Will Bush be trialed for War Crimes when leaving office?

macgyver06
macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
as the leader of an administration of a soverign nation, he tried to assasinate another administrations leader of a soverign nation.

= War Crime...

will this be a shock if he is put on trial?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Scratchin a Letter
    Scratchin a Letter Posts: 2,303
    macgyver06 wrote:
    as the leader of an administration of a soverign nation, he tried to assasinate another administrations leader of a soverign nation.

    = War Crime...

    will this be a shock if he is put on trial?
    It wouldn't be a shock, but I doubt it would happen, sadly.
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    macgyver06 wrote:
    as the leader of an administration of a soverign nation, he tried to assasinate another administrations leader of a soverign nation.

    = War Crime...

    will this be a shock if he is put on trial?


    yes, He'll goto trial and be convicted, and spend life in prison. (no death penalty 'cause its been outlawed)

    soon afterwards, nations w/ nuclear weapons will pile thier nukes on rocket ships and send them to them towards the sun, because nukes are bad.

    then people will stop driving becaues it pollutes. Huffy's stock will skyrocket, but no one will make a dime because no one cares about money anymore. Greed is bad.

    Marijuana will be legal.

    Auto insurance premiums will not be raised when you have an accident.

    Speeding tickets will not cause insurance to rise.


    Abortion protestors will come to the realization that if they dont want an abortion, they dont have to have one. And quit pestering people that want to fix a mistake/problem.

    China will then procede to leave Taiwan alone and they will be soveriegn (sp), along w/ Tibet. The Dali Lama returns home.

    The Enron exec that "died" will be found alive, stripped of his billions, and forced to live on gov't cheese and drive a Ford. Said billions will be distributed to the people that he fucked over.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    truroute wrote:
    yes, He'll goto trial and be convicted, and spend life in prison. (no death penalty 'cause its been outlawed)

    soon afterwards, nations w/ nuclear weapons will pile thier nukes on rocket ships and send them to them towards the sun, because nukes are bad.

    then people will stop driving becaues it pollutes. Huffy's stock will skyrocket, but no one will make a dime because no one cares about money anymore. Greed is bad.

    Marijuana will be legal.

    Auto insurance premiums will not be raised when you have an accident.

    Speeding tickets will not cause insurance to rise.


    Abortion protestors will come to the realization that if they dont want an abortion, they dont have to have one. And quit pestering people that want to fix a mistake/problem.

    China will then procede to leave Taiwan alone and they will be soveriegn (sp), along w/ Tibet. The Dali Lama returns home.

    The Enron exec that "died" will be found alive, stripped of his billions, and forced to live on gov't cheese and drive a Ford. Said billions will be distributed to the people that he fucked over.



    YOU HAD THE SAME DREAM!
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    that was funny tru.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    truroute wrote:

    Marijuana will be legal.

    sweet
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Why does everyone keep referring to Iraq as a "sovereign nation"???
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    not a chance in hell.
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why does everyone keep referring to Iraq as a "sovereign nation"???
    What was it then?

    It was a nation, not a colony... that's what sovereign means. Or do you have a problem with the "nation" part?
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    Collin wrote:
    sweet
    That's funny because that was all I saw also. :o
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    What was it then?

    A prison.
    It was a nation, not a colony... that's what sovereign means. Or do you have a problem with the "nation" part?

    I have a problem with the "sovereign" part, particularly in the context of the actions of the United States. The "sovereignty" of the Iraqi regime was based only on the weight of the fear they could induce and the physical harm they could inflict upon the Iraqi population. So I don't see how anyone could then pretend that the United States was somehow guilty of something the Iraqi regime was not.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A prison.



    I have a problem with the "sovereign" part, particularly in the context of the actions of the United States. The "sovereignty" of the Iraqi regime was based only on the weight of the fear they could induce and the physical harm they could inflict upon the Iraqi population. So I don't see how anyone could then pretend that the United States was somehow guilty of something the Iraqi regime was not.
    One side being guilty doesn't prove the other side innocent, far; and sovereignty doesn't rely solely on the will of the governed. Otherwise, you've pretty much destroyed the entire notion of sovereignty - i.e. seperate nations. It sounds great and all, and I'd really love to live in that world, but that's really the type of thing best left to the utopians.

    But, in keeping with the thread, I'll say that no, W will not be charged with war crimes. The argument is too weak to be leveled against a First World leader.
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    macgyver06 wrote:
    as the leader of an administration of a soverign nation, he tried to assasinate another administrations leader of a soverign nation.

