This Story is Archived
Opinion: Bush Guilty of War Crimes? »
Posted by: robkall 2 years, 3 months agoThe whole top administration, from Commander in Chief George W. Bush on down, is guilty of war crimes, of violating the Third Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. . The punishment for committing war crimes ranges from a lengthy jail sentence to, in the event the crimes in question caused the death of any prisoners being held, to death.
Read Full Story at opednews.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 136
-
robkall
July 2, 2006, 9:58 p.m.I expect the republicans will do EVERYTHING they can to prevent a democratic majority that will be able to invetigate their criminal misdeeds, particularly corrupting the vote.
-
teemo
July 3, 2006, 12:12 a.m.Yea, those damn Republicans! Hopefully when we democrats get in office we can have a group hug; mandate horse and buggies...check that...buggies only because horse flatulance creates too much green house gas; say neener neener; double the tax burden; stall the economy; declare drug addicts mentally disordered, giving them all the extra money from raised taxes. Then we can stand back, pat ourselves on the back for having gotten the country back on track, and then hand the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, to the United Nations! Those damn Republicans!
-
-
InD4639
July 3, 2006, 2:15 a.m.Teemo, Some questions fot you:
1. Whats wrong with being environmentally conscience? Flexfuel anyone?
2. What is the relationship of taxes to government programs? Pluses and minuses?
3. What happend during alcohol prohibition? Was it successful? Why not try it again?
4. What exactly does "neener neener" mean? Do you still say that?
I disagree with your views but, love the context you put it in. Funny stuff.
Republicans and Democrats are pages from the same book, entitled "Politics as Usual". No one side is 100% correct.
-
-
fisksed
July 3, 2006, 2:21 a.m.I agree that Bush and much of his administration should be prosecuted, but it will never happen.
-
moemebe
July 3, 2006, 4:23 a.m.First of all, this so called news comes from an admittedly liberal source. That right there makes it suspect as one sided. Secondly, if this were true do you think the American people would sit idly by and let the Bush admin. continue to serve? This whole left/right liberal/conservative nonesense has gotten WAY out of control. What ever happened to open debate? All we get today is finger pointing, tirades, as the issue gets lost in the shouting match. Its rediculous!!
-
-
-
InD4639
July 3, 2006, 6:01 a.m.Your right moe, this left/right thing is stupid. It says right on top that the validity of this story is under revue. The supreme court did find that he overstepped his bounds, but they didn't find him guilty of anything, there has to be a trial for that to happen. I think we would have known if our President was on trial. If this pans out though the current administration might have some tough questions to answer, could mean trouble. It is a "War" on terror after all, so wouldn't that mean that all those captured are POW's?
-
robkall
July 3, 2006, 6:48 a.m.Interesting, the notice that the validity of this Op-ed is under dispute. Imagine if Fox News had a similar feature. Imagine if the readers of Fox news, which 75% of republicans use as their main source of "news" was always subjected to the caveat-- "Consider the extremist right wing nature of this network."
-
vulcan20
July 3, 2006, 7:38 a.m.I believe the Geneva convention has some interesting point to bring up here.
1. To be protected by the geneva convention Your government had to join it and follow the rules.
2. any combatant to be protected by the Geneva convention must carry some form of identification to prove they are an enemy soldier.
If they do not follow the rules they are just a war criminal and can be shot on site with out a trial.
So as soon as the present I.D. tags they become a POW.
-
-
dtress1d
July 3, 2006, 9:09 a.m.Sorry that you can not read or listen. The Supreme Court has said that YES, terrorists are NOT U.S. citizens, nor are they soldiers. Therefore they DO NOT GET U.S. court; nor do they get POW status (even though they have gotten the POW treatment).
However, the Surpreme Court has agreed that they should get the benifits of the POW treatment (Geneva Convention), which the White House has said they were giving (and the media has acknowledge they are getting) to those terrorists.
Congress is now formulating just how the terrorists will be tried, which is what the White House has asked them to do, but they (congress) backed off until the issue got through the court system up to and including the Surpreme Court.
Once again, THANK YOU Pres. Bush and WHITE HOUSE for not only knowing what is right, but forcing the US courts to adhere to the U.S. "law of the land" and not create their own version of what they THINK, it should be!
-
Icemahn
July 3, 2006, 9:22 a.m.Think it should be? It's this mindset that's set off the entire world against the USA!! SO the folks at Abu Gharib got it right? You've got it backwards. If you subscribe to the Geneva Conventions, YOU ABIDE BY THEM!! It's your less than guaranteed leveradge in case your soldiers go to war as to how they can expect to be treated. This administration has unneccessarily put its forces at risk not in conducting this war, but in how it has conducted the handling of our enemies "casualties." What ever happened to the principle of holding ourselves to higher standards as a country? Being the bigger person in the room? All these tatics that ignore combatants human rights don't further our cause a lick. Scores of former special ops interragators are repeatedly pointing this out, as yet another rep. from the right refuses to admit his ignorance when formerly stating the war was over, that later it would be over soon, that Iraq's govt. would be on it's feet soon.
