Bush: "War Crimes Will Be Prosecuted...It Will Be No Defense To Say, I Was Just Following Orders"

[Arjun]

I totally agree. War Criminals should be Prosecuted Mr. Ex President. And as you said "It Will Be No Defense To Say, I Was Just Following Orders"

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Is he proposing to prosecute himself? In that case we should add "It will be no defense to say, I was just giving orders."

Is this video new btw?

[Arjun]

Is he proposing to prosecute himself? In that case we should add "It will be no defense to say, I was just giving orders."

Is this video new btw?

Its what he said before they led the posse on the WMD wichhunt in Iraq
talk about wanting to swallow ones own words

I love how the modern media keeps track of who said what!
basically this shows Bush condemning "you know who" to prosecution

[Barry Goldwater]

Who was giving Bush orders then?

[Arjun]

Who was giving Bush orders then?

he is Mr "You know who"

[Babur]

Who was giving Bush orders then?

The Illuminati dude

shouldn't he be tried at the Hague btw?

[Thorn777]

The Illuminati dude

shouldn't he be tried at the Hague btw?

His administration undermined the Hague by announcing the US would invade the Netherlands, when any sort of an American citizen acting on the behalf of the US government would be held captive there.(obviously to keep Bush & co out of that process)

I dont know if that announcement still stands under Obama.

[Erik]

Is he proposing to prosecute himself? In that case we should add "It will be no defense to say, I was just giving orders."

I think Bush's defense is that he was just following orders from God.

[Arjun]

I think Bush's defense is that he was just following orders from God.

good one.lol

so the buck will stop with bush? or in other words..bush will be made a scapegoat the same way general in charge of Abu Graib was made one ?

[Stalins Ghost]

Well, strictly speaking it's impossible for you to say you were following orders Mr. Bush. You answer to the American people.

The man should be tried alongside every single soldier put in a position where his may or may not have commited war crimes.

[Viking Prince]

Why do we now wish to continue to persecute leaders when they leave office? Not prosecute -- persecute.

I do not recall such with LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, or even Reagan to a degree. Nobody even mentions Pappa Bush. But there seems to be no end to Clinton I and Bush II.

Other than the lying under disposition regarding sex (which is serious - but just not a part of the presidency) Clinton broke no laws. Bush broke no laws. Yet the whacky left and the whacky right cannot give it a rest. An then we repeat the mistake by posting this trash here.

[Arjun]

Yet the whacky left and the whacky right cannot give it a rest. An then we repeat the mistake by posting this trash here.

hmnn if i remember correctly, America executed Japanese POWs for the use of Water boarding. Therefore there is no legal confusion about weather waterboarding is torture or not. Yet it evident that elements of the intelligence community utilized waterboarding. Furthremore we now see in this video that the ex-president saying that "following orders" will not make anyone immune.

what we have here are confirmed cases of torture for which there should be accounting. otherwise the justice system will be nothing but a joke

[Viking Prince]

hmnn if i remember correctly, America executed Japanese POWs for the use of Water boarding. Therefore there is no legal confusion about weather waterboarding is torture or not. Yet it evident that elements of the intelligence community utilized waterboarding. Furthremore we now see in this video that the ex-president saying that "following orders" will not make anyone immune.

what we have here are confirmed cases of torture for which there should be accounting. otherwise the justice system will be nothing but a joke

We are speaking about US law under GW Bush and not comparative victor's justice. He has not been and will not be charged with any law violation. If he is guilty, this is not the sort of thing to be tried by lefty led mob rule in any case.

As Ponti said, " The dead horse, we are beating it. "

[Thorn777]

As Ponti said, " The dead horse, we are beating it. "

Hes neither dead, nor a horse, and hes not getting beaten. He and the presidents coming after him should be held accountable to the highest degree when waging a war, over obviously, and very probable willingly created, for the purpose of waging an illegal war: faked evidence.

For all I know, I want to see this cowboy in chains...

[Pontifex Maximus]

The dead horse, we are beating it.

[Adrian]

they where just following orders wtf is wrong with Bush ?

[Mr. Pink]

"Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth which belongs to the Iraqi people"

hmmm

[Arjun]

"Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth which belongs to the Iraqi people"

hmmm

We are speaking about US law under GW Bush and not comparative victor's justice.

what are you talking about? lol. is this some kind of sick joke?

We are speaking about US law under GW Bush.....He has not been and will not be charged with any law violation. If he is guilty, this is not the sort of thing to be tried by lefty led mob rule in any case.

whence did law start changing when the presidents change? "Us law and GB bush" . Is America some dictatorship where the one in power sets the law?
The US law clearly states that Water boarding is torture. The very same law called it torture 60 years ago (unless im mistaken and got teleported to some alternate dimension where America changes its law according to its presidents wishes)and it applies to today too.


and whats up with the comment about lefty led mob rule? are you saying that this is a form of McCarthyism ? .... oh wait....McCarthy and his wich hunt were not by the "Lefty mob" but by the righty mob . They even had the father of the American Atom bomb, Oppenheimer kicked out of his job. some patriots indeed.


can you tell the diff between this and McCarthyism? i can think of a few

As Ponti said, " The dead horse, we are beating it. "

hmnnn so are some innocents who were tortured to death.

There will be no warcrimes trials of any kind against Bush officials.

