Will Bush be trialed for War Crimes when leaving office?

trappedinmyradio

farfromglorified wrote:

That one is true. An individualists not only can judge all men, he should judge all men.

let those without error judge another...

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

If the murder wasn't ordered and planned by somebody, it wouldn't have taken place.

And if someone hadn't followed those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't paid for those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't sanctioned those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If the victims had left, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If previous regimes hadn't given reason for those orders, the murders wouldn't have taken place.

Again, if your standard for guilt is only participation, the guilty far outnumber the innocent.

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

No. By my thinking, Bush wouldn't have had any opportunity to order anyone to do anything. But that's a different argument.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

A tangent point, but I tend to agree here.

farfromglorified wrote:

How so? Judgement is the most important tool the individual man has.

Not so. Judgement is so often based on "other" standards even if the one judging believes them to be his own. Plus, judging interrelates the judge with the judged and the effect goes back as well as forth. No, the most important tool the individual has is individualism.

farfromglorified

trappedinmyradio wrote:

let those without error judge another...

Really? How do you feel about George Bush?

trappedinmyradio

farfromglorified wrote:

Really? How do you feel about George Bush?

now, you're getting into opinion vs. judgment.

farfromglorified

trappedinmyradio wrote:

now, you're getting into opinion vs. judgment.

An opinion is not possible without a judgment.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Not so. Judgement is so often based on "other" standards even if the one judging believes them to be his own. Plus, judging interrelates the judge with the judged and the effect goes back as well as forth. No, the most important tool the individual has is individualism.

"Individualism" is not a means, it is an end. Furthermore, it is dependent on the judgment of one's self as a distinct entity. Without judgment, there is no such thing as individualism.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

And if someone hadn't followed those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't paid for those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If someone hadn't sanctioned those orders, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If the victims had left, the murder wouldn't have taken place. If previous regimes hadn't given reason for those orders, the murders wouldn't have taken place.

Again, if your standard for guilt is only participation, the guilty far outnumber the innocent.



No. By my thinking, Bush wouldn't have had any opportunity to order anyone to do anything. But that's a different argument.

I feel that now we're going in circles. I did say before that everyone is guilty of something. But that doesn't mean that George Bush, as the leader, should not be tried for crimes. Look at the Nuremberg trials.

My whole point was that no one would bring charges against him because they're too afraid... of political fallout (not being re-elected into office), of incuring the wrath of the only superpower left, or whatever.

I don't believe, by any means, that the blame lies solely with him. Or that all wrongs would be magically be right if he, and only he, is tried for those crimes. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.

Staceb10

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.

I'm sure you are referring to our other conversation about Rumsfeld. For clarification, I never said it means nothing. I said that with Rumsfeld, and even more so with Bush....if they are tried and found guilty they would never ever suffer any consequence from it other than being restricted on their travels. The American government is not going to imprison a former President or let anyone else imprison a former President for the Iraq war.

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

I feel that now we're going in circles. I did say before that everyone is guilty of something. But that doesn't mean that George Bush, as the leader, should not be tried for crimes. Look at the Nuremberg trials.

My whole point was that no one would bring charges against him because they're too afraid... of political fallout (not being re-elected into office), of incuring the wrath of the only superpower left, or whatever.

I don't believe, by any means, that the blame lies solely with him. Or that all wrongs would be magically be right if he, and only he, is tried for those crimes. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did.

He should be held accountable for what he did. And we should be held accountable for what we did. The problem with doing the former is that it will be done to forget about the latter. Scapegoat-ism solves nothing.

In two years, George Bush will no longer be a singular threat to the world. The same can not be said for those who will continue to believe their whims override the rights of others. George Bush will be replaced, and it's very likely he'll be replaced by another criminal-in-waiting just as he replaced the one before him.

ThumbingMyWay32

I absolutely believe Bush should be put to death.

Hopefully by stoning.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

In two years, George Bush will no longer be a singular threat to the world. The same can not be said for those who will continue to believe their whims override the rights of others. George Bush will be replaced, and it's very likely he'll be replaced by another criminal-in-waiting just as he replaced the one before him.

But don't you think that impeaching or (gasp) bringing Bush to trial would deter future presidents from doing the same?

Also, it's our responsibility as the electorate to hold the Senate accountable as well by doing the only thing we can do, and that's electing more responsible people and booting the guilty Congress that brought us to war out. But, sadly, as we just saw last week, that won't happen.

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

But don't you think that impeaching or (gasp) bringing Bush to trial would deter future presidents from doing the same?

Of course not. American presidents will continue to involve themselves in bad wars so long as the public demands it.

This is a revenge ploy. It would simply give the world someone to blame and help them sleep well at night knowing that someone has been punished.

Also, it's our responsibility as the electorate to hold the Senate accountable as well by doing the only thing we can do, and that's electing more responsible people and booting the guilty Congress that brought us to war out. But, sadly, as we just saw last week, that won't happen.

Now this I can get on board with, and the same goes for the presidency.

Truthmonger

Well, we now know that Bush was aware of prisons constructed outside of the U.S. for suspected terrorists (now known as "black sites"). He signed documents authorizing their implementation !

Pearl Jam and toast

Should he be?

Absolutely.

Will he?

No way in hell.

Jeanwah

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Should he be?

Absolutely.

Will he?

No way in hell.

Sad, but I believe, true.
Justice really should be done as to his atrocities.