-
Icemahn
July 3, 2006, 9:31 a.m.This whole backlash of "there go the liberals again, giving the unworthy rights" is a mere smokescreen. Let's not talk about the details of appropriations for the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's ignore the administration's prior claims regarding timetables, levels of accomplishment.
It's much easier to insist since we're taking the fight to our "attackers", we haven't been attacked, and thus are safer. Never mind that we can't answer simple questions brought up by basic oversight minded people. Let's go ahead and put an everlasting mortgage on our kid's, grandkids, even great-grandkid's future that will make this country's previous deficit look like a molehill. If your old enough to feel like you've been here before with all of this, you're right. Go back and look at the statements leading up to Nixon's resignation, and make a checklist of the players involved. Surprised to see a bunch are running the show this time around?
-
William Sire
July 3, 2006, 9:50 a.m.What is this ****** garbage. This is not news. What made netscape think it was a good idea to allow people to post trash from hack writers and news sources with questionable integrity on their front page. I would like to know if the people behind Netscape knew they already had an established customer base before they went to this trash format.
-
atlantis
July 3, 2006, 11:24 a.m.Hey, William Sire, what constitutes "news" anymore? Name one network on TV (except PBS and C-Span) that is unslanted, unbiased and non-reliant on the lowest-common-denominator ratings game.Investigative reporting is a thing of the past. Since Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine, there is no news. Thanks to OpEdNews.com citizens can read about what mainstream news should be reporting. Instead of worrying about "the people behind Netscape" you should worry about the media conglomerates behind the faux news you swallow like kool-aid drunk sheep.
-
timeforus
July 3, 2006, 11:28 a.m.[/QUOTE]I agree that Bush and much of his administration should be prosecuted, but it will never happen.
[/QUOTE]
But it will once anti-war democrats take back congress in november, the bush adminstration has violated every single law they have created, they have truly created a mockery for america and they need to be stopped.
-
hatchkelso
July 3, 2006, 11:48 a.m.Netscape has gone to the dogs with the recent stories here!
I am off to another site permanetly.
-
William Sire
July 3, 2006, 12:22 p.m.posted by atlantis
Hey, William Sire, what constitutes "news" anymore? Name one network on TV (except PBS and C-Span) that is unslanted, unbiased and non-reliant on the lowest-common-denominator ratings game.
FOX. I am sure there are others but I don't watch PBS or C-Span so I can't acknowlege or discredit them. but of course you will probably tell me that FOX is not unbiased just becasue they don't attack republicans and conseratives as the rest of the media does. The stick to the facts and ackowlege their opinion, that is what makes them "fair and balanced". For the record I don't always argee with them. But they publish nothing like this OpEdNews story posted here. Opinion ignoring facts masqueraded as fact. If they hate Bush, and they do, why can't they just say so ? Becasue people will say "OK thank you and have a nice day." No one cares. So publish a lie and hope someone will join you.
-
berkeley
July 3, 2006, 2:01 p.m.this article raises some questions about the connection between the supreme court decision and the actions of the administration. everyone on this list is capable of reading it and thinking about it. the truth of the argument is not dependent on who wrote it.
the legal case for impeachment is much larger and many books have addressed it. one is The Case for Impeachment : The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. the american bar association is also presently studying the issues involved. the historical record of what bush/cheney have done is available to anyone who cares to look.
-
berkeley
July 3, 2006, 2:17 p.m.this article raises some questions about the connection between the supreme court decision and the actions of the administration. everyone on this list is capable of reading it and thinking about it. the truth of the argument is not dependent on who wrote it.
the legal case for impeachment is much larger and many books have addressed it. one is The Case for Impeachment : The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. the american bar association is also presently studying the issues involved. the historical record of what bush/cheney have done is available to anyone who cares to look.
-
MontyK68
July 3, 2006, 3:08 p.m.The US Supreme Court made a very narrow focused decision that affirmed that the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be removed from American Law by the President, even in time of War, and the Writ has jurisdiction over these prisoners.
The decison hers does not even preclude Bush from returning to Congress and getting legislation that allows a military tribunal, as long as the tribunal complies with the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The writ is nearly 400 years old. Our founding fathers held the writ was one of the most vitally important laws protecting our constitutional freedoms. The Geneva Accords Article III includes similar language.
This decision by the USSC does not suggest or imply acts of treason in any way. It merely affirms that the Writ must be complied with in dealing with these prisoners.
-
Peli4fun
July 3, 2006, 3:26 p.m.Saddam Hussein was guilty of killing thousands and torturing hundreds! To Me the president has committed the same crimes times ten! He is also guilty of lying to America causing our soldiers to sacrifice their lives over an insignificant flea!
The first 25 comments are shown. Show all 136 comments »
Got a Story?