    = War Crime...

    will this be a shock if he is put on trial?

    well, some people here believe that international law means nothing. by their observation, it will not matter.

    i feel that he will be put on trial...i do not believe that he will be convicted.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    One side being guilty doesn't prove the other side innocent, far; and sovereignty doesn't rely solely on the will of the governed. Otherwise, you've pretty much destroyed the entire notion of sovereignty - i.e. seperate nations. It sounds great and all, and I'd really love to live in that world, but that's really the type of thing best left to the utopians.

    See, here's the thing. Your idea of sovereignty (i.e. without will) destroys the entire notion of seperate people.

    The Iraq War is a crime because it attacks sovereign individuals who are guilty of nothing, not because it attacks a "sovereign nation" that is guilty of nearly everything. Does this make George Bush a criminal? Perhaps. But if he is, so are you and so am I.
    But, in keeping with the thread, I'll say that no, W will not be charged with war crimes. The argument is too weak to be leveled against a First World leader.

    Agreed. Particularly when those to level it had no interest in leveling such charges against Saddam Hussein.
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    farfromglorified wrote:
    See, here's the thing. Your idea of sovereignty (i.e. without will) destroys the entire notion of seperate people.

    The Iraq War is a crime because it attacks sovereign individuals who are guilty of nothing, not because it attacks a "sovereign nation" that is guilty of nearly everything. Does this make George Bush a criminal? Perhaps. But if he is, so are you and so am I.

    Agreed. Particularly when those to level it had no interest in leveling such charges against Saddam Hussein.

    the notion that bush would be guilty of this is that he is the "hand" the put this into action. you cannot chase after the populus that elected him. it goes against equity. how was the electorate to know that this is what he would do?

    how are you defining "nation"? are you defining it as the governmental face of the people?
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    well, some people here believe that international law means nothing. by their observation, it will not matter.

    i feel that he will be put on trial...i do not believe that he will be convicted.

    who will put him on trial?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    See, here's the thing. Your idea of sovereignty (i.e. without will) destroys the entire notion of seperate people.
    Now, you went and reversed some words.

    Ah, well. I never said my idea of sovereignty is rule without will.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The Iraq War is a crime because it attacks sovereign individuals who are guilty of nothing, not because it attacks a "sovereign nation" that is guilty of nearly everything. Does this make George Bush a criminal? Perhaps. But if he is, so are you and so am I.
    I never made any of these decisions.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Agreed. Particularly when those to level it had no interest in leveling such charges against Saddam Hussein.
    Because they didn't want to attack a sovereign nation. Now that he's out, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Iraq that doesn't think he should be punished.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    the notion that bush would be guilty of this is that he is the "hand" the put this into action.

    Any you and I wouldn't be guilty of giving him the power to do so? And sanctioning it? And paying for it? Sorry, that's kind of silly.
    you cannot chase after the populus that elected him.

    Of course you can.
    it goes against equity.

    :rolleyes:
    how was the electorate to know that this is what he would do?

    Hehe.....isn't that the whole idea of your "democracy"?
    how are you defining "nation"?

    A collection of people holding a common will and geography. The geography part is negotiable.
    are you defining it as the governmental face of the people?

    No. That would be the definition of "government".
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    The way I see it, the only way Bush would be "tried" for anything is if there are impeachment hearings. In which case, they'll probably bring upt things like the fake intelligence that led the US to war... and maybe other things. But he'll never be tried for war crimes in the US of in international court.

    **I don't think there is a single person or group of persons brave enough to bring criminal charges against him in the US. By the same token, I don't thing there is a single nation out there brave enough to that the US empire on either**

    If he makes it the next two years without any serious inquiry into his actions, he'll get away with everything scott free.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    qtegirl wrote:
    If he makes it the next two years without any serious inquiry into his actions, he'll get away with everything scott free.

    what is "everything"?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Now, you went and reversed some words.

    The original was misquoting you.
    Ah, well. I never said my idea of sovereignty is rule without will.

    You said that sovereignty relies on something other or in addition to the will of the governed. What else is there?
    I never made any of these decisions.

    You made the decision to pay for it. And chances are the people you designated as your representatives made the decision for you.
    Because they didn't want to attack a sovereign nation.

    That wouldn't have been necessary to hold Saddam Hussein to account.
    Now that he's out, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Iraq that doesn't think he should be punished.

    Sure. That's fair. However, I doubt many of these people would have been as interested in punishing Saddam Hussein as they would be George Bush.

Categories