Your Bloody Soap Box · Public discussion

Bush goes retro to avoid prosecution

Started by Wurm · · Last activity · 41 posts · 3,315 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Your Bloody Soap Box
Published
30 August 2006
Last activity
8 September 2006
Original author
Wurm
Posts
41
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,315
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 41
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. by Paul Craig Roberts

    When I was a kid, John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain. Alas, today the U.S. and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today, the U.S. and Israel are seen throughout the world as war-criminal states.

    On Aug. 23, the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.

    Israel claims that its aggression was "self-defense" to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.

    United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: "Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month."

    Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended "collateral damage."

    President Bush maintains that Israel has "a right to protect itself" by destroying Lebanon.

    Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

    Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side-by-side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The U.S. Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crimes charges under both the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

    President Bush and his attorney general agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

    One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.

    Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any U.S. government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Sen. John McCain's amendment against torture.

    Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says that Bush's changes "immunize past crimes."

    Under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their president's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel, and civilian contractors from war crimes?

    Apparently, the self-righteous, morally superior American "Christian" public could care less. The Republican-controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the midterm elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.

    Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.

    Trouble is, there are no U.S. troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.

    According to President Bush, the U.S. will lose the "war on terror" unless the U.S. succeeds in defeating "the Iraqi terrorists" by establishing "democracy in Iraq." Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.

    Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.

    Bush and the neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st-century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.

    Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

  2. Why don't you get this off your chest and simply challenge Bush Junior to a boxing bout? Or, seeing as Bush is a keen cyclist, how about a race?

    Wurm said:

    by Paul Craig Roberts

    When I was a kid, John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain. Alas, today the U.S. and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today, the U.S. and Israel are seen throughout the world as war-criminal states.

    On Aug. 23, the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.

    Israel claims that its aggression was "self-defense" to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.

    United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: "Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month."

    Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended "collateral damage."

    President Bush maintains that Israel has "a right to protect itself" by destroying Lebanon.

    Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

    Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferencz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side-by-side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The U.S. Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crimes charges under both the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

    President Bush and his attorney general agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

    One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.

    Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any U.S. government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Sen. John McCain's amendment against torture.

    Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says that Bush's changes "immunize past crimes."

    Under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their president's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel, and civilian contractors from war crimes?

    Apparently, the self-righteous, morally superior American "Christian" public could care less. The Republican-controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the midterm elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.

    Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.

    Trouble is, there are no U.S. troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.

    According to President Bush, the U.S. will lose the "war on terror" unless the U.S. succeeds in defeating "the Iraqi terrorists" by establishing "democracy in Iraq." Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.

    Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend U.S./Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.

    Bush and the neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st-century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.

    Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

  3. Carrera said:

    Why don't you get this off your chest and simply challenge Bush Junior to a boxing bout? Or, seeing as Bush is a keen cyclist, how about a race?

    Why don't you look at these criminals for what they are instead of trying to turn their illegal acts into a stupid joke? It doesn't make what they're doing "OK".

  4. Free Israel! Vive Bush!

  5. thebluetrain said:

    Free Israel! Vive Bush!

    I've read your thoughtful and well-reasoned argument in the above post,but after examining all the evidence which you have presented,it can only be concluded that you are a turnip.

  6. stevebaby said:

    I've read your thoughtful and well-reasoned argument in the above post,but after examining all the evidence which you have presented,it can only be concluded that you are a turnip.

    Steve, the article was not well reasoned. So what does that make the author and poster that posted it?

  7. If Hezbollah launches rockets into Israel from the middle of a schoolyard in Lebanon should they be able to take it out?

  8. unicos said:

    If Hezbollah launches rockets into Israel from the middle of a schoolyard in Lebanon should they be able to take it out?

    Thats a tough decision to have to make but what do you expect from cowards hiding behind school children.

    My point exactly. The article mentions nothing of the rockets that Hezbollah launched into residential areas in Israel. Nothing more than a onesided article without reason.

  9. thebluetrain said:

    Steve, the article was not well reasoned. So what does that make the author and poster that posted it?

