Bush counterterrorism czar: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld all committed ‘war crimes’

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, May 29, 2014.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Bush had czars? I was led to believe only Obama had them.

    This is pretty damning.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...ush-cheney-rumsfeld-all-committed-war-crimes/
     
  2. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #2
    Even though it was authorized by a bipartisan congress, was carried out by an international coalition, and even John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted "yes" to going to war with Iraq, it's still "Bush's war". Lmao

    Spying on Congress, the American people, and our foreign allies is "NSA spying" however. It isn't Obama's spying, it's the NSA who is responsible and needs to be held accountable. Right.

    What's it like to be such a progressive liberal free thinker, free from the constraints of reality?
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3


    Did a bipartisan Congress fabricate evidence to convince others to go to war? What the hell Does Hillary have to do with this? If you read any of the NSA threads, you'd know I blame Obama as much as that putz Bush. What's it like to watch Fox News all day and head out to forums to post your daily affirmations?
     
  4. FreemanW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    The Real Northern California
    #4
    There are countries where Cheney, Bush, et al, do not dare go lest they be subject to The International Court of Justice the Hague for their "alleged" war crimes.
     
  5. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #5
    The error that Dubya made was to not state explicitly that the 9/11 attacks were war crimes (deliberate attacks on civilians, no uniforms) and that consequently those that conducted the attacks would not be covered by the Geneva convention (because they purposively target civilians and do not wear uniforms). Instead, they just used 'illegal combatants' and assumed everybody would get the point. Had Bush been clear about this from the onset, then we would not have debates now about whether we are fighting the crime of terrorism or fighting a war against war criminals. I would like to see those who contributed to 9/11 (Al Qaeda, Taliban) be indicted for war crimes before deciding about Dubya and his crew.
     
  6. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #6
    What difference would it make on the question at hand, wether Bush&co commited war crimes ?

    If the US wants to regain the international respect at once may have hold it needs to make sure that war crimes are handled they same way no matter who commited them.

    Sofar it's allways been "war crimes are only war crimes when others commits them, and don't look theres nothing under that rug" (mind you also true for every other country that won the propaganda part of any given war).
     
  7. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    Logically you're right of course. However, it would seem wholly unjust to bring charges against of the Bush crew without also charging the Al Qaeda losers who set this whole human tragedy in motion. Perhaps they could share a cell.
     
  8. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #8

    They are either:

    - dead

    - on Kuba

    - Saudi princes (can't charge those)
     
  9. TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    But.. but muh partisan hackery!
     
  10. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #10
    I think its going to take more than one person's accusation to make this claim credible. That, and some clear proof.

    I'm not a big fan of Bush or Cheney, but I do believe that literally any military action would be considered a "war crime" by someone. Many believe that any military action at all is a war crime.
     
  11. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #11
    Ahhhh yes. The liberals poor version of Benghazi with less substance. Thanks for putting that in bold for us. Been a while since this one has come up. Creative BTW...I like it.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12

    Bush and Cheney will never serve jail time for the alleged war crimes so whats the point? Smells to me like some sort of distraction.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Yes, war crimes is "less substance"...
     
  14. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #14
    If they have a case, bring it to a grand jury and indict them.
     
  15. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    As him how he feels about Obama sending drones to kill Americans in countries in which there are zero military operations. This didn't happen in Iraq and Afghanisten...

    Americans put on kill lists and murdered without even being charged for a single crime in USA.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    I think obama should definitely face war crimes questioning about drone attacks.

    Now that we've dealt with your deflection, Technarchy what do you think about bush, cheney, and rumsfield and their atrocious deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in your representation? Should hey face war crimes questioning too or you happy to let them go retire to pasture with their fortunes?
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    Charge them and try, but I doubt it would go anywhere.

    Very different than the Obama admin flat out saying they executed Americans and violated the constitution by denying them due process.
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #18
    I thought as much. You are less concerned about all the innocent dead than you are with politicking. This is exactly why the US government gets away with atrocities in your name. You are part of the problem.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    Why do you doubt it would go anywhere? There are several countries that members of the administration don't step foot in because they already have charges filed against them.

    Remember that war crime charges are an international court, not the US system (though we could have a conversation about how US centric the system is).
     
  20. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #20

    Too many nations and politicians had their hands in GWOT. Signed off on it, participated in it, benefited from it.

    Drone striking Americans is a 100% domestic issue based on civil rights violations and executing Americans and violating the constitution itself.

    Obama can held accountable for that today. Getting anything to stick to President Bush long after the fact and with the Iraqi economy recovering and exporting oil you're not going to find many to support that cause.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    So was WWII.

    That didn't stop the Nuremberg Trials.

    I plead innocent on the account that other nations joined our side.
     
  22. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    I agree about Obama.
     
  24. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #24
    It does go deeper than that, they planned events before hand.

    United States and the International Criminal Court

    The United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 by the Rome Statute to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

    As of September 2012, 121 states are members of the court and 32 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Other countries that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China. On May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute, formally withdrew its intent of ratification.

    Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC.






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


    Dutch still wincing at Bush-era ‘Invasion of The Hague Act’

    Though largely symbolic, the law could be having lasting implications.



    Target of invasion? At the International Criminal Court, shown here in January, the so-called Hague Invasion Act, passed by the US Congress in 2002, is seen as a ‘bizarre symbol.’
    The Hague
    In 2002, Congress passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally storm into peaceful Holland to liberate American soldiers held for war crimes.
    Coming in the early days of the war on terrorists, and as the International Criminal Court was being formed here, the measure provoked controversy and seemed to the Dutch – stout US allies – an absurd example of America’s “with us or against us” foreign policy.

    The law is still on the books.
    Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
    Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.
    Today, the Dutch mostly treat the issue as a joke, a cowboy American moment. But it is widely felt that if President Barack Obama‘s foreign policy team wants to achieve a symbolic break with the previous White House, it could rescind the invasion law.
    As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, “I wouldn’t overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol.”
    ‘Invasion Act’ had little legal basis
    In 2002, Dutch diplomat Harold DeWitt wrote to colleagues: “We are quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able to notify my superiors … prior to any invasion.”
    The act was passed in the time between the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Pentagon officials wanted to avoid war crimes arrests by an untested world court – a body they feared might make anti-American political statements, rather than stick to its legal knitting.
    In retrospect, jurists say, US officials over-read the power of the court. Under basic ICC rules called “complementarity,” the ICC is powerless to prosecute war crimes the US is willing to investigate.
    “The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak,” says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. “Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers’ [are charged with] war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction.”
    In the past six years, no US soldiers have been indicted by the ICC; and in cases such as Abu Ghraib, the US military has been willing to investigate.
    In The Hague, the fury has subsided.
    “The Dutch were a little bit offended. We consider ourselves the legal capital of the world, and your major ally not only threatens you, but tries to blackmail you,” says Max van Weezel, a well-known political columnist and author. “If the Obama administration can reverse this law, we Dutch would think the Americans are becoming a little bit normal again. But I don’t know if he can.”

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/0...itary-attack-on-international-criminal-court/
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    Good question! What's it like to be a die-hard conservative, fighting imaginary threats to your existence spawned by dozens of highly-paid entertainment talking heads, with little to no basis in reality whatsoever?

    Gays marrying will affect me!
    They're coming to take my guns!
    They're trying to abolish my religion!
    Poor people drive Escalades and have iPhones and eat steak and lobster!
    The rich are being strangled with taxes higher than ever!!
    The same thing that's happened a hundred times is NOW a big deal!
     

Share This Page