Options
Will Bush be trialed for War Crimes when leaving office?
macgyver06
Posts: 2,505
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?
= War Crime...
will this be a shock if he is put on trial?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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!
sweet
naděje umírá poslední
It was a nation, not a colony... that's what sovereign means. Or do you have a problem with the "nation" part?
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.
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.
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.
from my window to yours
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?
from my window to yours
who will put him on trial?
Ah, well. I never said my idea of sovereignty is rule without will.
I never made any of these decisions.
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.
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.
Of course you can.
:rolleyes:
Hehe.....isn't that the whole idea of your "democracy"?
A collection of people holding a common will and geography. The geography part is negotiable.
No. That would be the definition of "government".
**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.
what is "everything"?
The original was misquoting you.
You said that sovereignty relies on something other or in addition to the will of the governed. What else is there?
You made the decision to pay for it. And chances are the people you designated as your representatives made the decision for you.
That wouldn't have been necessary to hold Saddam Hussein to account.
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.
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.
Convicting one man of the crimes of millions is not bravery. It is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.
We're talking specifically about Bush and his crimes.
I don't feel I can be held totally responsible for the actions of people I didn't even vote for.
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.
A "What-If." There's no real way of determining that one way or the other.
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.
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.
Ok. As I said, what else is there in the context of sovereignty?
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.
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.
Fair enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very true.
Ok.