Will Bush be trialed for War Crimes when leaving office?

2

Comments

  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    soulsinging wrote:
    what is "everything"?

    Starting a war of aggression, illegal wiretapping, torturing people (before it became "legal"), extraordinary rendition, holding prisoners indefinetely, not executing laws passed by congress by means of signing statements.

    That's just a few, I'm sure there are more.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    **I don't think there is a single person or group of persons brave enough to bring criminal charges against him in the US.

    Convicting one man of the crimes of millions is not bravery. It is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Convicting one man of the crimes of millions is not bravery. It is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.
    I don't understand what you're saying. Who are the millions who commited what crimes?

    We're talking specifically about Bush and his crimes.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:

    You said that sovereignty relies on something other or in addition to the will of the governed. What else is there?
    I said that sovereignty doesn't rely solely on the will of the governed - just as a car isn't kept running solely by gasoline.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You made the decision to pay for it. And chances are the people you designated as your representatives made the decision for you.
    I don't feel I can be held totally responsible for the actions of people I didn't even vote for.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    That wouldn't have been necessary to hold Saddam Hussein to account.
    Of course not. But, in order to bring him before a court - or somesuch - it would have been necessary. Otherwise, you have words and sanctions. There were plenty of leaders in the world who liked the idea of words and sanctions. There's also a viable argument to be made that said words and sanctions would have worked in the long term without war.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    A "What-If." There's no real way of determining that one way or the other.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    I don't understand what you're saying. Who are the millions who commited what crimes?

    We paid for "his" war. The representatives we cede our power to sanctioned it. Everyday, the vast majority of you defend the systems that make it possible.
    We're talking specifically about Bush and his crimes.

    I know you are. That's why you'll never solve the problems that extend from them.

    George Bush is a criminal only by a standard of participation. He participated in these events, and he participated in them in a big way. But if the events themselves were a crime, every single participant is guilty.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Convicting one man of the crimes of millions is not bravery. It is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.
    So, except when it comes to your own money, you're a collectivist?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    I said that sovereignty doesn't rely solely on the will of the governed - just as a car isn't kept running solely by gasoline.

    Ok. As I said, what else is there in the context of sovereignty?
    I don't feel I can be held totally responsible for the actions of people I didn't even vote for.

    I completely agree with you, but do you agree with you? It seems like everyday I hear you telling me or others why I'm responsible for people I didn't vote for, didn't make poor, didn't make homeless.
    Of course not. But, in order to bring him before a court - or somesuch - it would have been necessary. Otherwise, you have words and sanctions. There were plenty of leaders in the world who liked the idea of words and sanctions. There's also a viable argument to be made that said words and sanctions would have worked in the long term without war.

    There's a much more viable argument that neither sanctions nor war would have worked, depending on the standards you're discussing. But I think the fact remains that Saddam Hussein could have been captured without a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq.
    A "What-If." There's no real way of determining that one way or the other.

    Fair enough.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    So, except when it comes to your own money, you're a collectivist?

    Not at all. A collectivist may hold one man guilty for the crimes of the masses. An individualist judges all men for what they are as singular entities.
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    George Bush is a criminal only by a standard of participation. He participated in these events, and he participated in them in a big way. But if the events themselves were a crime, every single participant is guilty.

    I can agree with you on that. But at the same time... wasn't the electorate deceived by him? I think it's more like Bush and his cabinet being guilty of the murder and the people being guilty of negligent homicide. I mean negligent because the information about the deceptions of the adminstration was out there, people just didn't bother to look.

    And, of course, the media being guilty of accessory to murder.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    I can agree with you on that. But at the same time... wasn't the electorate deceived by him?

    Not really, no. The electorate largely supported this war before the so-called deception. Furthermore, it's much more likely that George Bush was deceived, rather than the one deceiving.
    I think it's more like Bush and his cabinet being guilty of the murder and the people being guilty of negligent homicide.

    There's a little problem with that -- George Bush, to my knowledge, hasn't killed anyone. Not a single Iraqi has died by his hands.
    I mean negligent because the information about the deceptions of the adminstration was out there, people just didn't bother to look.

    Very true.
    And, of course, the media being guilty of accessory to murder.

