"Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for possible war crimes?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
Bush immunity for war crimes?
- Thread starter Norsemaiden
- Start date
The Bringer
Member
Norsemaiden said:
No because it is a democracy not a dictatorship. Next you will see another one of "President Bush's bills" pass that says there cannot be a Presidential vote as long as the War on Terror continues.
It is ridiculous to even consider the treatment of detainees as "war crimes". The media frenzy over Gitmo was a joke. The hazing I endured my first year on the varsity lacrosse team was worse. Although, if Bush is trying to backdoor a security blanket for himself. He must not be all that confident that the house majority will remain Republican.
derek
Grey Eminence
I'm more interested in the hypocritical statements that flow from the Administrations media relations machine when they blab on about freedom, democracy etc etc yet actively concern themselves with removing such things from the everyday lives of a large group of peoples.
That interests me more than the typical hippy knee-jerk response regarding human rights.
That interests me more than the typical hippy knee-jerk response regarding human rights.
fah-q said:
I hate both the Republican and Democratic party, in their current form that is...that have lost that pathetic war on terror, but yet, they refuse to bring the troops home, the Democrats arent as anti war as one might think.
In any case, when domestic opposition to this war in Iraq reaches a boiling point the masses will throw Bush or whoever the American president is at that time out of office.
The funny thing is that many Americans dont know their own political system so how in the hell are they going to reshape Iraq into a democracy?
derek
Grey Eminence
Patrick R. said:
Did any thinking person ever consider that objective even remotely possible? It's all a smokescreen for the more tangible agenda of stealing Iraq's oil. The interesting thing, for me anyways, is that Bush and Co. could have said "Yo, we're going to Iraq 'cause we need the oil!" and most of America would not have cared, providing Walmart stays cheap and they can drive their kids to school everyday in a machine built to mow down buildings.
derek said:
I'm sorry Derek, I wish it was for oil, then I wouldn't be paying over 2.00 dollars a gallon in gas, Saddam always sold the oil and kept his people in line, what Bush and his neo conservative allies did a very naughty thing by taking Saddam out of power when he wasn't a threat to the United States.
The Democrats have been behaving pathetically during the debate on this amendment. Arlen Specter said that, because the amenment denies habeus corpus, and allows the President to detain people indefinately, it sets US law back 900 years. After observing that the bill violates core Constitutional protections he still went ahead and voted for it.
The Democrats, who have taken the stance as a party to oppose the bill, decided at first not to mount a filibuster on account of they feared that would make them look pro-terrorist. But now that most of them have voted against the bill that is precisely what they are being accused of by the Republicans anyway. So it is odd that they didn't mount the filibuster.
On top of this, I read that the Democrats absented themselves from the debate until 28 September.
and spent the last weeks only tepidly opposing the President's position. So they missed many opportunities to defend the positon that they advocate. This made their opposition look very half-hearted to say the least.
The Democrats, who have taken the stance as a party to oppose the bill, decided at first not to mount a filibuster on account of they feared that would make them look pro-terrorist. But now that most of them have voted against the bill that is precisely what they are being accused of by the Republicans anyway. So it is odd that they didn't mount the filibuster.
On top of this, I read that the Democrats absented themselves from the debate until 28 September.
and spent the last weeks only tepidly opposing the President's position. So they missed many opportunities to defend the positon that they advocate. This made their opposition look very half-hearted to say the least.fah-q said:
You see here the thing is we have our own people to worry about, I don't hate Iraqi's but if they don't like their leader then they should shit can his ass, but of course the Bush administration supports dictators and the America government in general has supported brutal and ruthless dictators in the past, so they cant act like the moral ones here.
The Bush administration made their case on three pillars, or at least the very well known ones :
1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. ( A blatant lie)
2. Saddam had connections with 9/11. ( Yet another blatant lie).
3. The Baghdad regime was a threat to the United States. (Which it wasnt, America was at one time friends with Saddam when he was at war with Iran.)
Is it any wonder we have one of the main architects of the Iraq war confessing that this war was against international law?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
Dominick_7
Member
derek said:
If thats true, why is he having the Iraqis own and use their own oil and trying to persuade america to stop relying on foreign oil for more of clean energy sources?
