Treason and war crimes.

[crazyhorse1]

Does knowingly disseminating false information that causes your country to enter into a costly war constitute treason.
I think that it does.
Does condoning the torturing of prisoners constitute a war crime. I think that it does.
Does bombing an innocent civilian population on false pretenses constitute murder? I think that it does.
Does holding uncharged prisoners without right of trial constitute a violation of international law and constitute enslavement. I think that it does.
Do any of the above seem appropriate behaviors for a President of the United State. I do not.
Should the President be subject to the same laws and punishment that every other citizen is subject to? I think so.
Should George W. Bush be tried and if found guilty be punished according to the law? Or do you wish to continue to live in a society governed not by law, but by men?

[NikiH]

Does crazyhorse have so much aggression I would be scared to ever actually meet him? Yes he does.

[Redskin in Canada]

Public international law and war crime allegations are an interesting and very serious topic. But from what moral ground do you elevate yourself to express an opinion, any opinion, on this matter?

Anybody that posts something such as:

I never knew a woman who didn't understand a punch in the face.

deserves no respect or attention to ethical issues from me one way or another. You must -earn- respect in this board if you want to be respected. You have done very little for me to take your post into consideration on the issue proposed in it.

[crazyhorse1]

That's a well known quote from a satire of a Bogart movie. I used it to make fun of another poster's macho remarks. And you have quoted me out of context-- not nice. But then, that's OK. I admit to not being nice either. But, still, I haven't caused any wars for the hell of it, yet.

[thaiphoon]

Does knowingly disseminating false information that causes your country to enter into a costly war constitute treason.
I think that it does.

Bush has already been exonerated by the commission in that he was given faulty intelligence as to the WMD's. But remember (or you probably want to avoid admitting) that the WMD's were only PART of the reasons to go to war. In fact the Duelfer report stated that had we not gone in when we did that Saddam would've bided his time until the sanctions ended (the French, Germans and Russians were all trying to get them ended) and then resume his programs. Meanwhile 100,000's of people die at Saddam's hands.

Does condoning the torturing of prisoners constitute a war crime. I think that it does.

Again, post the link to Bush here. Its my understanding that it was not condoned. Even if it was these are not POW's and do not fall under the Geneva convention IMHO.

Does bombing an innocent civilian population on false pretenses constitute murder? I think that it does.

Again ... your attempts to ignore the other reason(s) to go to war are laughable.

Does holding uncharged prisoners without right of trial constitute a violation of international law and constitute enslavement. I think that it does.

Umm..they were fighting us...they took up arms against us. Additionally, they do not represent any country. They are not uniformed military personnel belonging to a sovereign nation. We didn't just go and snatch these people out of their homes while they were going about innocent lives, ya know.

Do any of the above seem appropriate behaviors for a President of the United State. I do not.

When fighting against terrorists who do not belong to one specific country then yes ...

Should the President be subject to the same laws and punishment that every other citizen is subject to? I think so.

Yep...except those actions which fall under the purview of being Commander-in-Chief ... which he is and which the War on Terror definitely falls.

Should George W. Bush be tried and if found guilty be punished according to the law? Or do you wish to continue to live in a society governed not by law, but by men?

Nope he should not be tried. And we still continue to live in a country governed by law. Congress approved him going to war. Nothing he has done IMHO has broken the laws of this country.

Nice try at leftist political spin. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

[cvillehog]

WMDs only PART of the reason for war?

Why don't we just rewrite all of history to suit our current views, then?

I hear Orwell calling...

[Redskins Rule]

This is funny!!!

This new thread doesn't change anything crazyhorse....YOU STILL NEED TO GET YOURSELF LAID!

[thaiphoon]

WMDs only PART of the reason for war?

Sure anyone actually paying attention will recall that there were other reasons to go to war. When pressed for a "smoking gun" by the media the administration settled for the one that everyone agreed on (our intel agencies, the French intel agencies, the Britsh, the Germans, the Russians all agreed he had them).

Why don't we just rewrite all of history to suit our current views, then?

Thats exactly what the people stating that they were the only reason to go to war have done.

[cvillehog]

WMDs only PART of the reason for war?

Sure anyone actually paying attention will recall that there were other reasons to go to war. When pressed for a "smoking gun" by the media the administration settled for the one that everyone agreed on (our intel agencies, the French intel agencies, the Britsh, the Germans, the Russians all agreed he had them).

Why don't we just rewrite all of history to suit our current views, then?

Thats exactly what the people stating that they were the only reason to go to war have done.

Well, obviously you won't be convinced of anything on this matter by something I say on Redskins fan site.

However, you and I both know the truth, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and Saddam has WMD and will give them to terrorists were the justifications for the war. The whole idea of spreading democracy came about after the first justification prooved untrue. And, if you've been paying attention, you will see the evidence continues to mount that the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq soon after 9/11, regardless of the actual facts of the available intel.

