[BRe executions: the figure zero is inaccurate, Bush executed 152 people whilst governor of Texas[/B]
Oh come on. texas has the death penalty. To be sentenced to death you must be prosecuted for a crime, convicted of said crime, and then found to be subject to the death penalty. Not by George Bush or the governor of your state, but by your community and a jury of your peers.
It is simply disingenuous spin to claim W has executed or even ordered the execution of anyone.
? \t Some 120 babies "were left to die after being removed from incubators that were taken to Iraq."
\t
You're way behind the times. This is too funny.
Turns out the girl who witnessed the "atrocity" was none other than .....the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. The whole thing the creation of a PR firm. Time to get real. Unbelievable. You will just believe ANYTHING that works for the Republicans won't you?
Re executions: the figure zero is inaccurate, Bush executed 152 people whilst governor of Texas - including the mocking of one of the convicted with the infamous 'don't kill me Mr Bush' speech which outraged even hardcore Republicans.
You are wrong : Bush did not execute 152 people while governor of texas, it's the judges who decided to kill them, he just did not pardon them. It's very different of a case where GW Bush gave direct orders to judges to kill peoples. Law and governement are separated in USA : it did not happen.
Now, to be clear, I am against death penalty, and i did not support Bush policy on that matter. But saying that Bush executed 152 people is an innacurate shortcut.
OK I barely read your comment but it looks like this: Saddam killed lots of people so he should go to the Hague. Bush didn't kill quite as much, so he shouldn't. Slippery slope. Dumb argument.
Well, if GWB has not committed any crimes against humanity, has not broken international law, has not committed an unilateral aggression, where is the danger if he was tried in Hague? If he's innocent, he'll walk, end of story.
IF you really feel he is innocent, you should welcome the chance to redeem himself. Seems you are somewhat uneasy...
Besides, the whole business is a strawman you are expressly building up to knock it down. Yeah, SH is more evil than GWB, so what? You'll always find someone to point a finger at because he is more evil. Why not cut SH some slack, because there were even more brutal dictators in history?
Oh come on. texas has the death penalty. To be sentenced to death you must be prosecuted for a crime, convicted of said crime, and then found to be subject to the death penalty. Not by George Bush or the governor of your state, but by your community and a jury of your peers.
It is simply disingenuous spin to claim W has executed or even ordered the execution of anyone.
Not entirely. The comparison to other brutal countries that execute its people is not entirely a stretch. We would like to think scrutiny is the difference between summarily executing someone and executing someone after years in the justice system. But we execute a far greater percentage of black capital-criminals than white capital criminals. And the brutal result is still the same- regardless of the race question. We do it with courts while they did it by decree. While I would much prefer our system-- the rule of law-- to Saddam's, both seem pretty arbitrary when the question of execution arises.
Not entirely. The comparison to other brutal countries that execute its people is not entirely a stretch. We would like to think scrutiny is the difference between summarily executing someone and executing someone after years in the justice system. But we execute a far greater percentage of black capital-criminals than white capital criminals. And the brutal result is still the same- regardless of the race question. We do it with courts while they did it by decree. While I would much prefer our system-- the rule of law-- to Saddam's, both seem pretty arbitrary when the question of execution arises.
Gov. Bush did nothing.
Any comparison of our capital justice system to a system like Saddam's is totally inappropriate, no matter what your stand on the death penalty issue. Period.
Asking a question like that requires one to compare Bush to Hitler, or the US to Nazi Germany. Any such comparison is indefensible from any standpoint.
The question was: What international law did Bush break? And a follow-up: What international law states that no nation shall invade another sovereign nation? More follow-ups: What governing body passed that law? What are the consequences of violating it? What if the sovereign nation in question has violated terms of a previous ceasefire agreement? What if said nation is a sworn enemy of the invading nation? What if the said nation has itself violated (in clear and demonstrable fashion) international laws?
Asking a question like that requires one to compare Bush to Hitler, or the US to Nazi Germany. Any such comparison is indefensible from any standpoint.
