Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum
12 votes

UT OH, Bush GUILTY of War Crimes

Submitted by JUSTCOMEHOME on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 17:10
in

George W Bush and Tony Blair are now wanted war criminals

http://youtu.be/pZxa0-IXl_U


Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Utah and Ohio?

Submitted by Nate on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:22.

Just kidding, reference to the typo in your title. I agree with the ones who say a turn toward internationalism when it comes to justice is more dangerous than an isolated dictator.

I DON'T AGREE WITH BUSH BUT...

Submitted by Sandy Sanders on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:01.

...I do not want foreigners like this mock tribunal or the ICC to encourage some nation to have George Bush arrested. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch tried to have Bush arrested in Canada. I think that is shameful. No American should be involved in any of this.

Here's a blog post I did:

http://www.varight.com/news/outrageous-anmesty-international...

BTW, i agree with the poster who said the Constitution (next to God) is the supreme law of the land!

—

Sandy Sanders
www.varight.com

Yeah, we should have charged Bush with High Crimes.

Submitted by DeMolay on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:39.

I agree with you, America should have cleaned up its own mess.

Can we still do that?

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:47.

Obviously no one in DC except Kucinch and Ron Paul and maybe a handful of others would stand up for this....but is this something that could happen in the future - retroactively?

If Bush had been impeached we

Submitted by Crickett on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:45.

If Bush had been impeached we would have been MUCH better off, and all his crap would have been VOID, so Obama would not have such an easy time of it. BUT, did republicans choose to not impeach Bush? NOOOO, it was Nancy Pelosi! She refused to hear anything about it and took it "off the table". I could not see how anyone could vote for her, after that, and she won by a landslide. She is as horrible as he was, for covering for him.

This is probably one of the

Submitted by ebb on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 22:16.

This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my entire life. A crime is where you break the law. A law somewhere. War crimes is a made up crime where people who didn't like a particular war want to punish some particular political leaders. I am amazed how people can declare a particular act a crime and yet can't point out a law that they broke. I was always under the impression in order for there to be a crime in any legal sense there first has to be a law forbidding the action.

The entire issue of rule of law is crucial and the invasion of Iraq was legal since Bush got authorization from congress. The invasion of afghanastan was also legal for the same reason and even Ron Paul signed off on that.

Do you guys really want to live under the personal authority of other human beings instead of by the authority of the law?

Rule of Law, not of man

Submitted by Kelldor on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:35.

You make good points on the Rule of Law, and on war crimes. It's kind of a situation where the winner makes the laws, and then tries the loser according to those laws, much like "History is written by the victors." However, authorization to use military force does not equal a Declaration of War. The highest law of the land says a "Declaration of War" is required. I think on Afghanistan it can be argued that it was justified as we were attacked by people who trained there and were sheltered by the Afghani government. Iraq though? No. Iraq didn't attack us. We should not forget Letters of Marque and Reprisal either though. Ron Paul had introduced an act calling for letters of marque and reprisal after 9/11. Everyone else was like "What's that? Hmmm... sounds ancient."

This is why warcrimes are not

Submitted by ebb on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 21:00.

This is why warcrimes are not really real criminal prosecutions since it is always victors justice and it is not based upon any agreed upon law. The Nuremberge trials were really a sham since no one had any real chance of being found innocent but we made an exception because they were NAZIs. I'm OK with that but once we get into 'crimes against humanity' witch is incredibly vague in itself we then have to assign someone who decides what is a crime against humanity. It then becomes personal power over other people that gets implemented instead of legal code that deals out established punishments because that person or legal body can decide what that is after the fact. It then applies its decisions against the selected and not against everyone. Why not apply the Nuremberge standard to everyone? That would require a written down set of rules that all nations agree upon and know what their boundaries are. It would also limit that body to enforcing those rules whitch is why they don't want to do that. They want to enforce their own discretionary will against any person and at any moment.

war crimes are defined

Submitted by RiverRun on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:19.

War crimes do have definitions and include things like forcing prisoners into slave labor.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/War_crime

The tribunals should issue "letters of marque and reprisal".

Submitted by Bob-45 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 22:13.

While I'd rather see Bush and Blair hang from the same gallows as Saddam, I'd be perfectly satisfied if bounty hunters brought in their corpses.

please consider supporting the National Grassroots Campaign

Submitted by 3StepsTowardFreedom on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 21:59.

3 Steps Toward Freedom at http://www.dailypaul.com/188917/national-grassroots-campaign...

Thank you.

—

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U

I'm no international lawyer but what really happens here?

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 22:00.

I'm no international lawyer but what really happens here?

Nothing? Will the US even recognize this Tribunal? Can it because Obama is just as guilty...

Does Bush have to stay on the DL in Texas? or what? When does justice get served? or does it?

I saw the comment below about the Germans. Can someone elaborate about today's situation.
I'd appreciate it!

depends

Submitted by RiverRun on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:22.

It depends on the country. Bush is unlikely to go to Switzerland because with their claimed neutrality, they might arrest him so he can stand trial.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-tri...
Feb. 7, 2011
"Former President George W. Bush was forced to cancel a planned trip to Switzerland this week..."

thanks!

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:24.

I remember when Bush cancelled his trip. thanks for the link.

Advocating international tribunals is advocating globalism.

Submitted by Kelldor on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 21:55.

I have no respect for international tribunals or the International Criminal Court. The way I see it is if we are too pussified to try and convict Bush right here at home under our laws then don't b!tch when he's running around free!

We failed to hold him accountable to our laws.

We failed to support and defend the Constitution.

We failed to impeach him.

We failed to stop the wars.

We let the founders down.

A lot of innocent people died on our watch.