[thaiphoon]

Well, obviously you won't be convinced of anything on this matter by something I say on Redskins fan site.

You could say this to me on the street and we'd still have the same argument.

However, you and I both know the truth, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and Saddam has WMD and will give them to terrorists were the justifications for the war.

Again...one part of the reason to go.

The whole idea of spreading democracy came about after the first justification prooved untrue.

Not necessarily...

And, if you've been paying attention, you will see the evidence continues to mount that the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq soon after 9/11, regardless of the actual facts of the available intel.

Sure have been. And that was good of them to do it. another thing for you ... you know what was left out of that statement. That most likely they planned an attack on a number of countries. When you have a number of countries who are hostile to you and you get dealt this kind of blow on (/11 is would be irresponsible NOT to draw up attack plans for those countries. Again, put your Joe-citizen hat down and start to think liek someone responsible for the whole country and you'll see that this was a good idea.

Going further ...the best case for the war was always that the Iraqi people wanted and needed an outside force to depose Saddam, because his tyranny was so vicious they couldn't do it themselves.

You don't have to believe that Bush was especially worried about human rights to support this argument: nobody seriously believes that the mass murder of Jews, gays and the disabled was the reason for British and American involvement in the WWII, but it was the reason why much of the left supported it.

The reasons were many

1.) To cause other countries to accede to our security demands. Libya is a prime example of this. Even Iran's eagerness to disclose its nuclear program isa result of the fact that we have so many troops on 2 sides of it. Syria recently removed troops from Lebanon and our invasion of Iraq has been widely credited with this outcome.
2.)There was a real fear of Saddam developing WMD's over time. And with sanctions about to fall this became even more real. Add to that the fact that he was sitting on alot of the world's much-needed oil supplies and this made Saddam especially dangerous. Especially post 9/11
3.) We were aware that a policy of fostering and supporting a culture of tyranny in the Middle East had bred psychotic political movements like al-Qa'ida. The political swamp had to be drained, and Iraq was particularly the best place to start. Finally, the shifting of American troops to Iraq from Saudi Arabia, only possible because of the war, has ended the provocation of US troops on "holy soil" - thus ensuring that the key grievance voiced by Osama bin Laden has been dealt with. Any investigation into WMD has to be seen in this context. Yes, some ambiguities need to be cleared up, but WMD were always - at least in Washington - one factor among many.

Its funny how some people look at Afghanistan and Iraq as two separate wars and yet they don't look at the War in Europe and War in the Pacific as separate from each other in WWII.

[cvillehog]

And, if you've been paying attention, you will see the evidence continues to mount that the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq soon after 9/11, regardless of the actual facts of the available intel.

Sure have been. And that was good of them to do it. another thing for you ... you know what was left out of that statement. That most likely they planned an attack on a number of countries. When you have a number of countries who are hostile to you and you get dealt this kind of blow on (/11 is would be irresponsible NOT to draw up attack plans for those countries. Again, put your Joe-citizen hat down and start to think liek someone responsible for the whole country and you'll see that this was a good idea.

Funny, I don't recall the Downing Street Memo mentioning other countries..

Going further ...the best case for the war was always that the Iraqi people wanted and needed an outside force to depose Saddam, because his tyranny was so vicious they couldn't do it themselves.

If this is true, if all that Bush cared about was ending tyranny and ethnic clensing (which had gone on in the past in Iraq), why do we continue to ignore Darfor?

You don't have to believe that Bush was especially worried about human rights to support this argument: nobody seriously believes that the mass murder of Jews, gays and the disabled was the reason for British and American involvement in the WWII, but it was the reason why much of the left supported it.

The reasons were many

1.) To cause other countries to accede to our security demands. Libya is a prime example of this. Even Iran's eagerness to disclose its nuclear program isa result of the fact that we have so many troops on 2 sides of it. Syria recently removed troops from Lebanon and our invasion of Iraq has been widely credited with this outcome.
2.)There was a real fear of Saddam developing WMD's over time. And with sanctions about to fall this became even more real. Add to that the fact that he was sitting on alot of the world's much-needed oil supplies and this made Saddam especially dangerous. Especially post 9/11
3.) We were aware that a policy of fostering and supporting a culture of tyranny in the Middle East had bred psychotic political movements like al-Qa'ida. The political swamp had to be drained, and Iraq was particularly the best place to start. Finally, the shifting of American troops to Iraq from Saudi Arabia, only possible because of the war, has ended the provocation of US troops on "holy soil" - thus ensuring that the key grievance voiced by Osama bin Laden has been dealt with. Any investigation into WMD has to be seen in this context. Yes, some ambiguities need to be cleared up, but WMD were always - at least in Washington - one factor among many.

