Why America Must Prosecute War Crimes

GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I put it in the same context as it is the very same people who believe in UFO's........... they let their desires alter their logic.
out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
What part of that bushwhacked mind of yours keep blocking the facts that war crimes were committed? ... If in your bushwhacked mind making war criminals accountable for war crimes a "desire" ... so be it ...:dunce: ... just showed the folks at home once again how incredibility stupid you are ... nothing new there.:roll: At least most people comprehend what is happening.
It was my pleasure making you look stupid again. :clap:
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I think I told you gently in my first couple of posts that this will not happen.....and if it does, the dem's will suffer greatly. It's pretty simple, since the convolutions come after the unpopularity of the first two years of the war (we have since completely won, in case you hadn't heard), it will bring in names and dates and info none of us need to broadcast to the world, and of course it will hamstring any intelligence op's (which keep us safe) in the future by showing even if you have a legal doc saying go ahead, someone 4 years from now will prosecute you.
If you can't figure that out and look at the greater good of it all, you need to take a look at yourself in the mirror. The prosecution isn't for them, it's for you...... are you sure you are not a republican? :lol:

out. :blsmoke:
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
The only reason the dims would suffer is because they would be implicated as well ... you don't have a clue what is for the greater good ... and it certainly isn't overlooking war crimes ... and you're full of shit if you think we won the illegal war. Nothing new there ...
out:roll:
 
?

******

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
So I take it you agreed with the oil for food program...or what? yes, or no.

Condi rice was neither incompetent (she is smarter than both the current and previously former presidents combined), nor on the take.... as opposed to the UN heirarchy and cronies.
Unlike the rest of the world the US has the best track record on fixing what ails it..... unmatched by anyone.

The very fact that Condi held that position in a country of 300 million speaks volumes about the differences between the US and elsewhere.... not to mention Obama. Spare me your moral superiority implications...you have none.



out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
she's both
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Since you have no moral superiority, I'll just disregard your unsubstantiated mud slinging. She is one of the shining lights of an educated people serving their fellow man. She's far too honest to ever be President unfortunately, but a true role model for minorities who feel hopeless....


out. :blsmoke:
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Since you have no moral superiority, I'll just disregard your unsubstantiated mud slinging. She is one of the shining lights of an educated people serving their fellow man. She's far too honest to ever be President unfortunately, but a true role model for minorities who feel hopeless....


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
She helped lie us into an illegal war .. that is substantiated ... she is a war criminal as well and is no role model for anyone. She must be charged as well.
out:mrgreen:
 
W

We Love 1

New Member
Condi always looked like a satan worshiper to Me. Theres just something evil about that lady, that I can't point My finger on.

Ohh wait, yes I can, she was part of the 911 conspiracy.

War criminal!

:D
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Hooboy is an exclamation of consternation at something ridiculous...like 9/11 conspiracy ppl...they get a lot of hooboys.... from you know...logical folks.


out. :blsmoke:
 
?

******

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Since you have no moral superiority, I'll just disregard your unsubstantiated mud slinging. She is one of the shining lights of an educated people serving their fellow man. She's far too honest to ever be President unfortunately, but a true role model for minorities who feel hopeless....


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
u have no moral superiority
 
goran

goran

Active Member
Hello
Some persons of my nationality,did some teriblle wor crimes in the last war, on the Balkan... All parts
Every one need to be prosecuted!!!- they will not be..WE lived saw well -untill you came

But America and your goverment,need to start clining own shit-they have your fingers every wher.You did saw many war crimes-after second world war...
Fuck demokraty, which real moto is money and own interest!!!
What is different between Rusians in Afganisatan,and your forces now...

I don't like to live-by your govermants plans and standards!!!

You even bombed my family-belive or not..
Tomahowk fall down 400m way... We are not terorist:bigjoint:¸Next time use,ordinary bombs-they are farmers/not soldiers,terorists...

peace an love and respect to other peoples,culture,religion,way of life...
best wishes to all
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I believe you are referring to NATO forces which are an amalgamation of different countries.

Peace negotiations on your countries part collapsed and war ensued. The western world (true) did perceive a threat to innocent border countries and stepped in to stem the BLOOD.

