The entire Senate? Or just the people who agreed with it? I am fairly sure going to war is a 3/4 vote of the Senate.Xaryn Mar said:
Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?
- Thread starter Gashad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As did I...I seriously doubt he was aware of any possible war crimes.Onyx Oblivion said:
Also, I don't think there should be such a thing as "was crimes." I thought that all's fair in war.
You guys make me laugh. Get a damn life and move on. Onyx is the only person who's said something that even made sense. The hypocrisy here is ridiculous...torture and killing is out of the question for potential terrorists (i.e. mass murderers), yet Bush gets the gallows)....freaking retarded.
EDIT: I realize others have said things besides Onyx questioning the validity of the OP's and others statements....I'm not talking to you.
EDIT: I realize others have said things besides Onyx questioning the validity of the OP's and others statements....I'm not talking to you.
Not everything is fair. No hitting in the balls, and no hitting in the face.Yegargeburble said:
I did not present this as evidence(sorry if you misunderstood me, you are of course correct in that personal opinions are irrelevant to the argument), I merely argued that it was irrelevant(because as commander in chief he had a responsibility to know).Onyx Oblivion said:
Bush's crimes are obvious to anybody who's done the research on him, and despite his flagrant violations of several laws along with essentially giving the people the middle finger while doing whatever he pleases, he's going to get away with it because he's rich and he was a US President. No one is ever going to prosecute him successfully because most rich people in America scoff at our primitive laws. I wish this wasn't the case but it appears to be so.
And absolutely NO touching of the hair.Onyx Oblivion said:
I honestly couldn't give a shit, he was a shitty president but obviously even four years in to his presidency America was stupid enough to re-vote for him so they only reinforced his behavior.
Indeed, yet I would argue that it is extremely likely that he had access to the torture memos which Obama recently released(i mean it didn't take Obama too long to realize that torture was occurring). Moreover so long as there is sufficient reason to believe that he was aware of it he should still be tried for it(Trying someone doesn't mean saying that he is guilty, it means checking if someone is guilty in a court of law)Onyx Oblivion said:
There is a very clear definition of war crimes dating back to the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907(I think those were the dates at least), and especially the Geneva conventions, it was this many of the Nazis was tried for(Indeed it was probably the only things the allies had legal right to try anybody for, but thats another story...).Yegargeburble said:Correction: almost everything is fair.Onyx Oblivion said:
As the US has signed the Geneva conventions they have responsibility to abide by them. Also i believe the Geneva conventions stipulate that soldiers are required to know the laws of war(so not knowing is no excuse)
Eh it's already happened, besides he's grown a taste for soles...ok ok horrible pun.MsDevin92 said:
Honestly why do people start these kind's of topics, filled with their hypocritical statments, to creat a powder keg more volitile then the middle east. I move this topic be blocked.
Bingo!Arcticflame said:
Also international laws and "war laws" are a joke. In war there will be unwanted casualties, it happens thats why its called WAR!
I didn't vote because there's no answer for "It would be a big theatrical waste of time (particularly when we have enough crises to deal with) and they wouldn't be able to prove or accomplish anything in the end."
EDIT: It would seem that someone has already said this:
EDIT: It would seem that someone has already said this:
I think he should be tried by the people of the various States. He won't be, but he should be, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld. It is a tragedy and an absurdity that a few underlings took the fall for these traitors.
I wasn't saying that there are no laws of war today, I'm just saying that they shouldn't exist. War doesn't need restrictions and rules. I know that sounds crazy, but I hold that to be true, especially since some of a country's enemies may not follow them.Gashad said:There is a very clear definition of war crimes dating back to the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907(I think those were the dates at least), and especially the Geneva conventions, it was this many of the Nazis was tried for(Indeed it was probably the only things the allies had legal right to try anybody for, but thats another story...).Yegargeburble said:Correction: almost everything is fair.Onyx Oblivion said:
As the US has signed the Geneva conventions they have responsibility to abide by them. Also i believe the Geneva conventions stipulate that soldiers are required to know the laws of war(so not knowing is no excuse)
Of course, I have never accepted anything such as rules of combat to be useful at all, instead thinking that fighting "dirty" is the way to go, but maybe that's just me.
Also note that I am not defending Bush...I couldn't care less if anyone decides to try him.
EDIT:
This is pretty much what I am saying, but in a much shorter, probably better, way.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Maybe if you want to get jailed for three years; that was the sentence for the guy that did that even though it was COMPLETELY justified.MsDevin92 said:
You can't kill him, it seems fairly obvious that he isn't mentally competent, its a wonder he could find his way around The White House if I'm honest. He should be put in an institution.