opposite. <snip a bunch of other meaningless nonsense>
I'm sorry, you're just making me lol. I mean are you seriously claiming to be looking at this from a "realpolitik" viewpoint AND making such wild and unfounded suppositions about what might be happening, in the same posts? Not only did the rest of your post contain not one single fact, but it didn't even reference the existence of facts.

Why don't you go get that crystal ball of yours polished up until its got its shine back, and then use it for a decorative paperweight to hold down the newspapers you can read so you can figure out what's going on the world, mkay?

Pay attention, you moron. He's saying the President is a figurehead and not some stupid position like commander-in-chief of the military. And I, for one, hope he's right.

I know I said I was done posting here, but you must be the smartest person who has posted thusfar, cause you're the only one who got it.

I know I said I was done posting here, but you must be the smartest person who has posted thusfar, cause you're the only one who got it.

The fact that it was a sarcasm post, however, must have eluded you.

The fact that it was a sarcasm post, however, must have eluded you.The Small Victories, the cankers and medallions ...
It'll come back around, probably.

It'll come back around, probably.

Kudos. A little disappointed you couldn't eke out a War Pigs reference too, given the thread title... :D

Kudos. A little disappointed you couldn't eke out a War Pigs reference too, given the thread title... :DI figured someone else did already. I haven't reviewed the whole thread yet. :)
'Sides, i'd probably give the Mike Patton version on the Live at Brixton Academy. Goes just a little different.
:)

I figured someone else did already. I haven't reviewed the whole thread yet. :)
'Sides, i'd probably give the Mike Patton version on the Live at Brixton Academy. Goes just a little different.
:)

Different? That's the one I was expecting. :)

Surprise.

Different? That's the one I was expecting. :)

Surprise.The guy can pull off None of Them Knew They Were Robots and Squeeze Me Macaroni live but can't pull that part off. Perhaps there's a reason. :)