At the end of 2002, the International Court was holding tribunals over the war in Afghanistan. The meetings were held in Japan. Bush was being charged with 31 counts of war crimes, breaches of the Geneva Convention, and other international laws. The meetings lasted over a year. During the deliberation, the judges reccomended an addition two charges, and upon judgement, Bush was ruled to be guilty on all counts for war crimes, crimes against the environment, and crimes against humanity. You wonder why people don't like us much right now? Especially when even after Bush was found guilty, he was reelected (fraudulently)?
2006-09-25 19:56:58 · 21 answers · asked by corwynwulfhund 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We are subject to international law because the Constitution demands it. Any treaty signed by the president and approved by a 2/3 majority in congress is to be held as, along with the Constitution, the law of the land. We have been a part of the international community since our inception, and have been involved with and a part of the International Courts until our president started being tried for war crimes...and so he unilatterally took us out of the International Court and all applicable treaties...so he wouldn't be executed for 33 counts of war crimes...and that was just for Afghanistan! They haven't even started on Iraq!
2006-09-25 20:23:03 · update #1
proud_2B...you sure are set on following me around presenting semi-intelligent sounding rebuttals that bear no truth at all. Why don't you open your mind, stop following any party line, and just look at the facts for a change?
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm
That is a copy of the findings of the International court finding Bush guilty of 33 war crimes. Read it.
2006-09-26 08:06:52 · update #2
idlebud...your link is what the Heritage Foundation...a conservative think tank...thinks about the International Courts. However, what the constitution says is that we are bound by International Law and any treaties that are made by a President with a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress. As established by the US Supreme Court Justice that served on the International Court during the Nurembourg Trials, no country can simply opt out of Inernational Court. Especially while on trial to avoid prosecution. Imagine if criminals could do this...a murderer on trial for murder deciding unilaterally that he's not going to honor the courts anymore, and is therefore allowed to go without reprisal. Is this what you want?
2006-09-26 08:13:28 · update #3
I am aware of these factors (AND MORE) and I've tried to bring it up in various places.
ONLY the well educated seem to understand and the idea that Bush is evil is far more widespread that you might imagine. But the rank and file public isn't interested in affairs of state anymore.
The liberals have suceeded in neutering the American public over the past 50 years in the public schools. The baby-boombers simply don't care and think patriotism is equal to jingoism and only oddballs talk about national and international affairs.
The favorite axiom among our national politicans (note I did not say "leaders") is that the public forgets after six months--and as a retired newspaper editor, I have to agree with that assessment.
Our nation is in dire straits and in grave peril and when I try to explain why (even just the North American Union) I get blank faces. Pro sports is more interesting and safe for them to talk about.
Very complex but people in fact are not getting it that Bush actually IS a war criminal and they don't get that America's former good reputation as the "different" nation is gone--perhaps forever.
2006-09-25 20:22:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Bush isn't a war criminal, he did the excellent he could while the rustic become scared. I haven't any undertaking with the Patriot Act, however the NDAA is a distinctive tale. Obama is a hypocrite, to him, Bush is the epitome of evil, yet he chooses to proceed and develop his rules. @rmare: liberal outrage? i haven't any liberals criticize a unmarried Obama action. @supa star: no person pronounced saint especially, yet as I pronounced, no longer lots flak from the left on something.
2016-10-17 23:57:22 · answer #2 · answered by corl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually corny,
Your campaign of misinformation just continues to march on doesn't it....
President Bush has not been convicted of one war crime. Not one. As recently as July of this year the discussion of whether or not he should be charged with war crimes was still in debate amongst scholars. Not the International Court as you imply. It is being discussed by people who believe our invading of Iraq was wrong. In other words, the accusations of war crimes is an attempt to illegitimatize the War in Iraq. See any political motivation in that? Those accusing the President of war crimes want to indict him for the capture of Saddam Hussein!!
Where in the world did you get your information that he had been convicted of 30+ war crimes by the International Court? Off a website that is anti-Bush? Imagine that...
You didn't even bother to check your source. The International Court hasn't even brought forth consideration of charging him with any type of War Crime yet.
You should be so proud of yourself. I know Baghdad Bob would be proud of you.
Corny...
I am not the one trying to pass off incorrect information as fact to suit a political purpose.
Am I following you around? No... not at all. I just tend to respond to questions that I know are misleading or full of misinformation.
2006-09-26 00:21:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
People do not get very much at all
They don't get that Bush is planning to change the entire constitution, and borders, through the North American Union.