    Do you have anything to support that ridiculous statement, or just more knee-jerk reactionary hogwash?

    The fact is, Bu$hCo has done exactly what the author has described in trying to convolute the law to get themselves off the hook. If you can prove the author wrong, let's see it.

  10. unicos said:

    If Hezbollah launches rockets into Israel from the middle of a schoolyard in Lebanon should they be able to take it out?

    If some nutcase in the USA starts firing from a schoolyard, do you take out the entire school and surrounding houses? If it's OK to do it in Lebanon, surely it must be OK to do it back home, too?
    Even Blind Freddie could see that Israel's "collateral damage" was intentional. It was designed to be punitive, and was intended to terrorise the entire Lebanon community.
    Whilst it is terrible to see extremist groups engaging in terrorism, it is so much worse when that group is a government.

  11. Wurm said:

    Do you have anything to support that ridiculous statement, or just more knee-jerk reactionary hogwash?

    The fact is, Bu$hCo has done exactly what the author has described in trying to convolute the law to get themselves off the hook. If you can prove the author wrong, let's see it.

    thebluetrain said:


    My point exactly. The article mentions nothing of the rockets that Hezbollah launched into residential areas in Israel. Nothing more than a onesided article without reason.

    Worm I already stated my support to that statement. Did you miss it in your knee jerk reaction????
    Israel was subjected to unprovoked, unjustified attacks from terrorists on both the north and southern borders. Remember, it was Israel that pulled out of Lebanon. Remember, it was Israel that pulled out of Gaza, that brought her people out, that dismantled the synagogues, that moved out thousands of people from Gaza. And the result on both the north and the south have been rocket attacks. Rocket attacks from Lebanon, and rocket attacks from Gaza. Members of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, penetrated a sovereign Israeli border, killed two Israeli soldiers, kidnapped another. Hezbollah, another designated terrorist organization, crossed Israel's border with Lebanon, killed eight Israeli soldiers, and took two others hostage. Both of these actions are clear acts of war. Hezbollah possessed over 14,000 Iranian and Syrian rockets before the conflict began, launched thousands of those rockets into Israel, including many that hit Israeli towns and communities. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets against Israel. And Israel responded, as any nation would, to violations of her sovereign border and to unprovoked attacks against its cities and her people yet there is not one mention of this by the author in his article.
    Iran orders, Hezbollah executes, Lebanon suffers.

    ...

  12. not so different in any sense than bush recruiting schoolkids for him to hide behind, along with his close appointees and billionaire constituents, cowardice personified if you ask me.

    [quote="thebluetrain"]Thats a tough decision to have to make but what do you expect from cowards hiding behind school children.

  13. In support of Wurms article : the UN yesterday stated that Israel's use of cluster bombs during it's attack on Lebanon was "unethical, indiscriminate and designed to kill innocent people".

    It should be noted that with a ceasefire about to be agreed, the UN reports that Israel dropped more cluster bombs in to Lebanon during the last 72 hours of the conflict, that it had done in the preceeding 31 days of the 34 day conflict.

  14. EoinC said:

    If some nutcase in the USA starts firing from a schoolyard, do you take out the entire school and surrounding houses?

    absolutely...

    you can always call it collatoral damage...that way you can claim your tax back..etc etc..or whatever....

    everyone's a winner.

    one rule for one...and a differnet for another

  15. thebluetrain said:

    Worm I already stated my support to that statement. Did you miss it in your knee jerk reaction????
    Israel was subjected to unprovoked, unjustified attacks from terrorists on both the north and southern borders. Remember, it was Israel that pulled out of Lebanon. Remember, it was Israel that pulled out of Gaza, that brought her people out, that dismantled the synagogues, that moved out thousands of people from Gaza. And the result on both the north and the south have been rocket attacks. Rocket attacks from Lebanon, and rocket attacks from Gaza. Members of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, penetrated a sovereign Israeli border, killed two Israeli soldiers, kidnapped another. Hezbollah, another designated terrorist organization, crossed Israel's border with Lebanon, killed eight Israeli soldiers, and took two others hostage. Both of these actions are clear acts of war. Hezbollah possessed over 14,000 Iranian and Syrian rockets before the conflict began, launched thousands of those rockets into Israel, including many that hit Israeli towns and communities. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets against Israel. And Israel responded, as any nation would, to violations of her sovereign border and to unprovoked attacks against its cities and her people yet there is not one mention of this by the author in his article.
    Iran orders, Hezbollah executes, Lebanon suffers.