After the Racak incident, NATO asked repeatedly for a peace settlement and an end to killing civilians and innocents. These pleas were ignored since ONE side felt confident of wiping out the other. Hence, an intervention took place....not too different from a school house teacher breaking up a kids fight. Except instead of childish wants, it was based on hatred and ethnicity. Not exactly an enlightened environment to achieve peace.

If your house was hit by an aircraft, it was probably my cousins son, he's a ball buster of a fighter pilot and can slam one down a chinmey.


out. :blsmoke:
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
The war was voted on and approved...what are you talking about? condi never lied...quotes please...


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
No they did not ... that was if Saddam had WMD ... and he didn't ... plus they were suppose to go back to the UN for approval and they didn't ... so they broke international law ... and started an illegal war ... it's not my problem that you can comprehend the obvious.
We had no idea planes would be used to crash into the towers
Click to expand...
Rice ...


That was one of her many lies ... and I have lots more example in my war crime threads ... you know ... the one that list the war crimes of the bush regime ... that you have been unable to dispute ... remember those threads?:dunce:
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
[URL="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michael-isikoff-torture-report-could-spell-trouble"]Michael Isikoff: Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers[/url]

Rachel Maddow talks to Michael Isikoff about his latest article in Newsweek, Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers.
An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys." According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
​
But then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the sources. Filip wanted the report to include responses from all three principals, said one of the sources, a former top Bush administration lawyer. (Mukasey could not be reached; his former chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment. Filip also did not return a phone message.) OPR is now seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. "The matter is under review," said Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.
​
If Holder accepts the OPR findings, the report could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. But some former Bush officials are furious about the OPR's initial findings and question the premise of the probe. "OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars," said the former Bush lawyer. Mukasey, in speeches before he left, decried the second-guessing of Justice lawyers who, acting under "almost unimaginable pressure" after 9/11, offered "their best judgment of what the law required."


http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greenwald-us-bound-treaty-prosecute-thttp://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greenwald-us-bound-treaty-prosecute-t[URL="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/greenwald-us-bound-treaty-prosecute-t"]Greenwald: U.S. Is Bound By Treaty to Prosecute Torture Crimes
[/url]


Glenn Greenwald on why we're bound by law to prosecute torture cases. (Incidentally, he also points out that a new report states that Bush officials were informed that the legal memos submitted to justify torture were slanted to fit administration policy):
The U.S. really has bound itself to a treaty called the Convention Against Torture, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994. When there are credible allegations that government officials have participated or been complicit in torture, that Convention really does compel all signatories -- in language as clear as can be devised -- to "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" (Art. 7(1)). And the treaty explicitly bars the standard excuses that America's political class is currently offering for refusing to investigate and prosecute: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" and "an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture" (Art. 2 (2-3)). By definition, then, the far less compelling excuses cited by Conason (a criminal probe would undermine bipartisanship and distract us from more important matters) are plainly barred as grounds for evading the Convention's obligations.
There is reasonable dispute about the scope of prosecutorial discretion permitted by the Convention, and there is also some lack of clarity about how many of these provisions were incorporated into domestic law when the Senate ratified the Convention with reservations. But what is absolutely clear beyond any doubt is that -- just as is true for any advance promises by the Obama DOJ not to investigate or prosecute -- issuing preemptive pardons to government torturers would be an unambiguous and blatant violation of our obligations under the Convention. There can't be any doubt about that. It just goes without saying that if the U.S. issued pardons or other forms of immunity to accused torturers (as the Military Commissions Act purported to do), that would be a clear violation of our obligation to "submit the [torture] case to [our] competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." Those two acts -- the granting of immunity and submission for prosecution -- are opposites.
And yet those who advocate that we refrain from criminal investigations rarely even mention our obligations under the Convention. There isn't even a pretense of an effort to reconcile what they're advocating with the treaty obligations to which Ronald Reagan bound the U.S. in 1988. Do we now just explicitly consider ourselves immune from the treaties we signed? Does our political class now officially (rather than through its actions) consider treaties to be mere suggestions that we can violate at will without even pretending to have any justifications for doing so? Most of the time, our binding treaty obligations under the Convention -- as valid and binding as every other treaty -- don't even make it into the discussion about criminal investigations of Bush officials, let alone impose any limits on what we believe we can do.


See folks at home ... there is no doubt these people committed war crimes ... only the bushwhacked brain dead think otherwise ...with all the clear evidence staring them in the face ... they still deny.:spew:

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top