They don't get that they live in a fascist state, with every chance of being impounded in one of the 600 new concentration camps.
They don't even get that the Federal Reserve is a private company.
They don't get that USA has been conducting nuclear war for years, with depleted uranium.
They don't get that the election was rigged
They don't get that 9/11 was an inside job!
And, as you say, they don't get that Bush is a war criminal.
2006-09-26 23:15:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I get it! But can you name another president - any - president (not only a US President!) who couldn't have been found guilty, to one degree or another, by ppl sitting on a similar "world court"? And why do you suppose, after finding and assigning guilt, nothing "worldly" has happened? Why do you suppose that is?
You seem to enjoy speaking out against the US in general - if you're not happy living here why don't you leave? Why not go elsewhere and protest FROM THE OUTSIDE like your "brothers" who die for what they have in their hearts? You thought we should fight "fair" and by the rules, I GET IT!, while others can do as they damn well see fit?!?
Chose to stand up and use your backbone, be seen not merely heard, make the choice! You ARE free to leave.
2006-09-25 20:41:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What "international Court" found Bush guilty of war crimes and sentenced him to death?
Do you think if this had happened, we'd need to rely on Yahoo Answers to let us know?
If you'd like to know more about our positions re. the International Criminal Court, try the link below:
Update: First of all, isn't it interesting that rabid liberals act as if a "conservative" publication or POV is automatically illegitimate? If this is the case and we're to have a debate without quoting any "conservative" sources, would you be willing to allow us to edit out anything YOU say that comes from a "liberal" source?
Second: You never answered or addressed my point (and that of others who attempted to answer), namely WHAT court found Bush "guilty on all counts" and WHEN did this happen? I hope you're not talking about the laughingstock "Bush Crimes Commission" (http://www.bushcommission.org) that held a "trial" with opening statement delivered by Harry Belafonte!
Tell us that you're not so naive as to call this an "International Court"!!!
Finally, since I'm sure you'll just reply that this was a legitimate trial... can you explain why it was never a news story when the President of the United States of America is found guilty of "crimes against humanity"? (not just accused, mind you but found guilty).
After all, even the liberal press was obsessed with the mere accusation that Bill Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Surely you believe that "crimes against humanity" is an even bigger story!
By the way...while you're at it, would you list any other criminal perpetrators of human suffering and genocide whom they ever bothered to indict?
For more on how the left (Bill Clinton's administration, in this case) feels it should respond to genocide, read the following PBS story on the 100 days of slaughter in 1994 in Rawanda which left 800,000 dead. Surely you are even more outraged over this? (And I hope you don't believe that PBS is a conservative mouthpiece):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html
Now for just a little more perspective, I wonder if you'd say it's always a "crime against humanity" for a president to send American troops into a foreign country which never attacked America, to topple a tyrant (who never attacked America) so as to reinstate a form of governmemnt which we agree with?
If so, you'd have supported the indictment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (hero of the left) for his invasion of France on D-day - June 6, 1944. By the way, on D-day more US soldiers were killed in 24 hrs. than in the 3-1/2 years of the Iraq war.
For other recent US "invasions" aimed at liberating countries, see also: Harry Truman - North Korea, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson - Viet Nam and Bill Clinton - Bosnia (Democrats, all). What do you suppose Harry Belafonte, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore thought about all of those invasions and occupations?
The phrase "selective outrage" comes to mind.
2006-09-26 04:50:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This was an "unofficial" tribunal. Your first clue should have been the LONG list of prosecutors and not defense team. This was just a bunch of Bush-haters who decided to have a mock trial specifically to find him guilty & give guys like you ammunition against him.
2006-09-27 17:38:47 · answer #7 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do you not say the same thing about Clinton.. He had devised, along with his cronies (Kennedy, Kerry and a few others) to do the very same thing Bush has done. Now who is wrong? The one who didn't follow thru with their plan or, the one that did? They all talked like Bush in the 90's.. How short is the memory???? Or perhaps I should say, how selective is the memory?
2006-09-25 20:01:13 · answer #8 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
People believed that Bush is right in declaring war against nations. Thus, nobody filed a case against him for being a war criminal.
2006-09-25 19:59:46 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
since when did international court have jurisdiction in America...that's like saying people in Europe can sue their employers over an American law...that meeting in Japan was a mock...nothing more...
2006-09-25 20:06:51 · answer #10 · answered by turntable 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