Why America Must Prosecute War Crimes

No, but it was easy to predict. before elections EVERYTHING that will drive the BASE (of any party) is Promised. Since there are just as many dem's who were on board with the war and its methods... that promise would never be kept. Election spin.

out. :blsmoke:
 
CrackerJax said:
No, but it was easy to predict. before elections EVERYTHING that will drive the BASE (of any party) is Promised. Since there are just as many dem's who were on board with the war and its methods... that promise would never be kept. Election spin.

out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Just one question. Do you think the other side had less spin?
 
Well the media was FULLY behind the Obama team (and still is) but yes the rep's had spin as well, but they didn't have distribution of that spin. All parties spin before elections. The broken promises come after.

That's why I ignore the spin and strictly follow numbers and action. I watch what they do, not what they say.

out. :blsmoke:
 
Breaking news: Indictment of Bush Officials May Come in Days
The imminent indictment in Spanish courts of former officials of the Bush Administration is being applauded by civil and human rights organizations and legal scholars. The popular wave of support for indictment of Bush officials will inevitably lead to Bush himself.
The rule of law, justice, and basic integrity require the indictment for criminal wrongdoing of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other high officials of the former Bush Administration


It's obvious Obama is not going to uphold the constituition ... in fact he continues to break it ... sure hope this can stir up the shit ... :clap:



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_likely_to_prosecute_torture_0111.htmlObama not likely to prosecute torture


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_says_Obama_absolutely_stands_0410.htmlWhite House: Obama 'absolutely' stands behind effort to throw out warrantless wiretapping suit


President Barack Obama endorsed a Justice Department move to dismiss a case in which the National Security Agency is being sued over its warrantless wiretapping program, because he believes the case presents a risk to national security, the White House told Raw Story Thursday.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-admin-seeks-to-legalize-and-expand-government-spying/Obama Admin Seeks to Legalize And Expand Government Spying
Advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that the Obama administration is seeking to expand the government’s authority to carry out wiretapping under the auspices of national security.
The EFF points to the dismissal of its own litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping, warning that arguments made in defense of wiretapping by Obama’s Department of Justice are worse than Bush’s.
This is why I could not support Obama ... and I was right ... :clap:
 
Yes, we have come a long way towards mediocrity when Spain decides what we can do with our own constitution. A proud day for America. Luckily, it's just a dog and pony show... as usual.


out. :blsmoke:
 
CrackerJax said:
Yes, we have come a long way towards mediocrity when Spain decides what we can do with our own constitution. A proud day for America. Luckily, it's just a dog and pony show... as usual.


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...

What the fuck do war crimes have to do with your constitution!?

The Laws of War are INTERNATIONAL...... as dictated by the Geneva Convention...

Dumbfuck!
 
CrackerJax said:
And the geneva Convention only applies to those who signed it. I can't seem to find Al Queda's signature anywhere. :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
I think you'll find a signature representing the USA there. It's not about the enemies, but what one does to the enemies in captivity. That seems simple enough, don't you think?
 
medicineman said:
I think you'll find a signature representing the USA there. It's not about the enemies, but what one does to the enemies in captivity. That seems simple enough, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Not if you think it through my dear. If applied YOUR way...any combatants who did not sign may do whatever they wish to our prisoners, knowing full well that theirs are receiving the best of care. That's no way to win a war or to discourage one from occurring, don't YOU think.

No, the Geneva convention only applies to the signers in regard to EACH OTHER. If your country didn't sign it, a 'signer' is not OBLIGATED to abide by the convention.


Think about it....



out. :blsmoke:
 
Thats BULLSHIT....

Typical AMERICAN BULLSHIT trying to wriggle out of prosecution using CONTRACT LAW....

Pathetic.

Oh well, it just means that Bush can't leave the USA without fear of capture and prosecution, I hope they hang him....

I'd be more willing to watch Bush hang than I was Saddam
 
Jointsmith said:
What the fuck do war crimes have to do with your constitution!?

The Laws of War are INTERNATIONAL...... as dictated by the Geneva Convention...

Dumbfuck!
Click to expand...
I'm telling ya ... the guy is completely fucked in the head ... he just makes his own shit up ... check it ...
CrackerJax said:
Not if you think it through my dear. If applied YOUR way...any combatants who did not sign may do whatever they wish to our prisoners, knowing full well that theirs are receiving the best of care. That's no way to win a war or to discourage one from occurring, don't YOU think.

No, the Geneva convention only applies to the signers in regard to EACH OTHER. If your country didn't sign it, a 'signer' is not OBLIGATED to abide by the convention.


Think about it....



out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Show us where is says in the Geneva convention that it only applies to the signers ... joint pegged you ... dumbfuck ...
out:spew:
 
Why would any sane nation fight with its hands behind its back? I mean DUH???!!! You guys couldn't think your way out of a paper bag...


According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention,(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) prisoners of war are: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

It also states it applies to:

"Persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:


  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
  2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
    1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    3. That of carrying arms openly;
    4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
It doesn't or shouldn't apply to terrorists. Why would you put our boys in harms way and then saddle them with disadvantages? Think it through...duh.


out. :blsmoke:
 
Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo.

Man ... I sure hope something comes of this ... it's going to be very interesting ... if a real investigation takes place that means getting to the bottom of 911 ... election fraud ... war crimes ... you name it ... the Obama administration isn't going to sit still for this ... a real investigation would definitely peg a few high members of the DNC:neutral: Let's see what happens shall we?bongsmilie
 
CrackerJax said:
It doesn't or shouldn't apply to terrorists. Why would you put our boys in harms way and then saddle them with disadvantages? Think it through...duh.


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Well you're wrong again ... it does ... and your link doesn't work ... so your argument is because it doesn't make sense to you ... there can't be a law ... yeah ... right ...:roll:
 
CrackerJax said:
If your enemy is not an armed combatant in uniform, the convention doesn't apply. What is so hard to understand?



out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST MORONS

Some guys like grow rebel are just about always wrong and so far wrong that they are right sometimes though rare it happens
 
may said:
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST MORONS

Some guys like grow rebel are just about always wrong and so far wrong that they are right sometimes though rare it happens
Click to expand...
And some people are just plan parrots that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag ... it's far easier to say some one is wrong rather that post info as to why ... something very rare for your type ... :dunce:

CrackerJax said:
He'd rather argue than have common sense... :roll: Never mind that is viewpoint gets our boys killed.


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
No I'd rather quote the law than go along with your delusion of what common sense is ... and you don't give a damn about "our boys" ... if you did you wouldn't have supported an illegal war ...
out:-P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DIY-HP-LED
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
6K
Fogdog
Fogdog
TacoMac
From the desk of Heather Cox Richardson
Replies
5
Views
389
londonfog
londonfog
G
Canada likely to continue progressive programs despite Trump’s dubious war on drugs
Replies
11
Views
714
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
G
Canada backed America’s ‘War on Drugs.’ That’s a mistake.
Replies
7
Views
460
gb123
G
G
Marijuana has been legal in Canada for a year. So why are most users still buying it from criminals?
Replies
3
Views
418
cannadan
cannadan
Back
Top