This is justification, not motivation. I'm sure you can see the difference. Please point me to something showing anyone in the Bush Administration emphasising some or all of these points prior to invasion.

Its funny how some people look at Afghanistan and Iraq as two separate wars and yet they don't look at the War in Europe and War in the Pacific as separate from each other in WWII.

Well, some may, but I don't. My own grandfather was still serving (I first wrote "fighting" but edited because he was in the supply unit and not on the front line) in the Pacific when victory was declared in Europe.

[Irn-Bru]

(don't let me interrupt)


The offseason at TH.net brings two things: boredom and politics. It's a deadly combination.

[Fios]

(don't let me interrupt)


The offseason at TH.net brings two things: boredom and politics. It's a deadly combination.

Amen

I've learned to keep my liberal mouth shut ... you ain't going to win any converts on a chat board.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

... you ain't going to win any converts on a chat board.

Fine then.

[Alcatraz]

Does crazyhorse have so much aggression I would be scared to ever actually meet him? Yes he does.

Brilliant

[thaiphoon]

Funny, I don't recall the Downing Street Memo mentioning other countries..

Is Downing Street here in the U.S. ? Hmm... don't think so. The memo references Iraq because thats where we struck. Had we struck in another country the memo produced *with whatever name) would reference that country ... geez ...

thaiphoon wrote:
Going further ...the best case for the war was always that the Iraqi people wanted and needed an outside force to depose Saddam, because his tyranny was so vicious they couldn't do it themselves.

If this is true, if all that Bush cared about was ending tyranny and ethnic clensing (which had gone on in the past in Iraq), why do we continue to ignore Darfor?

Dunno - you'd have to ask him. Its one of the things I disagree with concerning our foreign policy as I'd like to see more U.S. involvement in bringing peace there. Additionally - you selectively read my statement - I said the BEST case, not the only case. There were other reasons why we went in besides WMD's ya know ?? And no they weren't trotted out afterwards as is commonly exclaimed...they were included in the run up to the war. However WMD's was front and center as the major intelligence agencies aroudn the world believed he still had them b/c he didn't account for the missing weapons.

thaiphoon wrote:
You don't have to believe that Bush was especially worried about human rights to support this argument: nobody seriously believes that the mass murder of Jews, gays and the disabled was the reason for British and American involvement in the WWII, but it was the reason why much of the left supported it.

The reasons were many

1.) To cause other countries to accede to our security demands. Libya is a prime example of this. Even Iran's eagerness to disclose its nuclear program isa result of the fact that we have so many troops on 2 sides of it. Syria recently removed troops from Lebanon and our invasion of Iraq has been widely credited with this outcome.
2.)There was a real fear of Saddam developing WMD's over time. And with sanctions about to fall this became even more real. Add to that the fact that he was sitting on alot of the world's much-needed oil supplies and this made Saddam especially dangerous. Especially post 9/11
3.) We were aware that a policy of fostering and supporting a culture of tyranny in the Middle East had bred psychotic political movements like al-Qa'ida. The political swamp had to be drained, and Iraq was particularly the best place to start. Finally, the shifting of American troops to Iraq from Saudi Arabia, only possible because of the war, has ended the provocation of US troops on "holy soil" - thus ensuring that the key grievance voiced by Osama bin Laden has been dealt with. Any investigation into WMD has to be seen in this context. Yes, some ambiguities need to be cleared up, but WMD were always - at least in Washington - one factor among many.

This is justification, not motivation. I'm sure you can see the difference. Please point me to something showing anyone in the Bush Administration emphasising some or all of these points prior to invasion.

Geez .. .for someone who has claimed to pay attention to the run up to war you certainly never paid attention to some of Bush's speeches or any of the press briefings did you ??

BTW- motivation requires justification. I've shown why one would be motivated to remove Saddam.

thaiphoon wrote:
Its funny how some people look at Afghanistan and Iraq as two separate wars and yet they don't look at the War in Europe and War in the Pacific as separate from each other in WWII.

Well, some may, but I don't. My own grandfather was still serving (I first wrote "fighting" but edited because he was in the supply unit and not on the front line) in the Pacific when victory was declared in Europe.

I'm glad we agree on something at least.

[cvillehog]

Geez .. .for someone who has claimed to pay attention to the run up to war you certainly never paid attention to some of Bush's speeches or any of the press briefings did you ??

BTW- motivation requires justification. I've shown why one would be motivated to remove Saddam.

Still waiting for a link to statements made by the Bush administration ephasising the "other reasons" for deciding to start a war in Iraq.

I mean, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" do we?