    ...


    Don't you get it, blue? They hate the Jews. And they call Bush a Nazi....🙄

  16. limerickman said:

    In support of Wurms article : the UN yesterday stated that Israel's use of cluster bombs during it's attack on Lebanon was "unethical, indiscriminate and designed to kill innocent people".

    It should be noted that with a ceasefire about to be agreed, the UN reports that Israel dropped more cluster bombs in to Lebanon during the last 72 hours of the conflict, that it had done in the preceeding 31 days of the 34 day conflict.

    And we are supposed to believe the UN? The media? zombietime.comambulance

    Maybe the UN should be worrying about getting the captured Israeli soldiers returned.

  17. thebluetrain said:

    And we are supposed to believe the UN? The media? zombietime.comambulance

    Maybe the UN should be worrying about getting the captured Israeli soldiers returned.

    Isn't this the same U.N. that allows Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission?

  18. thebluetrain said:

    Thats a tough decision to have to make but what do you expect from cowards hiding behind school children.

    My point exactly. The article mentions nothing of the rockets that Hezbollah launched into residential areas in Israel. Nothing more than a onesided article without reason.

    It wouldn’t be tough decision for me. Take it out. That’s the problem with the United States. The current mentality is to let any number of Americans (soldiers or civilians) or other western nationalities die in order to save that one possible collateral casualty. I am sorry but war is not pretty. The last resort from any commanding officer is war. But if war it is, then let us fight without both hands tied behind our backs and on one leg (This is the way that we are being allowed to fight in Iraq and other locals around the world). There are going to be civilian casualties in any war. There were civilian casualties in WWI and WWII. Even if the United States fought the way we need to with zero civilian casualties the rest of the world would still hate us. If we don’t wake up and stop thinking about what everybody else thinks then we are not going to last much longer. If immigrating doesn’t kill us then this worry about the rest of the world before we defend ourselves mentality will.

  19. unicos said:

    ...If immigrating doesn’t kill us then this worry about the rest of the world before we defend ourselves mentality will.

    So...maybe it would be a good idea not to be trying to dominate certain regions of the World, masquerading as the Planet Police? If the US Govt. and its Allies, were to state that their involvement in the variuos conflicts is for economically strategic reasons, it would be so much easier to believe than when it is claimed to be for moral reasons.
    I work in a Country where the US Govt. is happy to allow laundering of royalties, on a vast scale, to pass through US Banks unchecked (after such transactions were arrested in Europe), in return for US Oil Co's having favourable access to the oilfields within their economic maritime zones. Those same Royalties would do much to improve the lives of the people of that Country, but they don't get to see them. The fabulous coalition don't seem overly keen on invading with democratizing forces over there - but they're on "our side", so they don't need to be "democratic", do they?

  20. EoinC said:

    So...maybe it would be a good idea not to be trying to dominate certain regions of the World, masquerading as the Planet Police? If the US Govt. and its Allies, were to state that their involvement in the variuos conflicts is for economically strategic reasons, it would be so much easier to believe than when it is claimed to be for moral reasons.
    I work in a Country where the US Govt. is happy to allow laundering of royalties, on a vast scale, to pass through US Banks unchecked (after such transactions were arrested in Europe), in return for US Oil Co's having favourable access to the oilfields within their economic maritime zones. Those same Royalties would do much to improve the lives of the people of that Country, but they don't get to see them. The fabulous coalition don't seem overly keen on invading with democratizing forces over there - but they're on "our side", so they don't need to be "democratic", do they?


    I agree with you. But we still need oil. Don't you?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.