The Bringer
Member
derek said:
I sort of have to agree with this. The only real problem now is that now that no one really knows who is in control of the oil there the price can go up and down at the will of who ever that is, making the rich more rich and the poor even more poor. While back in America these massive tanks on the road keep guzzling gas and raping the money from owners pockets only because those people don't know any better.
THAT really bugs the hell out of me. I had an ex-girlfriend who was devistated when she learnt I didn't want to drive my car anymore. I payed $80 a month on gas, $120 on insurance and $220 on monthly payments on my car. When I stopped driving it cost me $45 a month for a bus pass... and the relationship with my girlfriend. But it didn't matter knowing I was saving money and doing my part for the enviroment.... sorry, this is off-topic.
The Bringer
Member
Dominick_7
Member
Patrick R. said:
Ohhh I feel such pressure to be cool and popular by being anti authority and anti Bush....NOT. I'm SO SICK of this kind of baseless rhetoric.
1) There were MANY reasons why we went to war, and it wasnt JUST because EVERYONE thought they had newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We all got our info from the same intelligence sources. EVERYONE believed that, and thats why the united nations backed the decision, as did mostly everyone else. Also please learn the difference between a lie and an error in judgement.
It wasnt even totally an error in judgement, he DID have the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction as were discovered like hundreds of munitions. Do you not remember that? So please stop lying about lying.
2) Wasnt a blatant lie for the same reasons as to the fact that it was practucally universally agreed that he had 911 ties..more specifically he had ties with Osama and Al Qaida. There was a memo that people forget exists that showed a link which didnt seem to get much media coverage..surprise surprise.. Osama had communiques with him, whether or not Sadaam thought he was a threat or not. We think North Korea is a threat in some ways but we still do buisness with them and can aparently still talk to them. Because actual evidence is brought up then forgotten or ignored shows its more so a reaction out of fear, a desire to scapegoat the president or anyone whos actually trying to help, because they value freedom as well as the freedom for you to criticize him..funny how you dont see people with a backbone who supports those who are helping visciously attack terrorists or extremist muslims...let alone do that while being in their georgraphical boundaries.
I dont see how a party (Democrats) or liberals who reject any objective basis for truth and morals can condemn anything or stand up for what is really right or true. What ends up happening in that case is a putting up of ones finger to the air to see which direction its going and a stance of rewarding evil and pnunishing and criticizing good. "The Iraqi people and the world is much better off with a genocidal maniac in power in Iraq"
3) He was a threat to the US and the world. He has weapons of mass destruction, disregarded UN ultimatums regarding them, kept inspectors out or distracted, he had the intetion and capabillities to do all of that..oil for food...Also remember that the 911 commission also believed he was a threat.
I say remember...like I believe that will happen. Applause to anyone else who doesnt follow in step with what the mainstream liberal media wants you to believe in light of how most frame, angle, and posture their "reporting".
Dominick_7
Member
The Bringer said:
Could you share with me how you know this for sure..you dont want to be called a liar from the likes of some in this forum afterall..
derek
Grey Eminence
Dominick_7 said:
I hear that America has a tonne of nukes, has the unique history of being the only country to ever use them in war and also enjoys sticking their oar into every-which-thing imaginable.
Things work both ways, and I cannot stand the assumption that West=Good and anywhere else is just a breeding ground for extremists.
I should qualify that by saying I agree with your sentiments that the so-called "liberal media" can and do exaggerate and over simplify.
I guess this is why we are the ugly Americans. We don't pander to popular opinion. Going to war was the only international law that was allegedly broken. How many of these laws did Saddam break? How many more Iraqi's had to die at his hand before it was suitable to you that we go in? We are there and we aren't leaving. Turn the page and focus all of this negative energy on making a difference. Incessant whining about the current administration and fantasizing their demise is boring. I have been listening to it for 6 years. It is beyond old.Patrick R. said:
The Bringer
Member
Dominick_7 said:
I don't know anything for sure. That is why I had a question mark after. It was sort of my guess.
I think Bush was left hung out to dry because since this "War on Terror" has began he has made himself more important then the congress. He is the Commander in Chief and what he says goes. So when something like that happens I believe it would be expected for him to take the blame, even if war needs to be declaired by choice of the senate and not just the President alone.
Similar threads
