Bush Pardons himself from war crimes

[Stout1]

Tweet

[daved150]

Tweeti dont blame him...i would too

[Merc]

TweetI would try it to if I knew I had commited war crimes

[daved150]

Tweet

I would try it to if I knew I had commited war crimes

i'd do it regardless of wether i thaught idid or not....just in case!

[MAK2102]

TweetWhat a POS

[PL456]

TweetIm interested..I did not watch the vid you posted...but, what war crime is he guilty of in your opinion? was it liberating 15 million people, allowing people to vote democratically for the first time in decades, removing a horrible dictator, stopping the rape rooms, allowing girls to go to school again, defending our country against another terror attack in the past 6 years? What exactly did our President do that would classify as a war crime?

[T-Man007]

TweetThat's just it PL, he didn't do anything to be charged with war crimes. IMO

[T-Man007]

TweetPS- sometimes you have to do somethign nasty to prevent something very nasty. The bombs on Japan were nasty, but the millions who would have died if it stayed an invasion would have been really nasty. All the experts agree than Japan would have lost at least four times the number of people had the invasion taken place. Also, we would have lost anywhere from 500k to 750k soldiers as well. The bombs saved more lives than they took. That's the lesser of two evils.

[DJDIGGLER]

TweetUnbelievable! I'm starting to come to the realization that bush supporters will follow him regardless of what he does.

It's like ****** in **** Germany! So many followed him thinking he was justified in his actions. Too bad the rest of the world doesn't think so.

Funny, the rest of the world doesn't think we're justified either.

Pl I thought you were a religous buff. Isn't "though shall not kill" one of the ten commandments. Looks like your all mighty leader BUSH violated that only a few thousand.......well actually more. I think you get the drift.

Just like the christians to have double standards.

[Stout1]

Tweet

Im interested..I did not watch the vid you posted...but, what war crime is he guilty of in your opinion? was it liberating 15 million people, allowing people to vote democratically for the first time in decades, removing a horrible dictator, stopping the rape rooms, allowing girls to go to school again, defending our country against another terror attack in the past 6 years? What exactly did our President do that would classify as a war crime?

Why would he pardon himself of war crimes if he hasn't broken any laws? Doesn't make sense to pardon himself and make the pardon retroactive if there isn't a need for it.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b91_1190419119&c=1

Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the United Nations Security Council, who argued that the war broke international law. [14] (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…" and that "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…", while Article III states that the judicial power of the US Supreme Court extends to "all ... Treaties made". This makes a violation of international law also a violation of the "supreme Law of The Land" of America, and withholds immunity from government officials, including the president.) See Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq and The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. For its part, the U.S. administration soon presented a list of countries called the coalition of the willing which supported its position. A later aspect of the criticism has been the increasing death toll in Iraq; over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 1124 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the beginning of the war.In 2004, public assertions by Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke raised questions about the credibility of the Bush administration's pre-war claims. Both presented evidence that questioned how focused the Bush administration was on combating al-Qaeda (which was operating out of Afghanistan, not Iraq) before September 11. Specifically, O'Neill presented classified and unclassified documents indicating that planning for a war with Iraq and the subsequent occupation began at the first National Security Council meeting and continued with each meeting. Clarke presented testimony and witnesses concerning how Bush and much of his cabinet tried to find excuses to attack Iraq immediately after September 11, such as associating it with September 11, claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat, which implied that a war against Iraq would be legal by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. On February 3, 2004, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that there was no imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[FUZO]

TweetDJ EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION AND NOT ALL ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. AND DONT BRING ****** INTO THIS

[mandarb11]

Tweet

Im interested..I did not watch the vid you posted...but, what war crime is he guilty of in your opinion? was it liberating 15 million people, allowing people to vote democratically for the first time in decades, removing a horrible dictator, stopping the rape rooms, allowing girls to go to school again, defending our country against another terror attack in the past 6 years? What exactly did our President do that would classify as a war crime?

He is trying to get himself absolved retroactively from Sept 2001 on for any war crimes committed in the "illegal" treatment of prisioners that were as we know now subjected to torture as the genevea convention (which was also used to persecute Serbian war crimes) ruled that it is a war crime to torture members of Al Queda and other such groups, basically the same status that another country would hold.

Now this is a tough one as I can see both sides of it. First off if you are fighting a war, it is not possible to be humane and to kill at the same time, the notion itself is absurd. War is all about bad things, killing being the main thing. the idea the end justifies the means is a saying that comes to mind, but doesn't make it right!

Now for the other side, I think all of us have some sense of right and wrong, and when we see countless civilians, tortured, wrongful imprisionment (how many people have been and still are detained for years then released and told sorry we took away your rights and freedoms), these are the things that the enemy is supposed to do, not the "good guys." Once you cross the line you are not better than the people you are fighting.

Nieve yes it is, but we do need to try and uphold higher ideals, the moral high ground if you will, this is what makes the difference between "good guys" and "bad guys".

[pigmeat]

Tweetpl, how did he liberate 15 million people?..The country is more unsafe and worse off now then ever...at least Sadam kept them inline...now they run around like unruly animals...dont even start on the torturing....

[DJDIGGLER]

Tweet

DJ EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION AND NOT ALL ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. AND DONT BRING ****** INTO THIS

I'm not saying people don't have a right to their own opinion. I've only said that I realize that some peoples opinions will never change no matter what facts are given to them. I was for the war, believed the terrorists were the cause of 9/11, and even was about to join the military to defend our country etc etc. Then I was presented facts, put 2+2 together, and changed my opinion in the light of new evidence. Thank god I did!

I brought ****** into this because there are direct comparisons to how ****** started the war, and how this war was started. Look up how ****** had his soldiers shoot a man, dress him in a polish military outfit, then claim that he fired on the germans. Then got public approval to invade.

Sound familiar?

Why don't you want me to bring ****** into this?

If you'd like I can provide a barrage of links to support the connections to how this country is being handled. Just because it's in the past, doesn't mean it can't be used as a model on how to accomplish something.

[DJDIGGLER]

Tweet

DJ EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION AND NOT ALL ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. AND DONT BRING ****** INTO THIS

I'm not saying people don't have a right to their own opinion. I've only said that I realize that some peoples opinions will never change no matter what facts are given to them. I was for the war, believed the terrorists were the cause of 9/11, and even was about to join the military to defend our country etc etc. Then I was presented facts, put 2+2 together, and changed my opinion in the light of new evidence. Thank god I did!

I brought ****** into this because there are direct comparisons to how ****** started the war, and how this war was started. Look up how ****** had his soldiers shoot a man, dress him in a polish military outfit, then claim that he fired on the germans. Then got public approval to invade.

Sound familiar?

Why don't you want me to bring ****** into this?

If you'd like I can provide a barrage of links to support the connections to how this country is being handled. Just because it's in the past, doesn't mean it can't be used as a model on how to accomplish something.