    Ok.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok. As I said, what else is there in the context of sovereignty?
    All kinds of things, including will - culture, perceived royalty, enforcible boarders, etc. In some ways it's kind of an ambiguious term. However, in some ways it isn't. Despite Saddam's villany, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I completely agree with you, but do you agree with you? It seems like everyday I hear you telling me or others why I'm responsible for people I didn't vote for, didn't make poor, didn't make homeless.
    I don't know. I suppose I could be read that way. To clarify, I'd say you're responsible to them, not for them.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There's a much more viable argument that neither sanctions nor war would have worked, depending on the standards you're discussing. But I think the fact remains that Saddam Hussein could have been captured without a massive invasion and occupation of Iraq.
    A capture that would have led to a war anyway. Maybe not one we'd be involved in, but still a war. These things happen when there's a power vacuum.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Not at all. A collectivist may hold one man guilty for the crimes of the masses. An individualist judges all men for what they are as singular entities.
    Neither fits where the other sits.

    A collectivist may hold one man guilty or may apply it to the masses. An individualist feels he can judge all men. For what doesn't matter.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    All kinds of things, including will - culture, perceived royalty, enforcible boarders, etc. In some ways it's kind of an ambiguious term. However, in some ways it isn't.

    How do "culture" and "enforcible borders" pertain to sovereignty. How can an entity be more or less sovereign based on those categories?
    Despite Saddam's villany, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign.

    Yes, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign, hence my original question.
    I don't know. I suppose I could be read that way. To clarify, I'd say you're responsible to them, not for them.

    Please clarify further. What's the difference?
    A capture that would have led to a war anyway. Maybe not one we'd be involved in, but still a war. These things happen when there's a power vacuum.

    Certainly! The current problems the Iraqi people are experiencing would be much the same. The current problems the American people are experiencing, however, would not.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Neither fits where the other sits.

    A collectivist may hold one man guilty or may apply it to the masses.

    A collectivist can never hold the masses guilty of anything, because it is within the masses that he finds his highest moral standard.
    An individualist feels he can judge all men. For what doesn't matter.

    That one is true. An individualists not only can judge all men, he should judge all men.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How do "culture" and "enforcible borders" pertain to sovereignty. How can an entity be more or less sovereign based on those categories?
    I'm not sure sovereignty comes in degrees.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes, Iraq was considered by just about everyone to be sovereign, hence my original question.
    The question "how is it sovereign?" Well, then. Because it is.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Please clarify further. What's the difference?
    One implies you are responsible for what they do - the other doesn't. Instead, it is an aspect of necessity for the health of the nation. It has it's ups and downs.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly! The current problems the Iraqi people are experiencing would be much the same. The current problems the American people are experiencing, however, would not.
    Well, if Saddam's what-if ousting happened, I'm sure our country would have had a hand in it; and, while we might not be facing the current problems, we'd be facing other ones.
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There's a little problem with that -- George Bush, to my knowledge, hasn't killed anyone. Not a single Iraqi has died by his hands.
    The person who orders the murder is as guilty as the person who pulls to trigger.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qtegirl wrote:
    The person who orders the murder is as guilty as the person who pulls to trigger.

    How so?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A collectivist can never hold the masses guilty of anything, because it is within the masses that he finds his highest moral standard.
    Where did I say a collectivist would hold his own masses guilty? There are many masses.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    That one is true. An individualists not only can judge all men, he should judge all men.
    Careful of the interdependence involved in judgement. You may lose your individualist status.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Where did I say a collectivist would hold his own masses guilty? There are many masses.

    Certainly. But the moral qualifications of his own masses are so often manifested in the other that an indictment of one set of masses is an indictment of his own. That is why the collectivist is typically left with only two non-individual enemies: those with instutional power and those with wealth. The only exception to that rule is the situation where the collectivist deems another set of people to be sub-human.
    Careful of the interdependence involved in judgement. You may lose your individualist status.

    How so? Judgement is the most important tool the individual man has.
  • qtegirl
    qtegirl Posts: 321
    farfromglorified wrote:
    How so?
    If the murder wasn't ordered and planned by somebody, it wouldn't have taken place.

    By your thinking, if Bush didn't order troops to be sent to Iraq they would've killed Iraqis just the same?

Categories