The question was: What international law did Bush break? And a follow-up: What international law states that no nation shall invade another sovereign nation? More follow-ups: What governing body passed that law? What are the consequences of violating it? What if the sovereign nation in question has violated terms of a previous ceasefire agreement? What if said nation is a sworn enemy of the invading nation? What if the said nation has itself violated (in clear and demonstrable fashion) international laws?
Fair enough you don't want to compare Bush to Hitler, but with all your follow-ups you seem to suggest there is no such thing as a valid international law and therefore Bush cannot be guilty of breaking any. Or anybody else for that matter.
My knowlege on the subject is fairly limited but it's safe to say that, entre autre, torturing prisoners or holding prisoners without giving them any rights is against international law. Invading a souvereign country is against international law. Getting rid of a democratic elected government is against international law.
Now, recognizing the above principles without taking any responsibility (by recognizing the international court) is indeed an easy way out and a bit wimpy.
Fair enough you don't want to compare Bush to Hitler, but with all your follow-ups you seem to suggest there is no such thing as a valid international law and therefore Bush cannot be guilty of breaking any. Or anybody else for that matter.
My knowlege on the subject is fairly limited but it's safe to say that, entre autre, torturing prisoners or holding prisoners without giving them any rights is against international law. Invading a souvereign country is against international law. Getting rid of a democratic elected government is against international law.
Now, recognizing the above principles without taking any responsibility (by recognizing the international court) is indeed an easy way out and a bit wimpy.
Your argument is weak and makes use of the big strawman. I am not saying that "international law" does not exist. We could certainly say that UN resolutions are "international law"...or so I'd think for the sake of this argument. Speaking of which, it would seem Iraq and Saddam Hussein were the ones violating "international law"...while we enforced it.
As for the treatment of prisoners and invading a "sovereign nation", those aren't laws, they are principles (as you yourself said) and open to debate.
Iraq may have been sovereign, but it was itself in clear violation of international law. Any time a nation invades another, it's a violation of sovereignty. That's why it's called war. It wasn't illegal in any sense, and that's what this whole argument was about anyway. "Invading Iraq was a violation of international law" is a false statement. Period.
The treatment of pisoners is a different issue. If you're talking about the Abu Grahib scandal, then yes...I'd agree that violates internationally accepted standards for treatment of prisnoners. No argument there...but we're taking action to deal with that, aren't we? If you're speaking of the combatants at places like Camp X-Ray, then I'd have to disagree. The prisoners in that case are not POW's and also not US citizens. While they shouldn't be tortured, they are not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If you're speaking of people held in the US, then I'd refer to you US law...not international law. On that topic, I disagree with US citizens being held without charges or without a material witness warrant. When that has happened, I have been vocal in my criticism of the policy.
Any comparison of our capital justice system to a system like Saddam's is totally inappropriate, no matter what your stand on the death penalty issue. Period.
If you're talking about the Abu Grahib scandal, then yes...I'd agree that violates internationally accepted standards for treatment of prisnoners. No argument there...but we're taking action to deal with that, aren't we?
Yes. The military is no longer allowing its soldiers to have a camera.
It wasn't illegal in any sense, and that's what this whole argument was about anyway. "Invading Iraq was a violation of international law" is a false statement. Period.
It's not false to say that invading Iraq violated international treaties.
Yes, we all understand that there is no law book of international laws, and that the UN isn't an international police force. That's not the point. If the US signs an international treaty and violates that treaty, we are breaking our own laws.
Did we violate any of our international treaties by attacking Iraq? I'd like to see a discussion of how we didn't violate any treaties. I'm not sure it's possible.
Comments
We have executed and tortured Iraqi prisoners of war.
And the baby-killin' stories you put out have been debunked for a decade.
Originally posted by NaplesX
? \t A total of 1,082 Kuwaiti civilians were killed.