[Gibbs' Hog]

But remember (or you probably want to avoid admitting) that the WMD's were only PART of the reasons to go to war. In fact the Duelfer report stated that had we not gone in when we did that Saddam would've bided his time until the sanctions ended

The Duelfer report was a backup. The Bush administration knew that the intelligence they had about WMDs was weak, at best. People seem to forget that the INITIAL reason the public was told about going to war was about WMDs. Only LATER did the administration try to wash that reason out with the we-need-to-remove-the-evil-dictator line.

I do not endorse Saddam Hussein or his past actions of inhumanity. I do not disagree with the fact that he needed to be removed from power. I only wish that the INITIAL reasons given for going to war were the right reasons.

[curveball]

Would you rather they gave you the real motivation for taking out Iraq?

It's quite simple. AQ's main stated reason for attacking on 9/11 was the infidels on thier holy soil. The US had to maintain the base there because they didn't finish the job in '91. The second they'd have pulled out, Hussein rolls his tanks back into Kuwait and probably even into Saudi Arabia itself.

Coupled with Hussein's regime's growing friendliness with terror organizations and his known stockpiles of WMDs and ability to produce them made this a no-brainer.

If the United States ever wanted security again, Iraq was the second domino that had to fall. The theocracy in Iran is crumbling from within, Pakistan is now at least playing within society's framework (at least on the surface). Libya capitulated on its own, even the House of Saud is slowly opening its citizens up to more freedom.

One hundred years from now, the establishment of a democracy in Iraq will be viewed as a seminal event in the evolution of world politics, and once again the far left will come out on the wrong end just like every other event of importance in the last 100 years.

[skins#1fan]

Crazyhorse whos side are you on. I have never heard one of you liberals get on here and make a thread about how those worthless barbarians over there are sawing off innocent peoples head!!! Second of all Bush hasnt done a damn thing wrong and I hope those terrorists over there sit in that camp even longer because it allows us to get more information which in the long run protects us. Also terrorists are not covered under the geneva convention. They are not a uniformed soldiers fighting for or defending a nation. So if they want to do car bombs and cut peoples heads off I could give a damn how we treat them. You liberals need to get a little tougher on these guys that are trying to kill you and get off our president, and the the troops that are interigating the Terrorists/Murderers at Guantanamo Prison.

[Gibbs' Hog]

Would you rather they gave you the real motivation for taking out Iraq?

It's quite simple. AQ's main stated reason for attacking on 9/11 was the infidels on thier holy soil. The US had to maintain the base there because they didn't finish the job in '91. The second they'd have pulled out, Hussein rolls his tanks back into Kuwait and probably even into Saudi Arabia itself.

Coupled with Hussein's regime's growing friendliness with terror organizations and his known stockpiles of WMDs and ability to produce them made this a no-brainer.

If the United States ever wanted security again, Iraq was the second domino that had to fall. The theocracy in Iran is crumbling from within, Pakistan is now at least playing within society's framework (at least on the surface). Libya capitulated on its own, even the House of Saud is slowly opening its citizens up to more freedom.

One hundred years from now, the establishment of a democracy in Iraq will be viewed as a seminal event in the evolution of world politics, and once again the far left will come out on the wrong end just like every other event of importance in the last 100 years.

I saw Colin Powell on The Daily Show the other night. Out of his own mouth, he said that the reasons for going to war were presented to the President, and debated constantly among the cabinet members. That is good, and gave me a little solace. However, Colin Powell himself said that the one thing the intelligence community got "DEAD WRONG" was that Iraq had current stockpiles of WMDs. That doesn't mean they didn't have them 15 yeas ago, but all the people insisting that they were there when we went to war were wrong.

Colin Powell also said that all the members of the Bush Administration agreed that war was a good option. BUT, he stressed that there were dissenting voices among the cabinet members about the approach. He said the main disagreement was over the involvement of our foreign allies, and the amount of time the U.S. needed to spend getting support before deploying troops. Apparently, some people felt the need to go in right away, and some felt that we should have spent more time in preparations with our allies and the U.N. Colin Powell also said that "war could have been avoided." He was not necessarily against going to war, but he indicated that certain actions by our government and others could have prevented the war.

Note to all the "I-hate-flaming-liberals" people out there:
I can offer you this; which nearly sides with the republican views - Powell explained that "intelligence" is never 100% (obviously). He said that decisions were made from intelligence received, but major decisions were not made on the basis of information from people like 'curveball' (the actual 'curveball' who supplied the false WMD info.). And I believe that our government was trying to make the best decisions with what information they had.




As for your post curvey, I can actually agree with a lot of the things you said. I also believe that this war was a continuation from '91, and that Saddam had the capacity to continue his evil ways. Your post was thoughtful, and you are at least one person that I can respect for your knowledgeable position on this matter.


But this?

...and once again the far left will come out on the wrong end just like every other event of importance in the last 100 years.

Unless you stress the 'far' in "far left," then this statement adds nothing to the rest of the post.





[/quote]