Bush tries to get bill passed to pardon himself on war crimes!!!
 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

Saw this on another board and really thought this was interesting. I wonder how Bush's presidency will be portrayed a couple decades down the road in history books.

that is so fucked.

Bush is a disgusting piece of work.

What do you mean try?

Just goes to show how guilty they know they are...

how is it that I haven't seen this on any news programs?

CNN the situation room or whatever is a new program.

don't expect them to be talking about it on fox news....

Just because you don't support the war, which is a reasonable position, does not mean that the President and other US government officials are war criminals. You can disagree with the government's policies without trying to delegitimize our system of governance. :2 cents:

Are you familiar with some of the interrogation tactics used and encouraged by the us military? The american armed forces are responsible for so many human rights violations since 9/11 that it'd be pretty sick to not consider those calling the shots war criminals. George Bush and his Generals are no better than any other war criminal. Just becuase he is your leader and you are standing behnd him, doe snot make his actions any less what they are. If the republican party is indeed trying to pass a bill protcting them from these charges, it is for one reason and one reason only. They are fully aware of the possibility that they could come under fire and be held accountable for their actions in the future. they know what is going on, and they want to make sure their asses are covered ahead of time...

I think all of you are missing the real point of this. Both Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives both added ear-marks to this bill and helped push it through with a 500 year sunset for experation.

So if Bush is such an Evil guy why are the two leading Democrats from the House and Senate helping to push this through and add ear-marks?

By the way Bush administration would be the 6th president to have such a bill pass during his presidency. The Clinton administration passed the same type of bill after the Black Hawk Down/Somalia incident. But i dont hear any of you bitching about that.

Wise up people :disgust

Democractic, Republican, it doesn't matter. It's all just rich white people covering their asses so they don't have to answer to anyone, or be held accountable for their actions when the questions start to rise up over all the shit that they caused and lives they destroyed while sitting back in their comfy leather office chairs reaping the benefits. All at the expense of their own people, and others beneath them all around the world.

The Republican Party has nothing to do with the bill being passed. Why dont you point out the democratically run House and Senate that support it?

Im also guessing that you would have wanted war crimes charges placed upon George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Harry Truman, Omar Bradley Dwight Eisenhower during and after WWII?

When you consider the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, what is considered "war crimes" in this day and age is pretty absurd.

wolf blitzer

Then why do they need that bill , and why do they try to pass it under the radar ?

Apparently it dose matter just going by some of the response in this thread. Its just another example of uneducated people making comments on things they have yet to research and or know nothing about.

Hell, even Abraham Lincoln had a bill/law giving the North protection from siesed monies plundered from foreign run buisness during the Civil War because he had no idea what the outcome of the war was going to be. This was put in place just so no foreign government could try to claim assests or recoup losses. To me thats just smart thinking and good planing or any presidential administration. Ken Burns has a chapter on this in his Civil War documentary.

Its not under the radar when both the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House send it back to the floor 3 times to add the some 10k worth of earmarks during the last war fudning bill :1orglaugh

Its 1400 pages worth of reading, or you can download the .pdf file for reading and just skip to the description for the basic outlines.

They put Nazi's to trial for war crimes, so why the fuck not? Just becaus eyou're the winner does not make it any less of a crime...

I'm not a huge fan of Bush - he looks like a donkey - but twenty years from now when the oil has run out people won't remember Bush for Iraq. He'll be remembered for guilding us through 9/11, which has become one of the most defining moments of US History along with Pearl Harbor.

this will be a police state in no time

Maybe he'll be remembered for being the one who allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch.

pretty fucked up if it true, but not sure my thoughts on the whole blame him for the war thing. although he is the president, he still has people giving him orders that we dont see behind closed doors

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

You guys know the President signs bills in to law, not creates them, right?

Put down the crack pipe.

Yeh this is a typical 'piece of shit' move by that asshole...

Who is this "They" you are talking about?

The houlocaust was not a act of war. The Nuremberg Trials and the hundreds of others to follow where all International Military Tribunal's acted upon by over 10 nations and not the USA.

What war crimes did Patton, MacArthur, Bradley etc etc commit? The 7-8 most notable Allied war crimes commited during WWII where all acted upon.

We have some real stupid fuckers around here that have yet to grasp that concept and or understand how our government works.

You all missed that this happened BEFORE the Dems took control of the house and senate, listen to what he's saying. This video is from back in 2006.

Does anyone know if it passed?

IF it did, They're all scumbags!!!!

Its ear-marked on the war funding bills so it keeps rolling over and over not one democrat has taking any action at all to have it pulled. The bill in that video was known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and it passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support in Sept. 2006.

The bill passed the Senate, 65?34, on September 28, 2006
The bill passed in the House, 250?170?12, on September 29, 2006

Bush signed the bill into law on October 17, 2006.

The problem is no one here has read the bill or the Supreme Court decision for clarification of the law to spell out the specific powers granted to the President. All it covers is the retroactive immunity to prevent silly frivolous lawsuits for acts taken during the time period before Congress passed the law.

It's a good bill, and it received bipartisan support. More than 1/3 of the Democrats in the Senate, and half of the Democrats in the House supported the bill.

lol, what difference does it make if you approve or dsaaprove of the war? BUSH IS a war criminal, he is responsioble for the death of thousands of INNOCENT people, he's responsible for INNOCENT people being tortured even today. How will this go down in history? American history - there we'll be a lot more movies where "our boys" kill the bad guys and thats that, just like comrad Stalin this war criminal will never be tried.

How is Bush a war criminal?

Which of these articles did Bush personally as a induvidual and acting president commit and/or take part in giving direct orders in his administration or military?

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Answer = none

How interesting you mention Stalin, under his rule an estimated 61 million people died, 54 million of them where russian citizens. Feel free to point out the Genocide, Politicide, Mass Murder or Democide on behalf of Bush and his administration.

Agreed. And lets not forget Pol Pot and his people from the Khmer regime.

War crimes are war crimes and Pres Bush and his people are guilty.

Everything in orange the US has done.

So your saying Bush personally as a individual and acting president gave direct orders to his administration and/or military for the things in orange to be carried out by US citizens under the US banner during war time?

If so lets see your claims and proof as it relates to the charge.

no, this is how it went down:

The US soldiers were bored out of their minds in their barracks, so one day a corporal said:
"Hey guys, lets invade a foreign country and kill thousands of people!!!"
"Isn't that a crime?"
"Hell, ya, but we'll start with Afghanistan, Osama is there, you know"
"So what's that have to do with killing of thousands of people"
"We'll say we fight the terrorism"
"Fighting the terrorism by killing thousands of people?"
"STFU, we are going to kill thousands of people, you're coming or not?"
"Sure"

then there was another group of military dudes bored ouy of their minds too so one day a corporal said:

"Hey guys, lets play jail"
"Fuck off with your gay shit"
"No, man, we are gonna get us some men with beards and torture them"
"Should we send them to court first to see if they're guilty of something?"
"Nah, that's bull"
"I don't know, man, that doesn't sound right"
"Well, its either that or the gay shit"
"I'm in"

That disgusts me.

I'm curious where does it stop? Is it just Bush and Cheney? How about the 77senators that authorized President Bush to attack Iraq if "Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. "? Maybe just the Republican ones that voted that way?

Maybe as a Canadian I don't understand the US political system or something, but is the President a king that can just do whatever the hell he wants with no checks and balances at all?!?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I remember we did the same thing when I was stationed at Ft Drum. The enlisted guys were sitting around and said what the hell, lets invade Bosnia and have a little fun.:1orglaugh