Obama does not want to commit political suicide just yet.

actually Obama does not need to do anything. all he has to do is remain silent and the congressional fact finding mission by Sen Leahy will take care of this.

[Viking Prince]

what are you talking about? lol. is this some kind of sick joke?

whence did law start changing when the presidents change? "Us law and GB bush" . Is America some dictatorship where the one in power sets the law?
The US law clearly states that Water boarding is torture. The very same law called it torture 60 years ago (unless im mistaken and got teleported to some alternate dimension where America changes its law according to its presidents wishes)and it applies to today too.

and whats up with the comment about lefty led mob rule? are you saying that this is a form of McCarthyism ? .... oh wait....McCarthy and his wich hunt were not by the "Lefty mob" but by the righty mob . They even had the father of the American Atom bomb, Oppenheimer kicked out of his job. some patriots indeed.

can you tell the diff between this and McCarthyism? i can think of a few

hmnnn so are some innocents who were tortured to death.

actually Obama does not need to do anything. all he has to do is remain silent and the congressional fact finding mission by Sen Leahy will take care of this.

OK -- I will bite.

My statement if you looked back referred to the trials against Japanese war criminals where one of the many items listed was some form of water torture. That was why I referred to it as victor's justice.

Now I referred to the law as it existed under GW Bush -- I never stated the law changes with various administrations.

What laws has the onorable ex president broken. Please cite the federal code if you can. I am cuious, since there seems to be no federal prosecutors or the US Attny General woking on this.

Again -- as Ponti stated , paraphrase -- the wacky lefties and wacky righties are simply beating a horse and the horse is dead.

[Babur]

OK -- I will bite.

My statement if you looked back referred to the trials against Japanese war criminals where one of the many items listed was some form of water torture. That was why I referred to it as victor's justice.

Now I referred to the law as it existed under GW Bush -- I never stated the law changes with various administrations.

What laws has the onorable ex president broken. Please cite the federal code if you can. I am cuious, since there seems to be no federal prosecutors or the US Attny General woking on this.

Again -- as Ponti stated , paraphrase -- the wacky lefties and wacky righties are simply beating a horse and the horse is dead.

You know George W Bush's administration had very little respect for the International Criminal Court an interesting article mentioned it in March:

International justice
A warrant for Bashir

Mar 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Can Sudan’s serving head of state really be brought to justice for his alleged crimes in Darfur?


Reuters

A TRIUMPH for justice or a blow to peace in Sudan? The warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the arrest of Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes—the court’s first against a sitting head of state—grimly spells out the suffering of the people of Sudan’s western region of Darfur: murder, extermination, torture, rape, pillage, the forcible transfer of people and deliberate attacks on civilians. Since 2003 some 300,000 Darfuris have died as a result of the conflict and around 2.7m have been forced from their homes. A third count, of genocide, was struck down, but Mr Bashir can take no comfort. Give us more evidence, said the ICC judges, and we’ll restore it.
Mr Bashir is defiant. So too are many African leaders, who seem to show more solidarity with perpetrators than with victims. Yet not all opposition to the ICC’s warrant is craven. Some fear that attempts to bring Mr Bashir to justice could increase the violence in Darfur and threaten an already fragile, separate peace deal between north and south Sudan.

Sudan’s expulsion of aid agencies following the indictment shows that the danger is real. Where justice has to be weighed against the urgent need to end violence, peace must sometimes come first. That is why the UN Security Council can suspend cases brought before the ICC. At one point it seemed that the stick of indictment and carrot of suspension could make Mr Bashir soften his war on the Darfuris. To that end envoys have jetted to Khartoum from all corners of the globe, including China, one of his chief backers. UN and African Union emissaries and peacekeepers have tried to prevent further atrocities by his forces and government-backed militias and to hold the ring for peace talks. The Security Council first discussed sanctions, then last year the possibility of deferring the case against Mr Bashir. Had he reined in the attacks, co-operated better with peacekeepers and the court and tried peacemaking, he might have wriggled off the ICC hook. He didn’t bother.

So what now?

One hope is that the ICC’s indictment will persuade Mr Bashir’s subordinates to hand their boss over to The Hague (see article). The other, more plausible, is that he will himself at last mend his ways, in return for the Security Council deferring the case. But neither is likely to occur unless there is widespread international support for the court. All 108 governments that have ratified its statutes are duty-bound to try to bring Mr Bashir to justice. But so should the powers on the Security Council, including America, China and Russia, which are not ICC members: the council referred Darfur to the ICC for investigation, and should now back the arrest warrant too. The more countries back the court, the less likely Mr Bashir is to continue his defiance or take revenge on Darfuris.
America in particular needs to abandon its past hostility to the ICC. George Bush at first set out to destroy it: “unsigning” the Rome treaty that set up the court, strong-arming governments to exempt Americans from its proceedings and threatening to spring them by force, if need be, from the ICC’s clutches. Yet when it came to Darfur, even Mr Bush accepted that an independent international court had a useful role: America wanted Mr Bashir brought to justice and so withheld its veto, allowing the case to go to the ICC for investigation.
Barack Obama could go further by tearing up the infamous unsigning letter, joining the discussion about the court’s future and inviting Congress to align America’s laws, especially on crimes against humanity, with the ICC’s new gold standard of international justice. That would leave the ICC to look after the Bashirs of this world, and America to look after its own.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=13235033