With individual liberty comes personal responsibility. Take personal responsibility for this.

The last thing I want is to dignify this notion that some other authority like the UN or ICC or the Hague is superior to our Constitution. This is wrong headed thinking that can only result in a sucking sound as what little remains of our sovereignty slips away. Any citizen of the several states that believes Bush should be tried at the Hague Tribunal, or anywhere else not under our own jurisdictions is advocating that we subordinate our Constitution to world law, and is thereby advocating Globalism. It's the same thing as when I hear liberals say "I support 0bamas war in Libya because at least he went to the UN."

It's easy to blame Bush, (the government, the corporations, the bankers, etc.), but the truth is he could not have gotten away with his criminal acts if we had not let him. We sat back and did nothing except wave a bunch of signs which does nothing but ease our own consciences so we can go home and look at the wife and kids and say "See? I didn't support the war", when the truth is we support the current state of perpetual war every day we refuse to enforce our own laws.

It also violates the

Submitted by ebb on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 22:21.

It also violates the constitution since the supremacy clause declares that the constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it are the highest law in the land. For an American, there is no higher authority (other than God) than the United States itself.

Very true

Submitted by Kelldor on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:22.

I agree 100%.

I understand your point entirely Kelldor

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 22:04.

but for many this is huge because so many Americans were literally brainwashed to think that speaking out against the war was "anti-American". This validates the anti-war stance.

As far as actual justice being served...can it be at this point here in the US? I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

I understand why folks believe this is of major importance

Submitted by Kelldor on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 23:38.

In 2003 I was duped too. It wasn't until Oct. 2006 I started asking questions.

"As far as actual justice being served...can it be at this point here in the US? I don't know. That's why I'm asking."

In answer to your question, yes, it can be, but it would be very bloody. No sane individual should want a 2nd American Revolution or a 2nd Civil War, however, given the alternative of protesting, holding signs, and singing kumbayah, which do you think is going to be more effective? We are certainly more than justified right now to resort to arms to resist tyranny and punish criminals for violating their oaths.

I could easily pull up tens or hundreds of quotes from the founders proving that we have the right to resort to arms to resist tyranny. We could even articulate that the current remnant status of the Constitution constitutes a rebellion against these united States of America by foreign and domestic enemies of the Constitution, and we therefore are authorized to quash it.

I'm not advocating violence, but the honest truth is that if we are unwilling to use force to enforce our laws upon those who violate their oaths, then we have no business complaining that they roam free. When I see the protestors getting the snot beat out of them by thugs in the streets, I have no sympathy, because they have a responsibility to defend themselves against criminals, whether the criminals wear uniforms or not, and instead the protesters just lay there screaming "Why are you beating me, I am peaceful!". The logical answer is, "Because you are not armed and the thug has nothing to fear from you".

This isn't India in the 1940's. This is America. We have 80 million gun owners. We have millions of veterans who should be right now organizing and training citizens once or twice per month at the local level in small unit tactics, and citizens should be organizing on that level if we want to hold criminals accountable for violating their oaths. Start local and work your way up. Instead it's a bag of Doritos, a 6 pack, and a football game :/ If they started engaging in mass gun confiscation we would be screwed because it would not be like Lexington and Concord. The citizenry is not "well regulated", meaning "to keep regular".

I hope this answers your question. It's not what any of us want to hear, but someone needs to say it.

thanks for getting back to me Kelldor

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 01:28.

I appreciate you typing that all out. Thanks.

The Granger's picture

"Fog of War" McNamara

Submitted by The Granger on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 21:06.

"Fog of War" is a must see documentary, where McNamara admits he's a war criminal. Shows all the evidense.

—

STAND WITH RAND 2016

The video

Submitted by Epicurean Helvetic on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 21:22.

On Youtube, showing evidence; runtime 1:46:42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0Z9OWLjPM

—

http://www.libertymaven.com/wp-content/uploads/bostonwhois.jpg

This is good news

Submitted by entropypressStAt on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 21:01.

funny....I didn't hear about this on FOX or CNN.

Looks good on paper...

Submitted by MW on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 19:31.

But I wouldn't go celebrating this one. The tribunal court doesn't have any enforcement powers. Trying to get an international conviction for war crimes is not only very tricky, but damn near impossible to accomplish if the others don't feel like playing.

This amounts to nothing more than another feel-good statement of public opinion. They are still off the hook. And let's not forget the US divorced itself from the Treaty (oddly enough by Bush), adding in the threat of military force if any US national is held at the Hague for trial on our way out the door. Oops.

This basically means the US is hands-off to the ICC as well.

Sorry gang- these two bastards will never see the inside of a cell and they know it. It sucks, but it is what it is.

This is a very big deal

Submitted by tog2476 on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 19:11.

that means people have been hot on this for many years. I would like to see Rumsfeld,and Cheney, and if we could squeak Hank Paulson in there it would be great. Thanks for the post, this could get interesting. Remember when the elites plans go sour, they fry the big dogs to save the ship, this is what we could be seeing. They always go after their face guys first.

—

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Not good enough!

Submitted by Tramp on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 18:35.

The list most certainly needs to be longer.
But on the bright side, his vacation destinations will take very little thought.

—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

Thanks

Submitted by VR on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 18:28.

for warming my heart for the holiday.

I'm holding my breathe to

Submitted by resistance on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 18:24.

I'm holding my breathe to anything actually happening due to this.

Occupy Bush & Blair :P

Submitted by AbrahamNorway on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 19:38.

Why not? Might be more significant than the current OWS event :)

—

truth liberate

And the Pope is Catholic. No

Submitted by rpjazzer on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 18:19.

And the Pope is Catholic. No surprise here. Obama needs to be tried, too.