I'd like to know where this number comes from. According to the Kuwaiti Embassy in New Delhi it was about half that:
An estimated number of 439 foreign nationals, 118 Kuwaiti soldiers and 113 Kuwaiti civilians were killed.
http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/gulfwar_impact.asp
Originally posted by segovius
[BRe executions: the figure zero is inaccurate, Bush executed 152 people whilst governor of Texas[/B]
Oh come on. texas has the death penalty. To be sentenced to death you must be prosecuted for a crime, convicted of said crime, and then found to be subject to the death penalty. Not by George Bush or the governor of your state, but by your community and a jury of your peers.
It is simply disingenuous spin to claim W has executed or even ordered the execution of anyone.
Originally posted by NaplesX
? \t Some 120 babies "were left to die after being removed from incubators that were taken to Iraq."
\t
Turns out the girl who witnessed the "atrocity" was none other than .....the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. The whole thing the creation of a PR firm. Time to get real.
Re executions: the figure zero is inaccurate, Bush executed 152 people whilst governor of Texas - including the mocking of one of the convicted with the infamous 'don't kill me Mr Bush' speech which outraged even hardcore Republicans.
You are wrong : Bush did not execute 152 people while governor of texas, it's the judges who decided to kill them, he just did not pardon them. It's very different of a case where GW Bush gave direct orders to judges to kill peoples. Law and governement are separated in USA : it did not happen.
Now, to be clear, I am against death penalty, and i did not support Bush policy on that matter. But saying that Bush executed 152 people is an innacurate shortcut.
IF you really feel he is innocent, you should welcome the chance to redeem himself. Seems you are somewhat uneasy...
Besides, the whole business is a strawman you are expressly building up to knock it down. Yeah, SH is more evil than GWB, so what? You'll always find someone to point a finger at because he is more evil. Why not cut SH some slack, because there were even more brutal dictators in history?
2. GWB does not and has not comitted genocide
3. Civilian casualties in war are not illegal.
4. Exectution is legal in TX
5. GWB did not violate a single "international" law. If you can show me which one he broke, then post it.
End of story.
btw: Sammi jo, once again your figures are questionable. Iraqbodycount.net? Oh, OK. LOL
Originally posted by SDW2001
5. GWB did not violate a single "international" law. If you can show me which one he broke, then post it.
Unilateral aggression against a souvereign country. And don't give me that rogue state bullshit.
What international laws did Hitler break?
Originally posted by rageous
Oh come on. texas has the death penalty. To be sentenced to death you must be prosecuted for a crime, convicted of said crime, and then found to be subject to the death penalty. Not by George Bush or the governor of your state, but by your community and a jury of your peers.
It is simply disingenuous spin to claim W has executed or even ordered the execution of anyone.
Not entirely. The comparison to other brutal countries that execute its people is not entirely a stretch. We would like to think scrutiny is the difference between summarily executing someone and executing someone after years in the justice system. But we execute a far greater percentage of black capital-criminals than white capital criminals. And the brutal result is still the same- regardless of the race question. We do it with courts while they did it by decree. While I would much prefer our system-- the rule of law-- to Saddam's, both seem pretty arbitrary when the question of execution arises.
Gov. Bush did nothing.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Not entirely. The comparison to other brutal countries that execute its people is not entirely a stretch. We would like to think scrutiny is the difference between summarily executing someone and executing someone after years in the justice system. But we execute a far greater percentage of black capital-criminals than white capital criminals. And the brutal result is still the same- regardless of the race question. We do it with courts while they did it by decree. While I would much prefer our system-- the rule of law-- to Saddam's, both seem pretty arbitrary when the question of execution arises.
Gov. Bush did nothing.
Any comparison of our capital justice system to a system like Saddam's is totally inappropriate, no matter what your stand on the death penalty issue. Period.
Originally posted by groverat
SDW:
What international laws did Hitler break?
Asking a question like that requires one to compare Bush to Hitler, or the US to Nazi Germany. Any such comparison is indefensible from any standpoint.
