We all know they don't care about the law but they are the ones that brought up the subject. We Conservative people not right-wing argued our point and showed proof of how it really works and they don't care.
We who know how it really works know that Bush will never see the inside of a court room as a defendant especially one in the Hague. They can't see that because they have already condemned him and that's all that matters. Just wit till some chit comes out about what Obama has done or will potentially do that is not in accordance with the law. They'll be behind him like his chit don't stink saying he had no choice.
I've seen it happen all too often myself. But the fact remains that the ones on here supporting hanging Bush have already made their mind up. They have stated as much that the ends do not justify the means. So that's the difference between people that can see the bigger picture versus the ones with the closed mind. Sad part of life but we deal with it every day.
Notice how I posted Diplomatic Immunity in accordance with international law and they conveniently ignored it that should tell you all you need to know. Also they support Assange and wiki leaks no mater what the ramifications as long as innocent people get hurt by the actions of someone being able to divulge classified information.
I don't condone torture any more than them but if it saves lives the the options are all open. No holds barred get it any way possible and verify before taking action. Which is the case here. The terrorist finally caved and provided good intel backed up by investigation and it saved more lives including his own.
I regret to inform you that your (spouse, son, daughter) Has been killed by a terrorist attack. But due to not wanting to take the measures that would have prevented said attack based on international law of not torturing terrorist we had no choice but to let the perpetrators go. We did ask nicely but they refused to budge and now your (spouse, son, daughter) has died in a horrific terrorist act. But rest assured that we will place international above all else and you can feel safe that some other attack will be forthcoming to make the score even by allowing it to happen over and over again to other non deserving people.
In closing Please accept my sympathy for your loss.
Rest assure we will uphold the international laws and not allow the extraction of information from known terrorist just to save a few thousand people. Their human right's are more important than making sure people do not get killed.
In this instance the place of where he is charged and tried does matter greatly.
Like I said
Go back and find a Leader of or former leader of a country that is still intact and show proof that he was tried in the Hague for human rights violations. Please provide links and other such pertinent information.
Do that and then we will continue discussing Bush's travel plans as the title says.
Your absolutely right. I think the US should stop being the ones that the UN or other countries come to for help; and let the world fall apart around US; and when it get's to the point of collapse then we just set a couple of nukes off and then Rule the world it might work better that way.
Pinochet suffered a heart attack on the morning of 3 December 2006, and subsequently the same day he was given the last rites. On 4 December 2006, the Chilean Court of Appeals ordered the release of his house arrest. On 10 December 2006 at 13:30 local time (16:30 UTC) he was taken to the intensive care unit. He died of congestive heart failure and pulmonary edema, surrounded by family members, at the Military Hospital at 14:15 local time (17:15 UTC).
Oops Looks like his own country men charged him. Again It was his ow country not another country.
Now Go back and find a Leader of or former leader of a country that is still intact and show proof that he was tried in the Hague for human rights violations. Please provide links and other such pertinent information.
Of the ones listed how many were carrying weapons against the Coalition military and actively fighting. See if there is no uniform to distinguish whether you are in a protected status how can you say that they are all civilian? You nor I can and I guarantee that when a US, British, Australian, or any other military person is looking to save his and his buddies skin you make decisions. It is war after all.
Maybe we can fight a war on our own turf to even it out a bit. Would you like that? Split decisions can sometimes be horrific but it is war. Or should we line up on battle fields like in the Revolutionary Or Civil war's. And let the Enemy have their way.
If you think a picture is gonna sway me to your side it won't I see worse than that in our own VA system here at home.
They were all tried in their own countries were they not. And Milosevic was tried in the Hague because Yugoslavia was no longer a country it had dissolved and broken up. Big difference in that versus wanting Bush to be tried in Geneva. While the US is still in tact.
That's right It's up to the interpretation of the Laws on the books at the time. As it stands know Bush still has the distinction of being a former head of state and the Geneva Convention affords him the immunity of that privileged.
Nothing you or I can do about it. But that is the law. Black and white and if they go after him then they have to break the law to do it. Would you agree?
And they were set free back to their home countries. Not worried about those worried about the ones returning to the area of battle and taking up arms again.
But this does change the subject you know. It's now not about bush canceling a trip but how some were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I showed proof with links where Bush can't be held liable and you still insist he can.
As was said before Bush didn't make a move without approval from the DOJ. Call it what you want but in the end Bush has Diplomatic immunity as head of state and the Taliban were not a legally recognized government except for 3 countries.
And they(Talaban) were doing a lot worse than giving a bath to people. So who has the Moral high ground? A unrecognized government that tortured it's own citizens or a Duly recognized Government that took action and saved lives of it's own citizens and those of the Afghan people.
The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban, (?????? ?aliban, meaning "students" in Farsi and Pashto) is an Islamist militia group that ruled large parts of Afghanistan from September 1996 onwards. Although in control of Afghanistan's capital (Kabul) and most of the country for five years, the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. After the attacks of September 11 2001 the Taliban regime was overthrown by Operation Enduring Freedom. The Taliban mostly fled to neighboring Pakistan where they regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the democratic Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (established in late 2001) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
They do not take up arms in battle under the flag of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or any other country. They are unlawful combatants under the definition of the Geneva convention. Did you not read that at the link provided.
They fight for no country to be held as a prisoner of war see the Definition of a combatant. that should answer any question you have about it.
All have been defined as unlawful combatants. Geneva convention does not apply except to say the Law of the Capturing side rules the roost not the Geneva convention.
An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.
Now aside from that Just remember a President does not make a move without the DOJ giving the legal approval. So the DOJ had to sign off on it.
Actractorguy Forum Posts (2,089)
RE: Obama wants american economy to recover, and Republicans are working activly against this!
Uh yeah that's what I mean.