The question was: What international law did Bush break? And a follow-up: What international law states that no nation shall invade another sovereign nation? More follow-ups: What governing body passed that law? What are the consequences of violating it? What if the sovereign nation in question has violated terms of a previous ceasefire agreement? What if said nation is a sworn enemy of the invading nation? What if the said nation has itself violated (in clear and demonstrable fashion) international laws?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Asking a question like that requires one to compare Bush to Hitler, or the US to Nazi Germany. Any such comparison is indefensible from any standpoint.
The question was: What international law did Bush break? And a follow-up: What international law states that no nation shall invade another sovereign nation? More follow-ups: What governing body passed that law? What are the consequences of violating it? What if the sovereign nation in question has violated terms of a previous ceasefire agreement? What if said nation is a sworn enemy of the invading nation? What if the said nation has itself violated (in clear and demonstrable fashion) international laws?
Fair enough you don't want to compare Bush to Hitler, but with all your follow-ups you seem to suggest there is no such thing as a valid international law and therefore Bush cannot be guilty of breaking any. Or anybody else for that matter.
My knowlege on the subject is fairly limited but it's safe to say that, entre autre, torturing prisoners or holding prisoners without giving them any rights is against international law. Invading a souvereign country is against international law. Getting rid of a democratic elected government is against international law.
Now, recognizing the above principles without taking any responsibility (by recognizing the international court) is indeed an easy way out and a bit wimpy.
Originally posted by SpcMs
Fair enough you don't want to compare Bush to Hitler, but with all your follow-ups you seem to suggest there is no such thing as a valid international law and therefore Bush cannot be guilty of breaking any. Or anybody else for that matter.
My knowlege on the subject is fairly limited but it's safe to say that, entre autre, torturing prisoners or holding prisoners without giving them any rights is against international law. Invading a souvereign country is against international law. Getting rid of a democratic elected government is against international law.
Now, recognizing the above principles without taking any responsibility (by recognizing the international court) is indeed an easy way out and a bit wimpy.
Your argument is weak and makes use of the big strawman. I am not saying that "international law" does not exist. We could certainly say that UN resolutions are "international law"...or so I'd think for the sake of this argument. Speaking of which, it would seem Iraq and Saddam Hussein were the ones violating "international law"...while we enforced it.
As for the treatment of prisoners and invading a "sovereign nation", those aren't laws, they are principles (as you yourself said) and open to debate.
Iraq may have been sovereign, but it was itself in clear violation of international law. Any time a nation invades another, it's a violation of sovereignty. That's why it's called war. It wasn't illegal in any sense, and that's what this whole argument was about anyway. "Invading Iraq was a violation of international law" is a false statement. Period.
The treatment of pisoners is a different issue. If you're talking about the Abu Grahib scandal, then yes...I'd agree that violates internationally accepted standards for treatment of prisnoners. No argument there...but we're taking action to deal with that, aren't we? If you're speaking of the combatants at places like Camp X-Ray, then I'd have to disagree. The prisoners in that case are not POW's and also not US citizens. While they shouldn't be tortured, they are not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If you're speaking of people held in the US, then I'd refer to you US law...not international law. On that topic, I disagree with US citizens being held without charges or without a material witness warrant. When that has happened, I have been vocal in my criticism of the policy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Any comparison of our capital justice system to a system like Saddam's is totally inappropriate, no matter what your stand on the death penalty issue. Period.
That's not what I said.
Originally posted by SDW2001
If you're talking about the Abu Grahib scandal, then yes...I'd agree that violates internationally accepted standards for treatment of prisnoners. No argument there...but we're taking action to deal with that, aren't we?
Yes. The military is no longer allowing its soldiers to have a camera.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It wasn't illegal in any sense, and that's what this whole argument was about anyway. "Invading Iraq was a violation of international law" is a false statement. Period.
It's not false to say that invading Iraq violated international treaties.
Yes, we all understand that there is no law book of international laws, and that the UN isn't an international police force. That's not the point. If the US signs an international treaty and violates that treaty, we are breaking our own laws.
Did we violate any of our international treaties by attacking Iraq? I'd like to see a discussion of how we didn't violate any treaties. I'm not sure it's possible.