Bush get into jail

[din_gen]

Hi All,

Can anyone drag Bush to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Is it reasonable and possible? :?

[Woodrow]

The answer to both questions is yes. Provided that there is sufficient evidence to show the probability he has commited an international crime. However, I believe that he would have to be impeached first and then tried as a criminal.

[din_gen]

So, what should we do to make it happen? :?

[Muezzin]

So, what should we do to make it happen? :?

Call Monica.

Lewinsky, that is.

Hey, it kinda worked for Clinton! :p

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[din_gen]

Hahaha.. it just can turn into a scandal. But we dont need scandal, as it only being use for their internal political enemy to drop him out. Maybe we can disscuss on how to convince big people in Islamic or non-Islamic country to make this thing to be happen.. Is it logic?

[Woodrow]

Probably not logical. I would take it for granted that Bush has sufficient enemies in "High" places that the idea has probably been contemplated many times and so far nobody has provided any evidence that would hold up in court.

[Geronimo]

The answer to both questions is yes. Provided that there is sufficient evidence to show the probability he has commited an international crime. However, I believe that he would have to be impeached first and then tried as a criminal.

No he can't. The ICC has no authority over any US citizen. We never signed the treaty authorizing that type of authority. If the ICC were to file charges against Bush then they would could be considered hostile and give the US casus Beli to attack.

[Geronimo]

Hi All,

Can anyone drag Bush to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Is it reasonable and possible? :?

Under what charges?

[KAding]

The answer to both questions is yes. Provided that there is sufficient evidence to show the probability he has commited an international crime. However, I believe that he would have to be impeached first and then tried as a criminal.

Actually, the US didn't sign the ICC (Not ICJ, thats something else) treaty, so it has no jurisdiction over US citizens. You might have better luck sueing Blair, since the UK did sign and ratify the ICC treaty.

Of course, you'll have to prove the UK commited war crimes and he ordered them.

[Woodrow]

OOOOps, I thought we had signed it. I guess my memory isn't what it used to be. Moot point anyhow. The problem would be in trying to prove he did anything wrong. Have to remember a lot of what he gets blamed for he did not do, although he may have wanted to. Our President is very limited as to what powers he has and doesn't have the power to do the things we keep blaming GW of.

[libyanhero]

The answer to both questions is yes. Provided that there is sufficient evidence to show the probability he has commited an international crime. However, I believe that he would have to be impeached first and then tried as a criminal.

in that case, what are we waiting for

there so many evidence out there

[Geronimo]

in that case, what are we waiting for

there so many evidence out there

What evidence. Spell it out

[din_gen]

Chargers?

Nowadays, everybody (especially non-Muslim) minds are poisoned with the similarity between Islam and Terror. Who start this fire? This mess started getting bigger after the 911 attack (correct me if i'm wrong). But what's the prove on this issue? U.S government point their finger to the al-qaeda, but, is there any prove? They make a drastic decision by attacking Afghanistan and caused million og death in the name of "War against terrorist". Dont you realize this, brother? As you all know, during the 911 attack, one of the plane that being hijack attacking the pentagon. But the truth is, there is no plane. Click this link for prove.. Moderators, this is not a conspiracy, you see first then judge it! Pentagon 911 Strike

Ok, lets leave the 911 attack for a moment. Lets flashback on attacking Iraq for the reason of "Deadly Mass Weapon". Until today, did anyone can prove that? Did anyone found the "weapon" that they talk about? Did anyone dare on how many people are dead in Iraq? Dont you read on newspaper Geronimo? Dont you dare about world political issue Geronimo? Dont you dare the citizens loose their family?

[Woodrow]

The main thing protecting GW is he does not have the power to do the things he is being blamed for. Our presidents are very limited as to authority unless Congress grants them war-time powers, which has not been done for GW.

[libyanhero]

the world doesnt isnt just thats why bush controls the international court of justice and u can never prosecute an American president, who sent troops to Iraq the rape cases that go on and the pictures we seen from the abu ghraib prison are all Bush's fault he is the one who ordered troops to Iraq.

[libyanhero]

he created a civil war in iraq cus he doesnt want to leave after destroying it, come on to catch saddam u send bombs to iraq kill innocent children women and men. the most powerful nation in the world cant get a hold of saddam and even after bombing iraq they havnt catched or killed him only after months did they find him

but they cant even catch osama bin laden after ther war crimes in afghanistan just killing innocents just to prove to you that with all there technology they cant do nothing to one man against an entire nation but still how do u repay the family who have dead sons and daughters.

bush is a criminal and is been a criminal since hes been elected and george galloway said it

[Geronimo]

he created a civil war in iraq cus he doesnt want to leave after destroying it, come on to catch saddam u send bombs to iraq kill innocent children women and men

That's not proof that's speculation and impossible to prove in court. Where is your proof?

[din_gen]

I'm sorry moderator. But i really need to share this story. If you consider it as a conspiracy, go on. But for me, it's not. Click to this link.
LINK REMOVED :rant:

[Woodrow]

the world doesnt isnt just thats why bush controls the international court of justice and u can never prosecute an American president, who sent troops to Iraq the rape cases that go on and the pictures we seen from the abu ghraib prison are all Bush's fault he is the one who ordered troops to Iraq.

Bush might have agreed to it it, but he didn't send any troops anyplace. He does not have the power to do so.

Powers of the President of the United States
The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." To carry out this responsibility, he has many powers, most of which are subject to or checked by Congressional power. He presides over the executive branch of the federal government; a vast organization of about 4 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel, of whom he is Commander in Chief.

According to the Federalist Papers #69, which states, "In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature". However, his control over these tools of state are checked by Congress' power "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation for the land and naval Forces" (Article I, Section 8).

As President-elect, he will make as many as 6,000 appointments in addition to those that must be made during his term proper (including appointments to the federal judiciary), but the Senate must consent to all appointments, except those of "inferior officers" that Congress has vested exclusively in him, the courts, or the heads of departments. He may make temporary appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate if the Senate is in recess, but such appointments expire at the end of the next session of the Senate.

While he may not personally initiate legislation, the President may veto any legislation passed by Congress. Such a veto may be overturned by a two-thirds majority vote in each House. He may make treaties, but two-thirds of the Senate must ratify the treaty. He is also required by the Constitution to give Congress information on the State of the Union and propose measures for their consideration.

According to political scientist Richard Neustadt, "Presidential power is the power to persuade and the power to persuade is the ability to bargain". The President's constitutional domestic power is limited, and so, according to Neustadt, successful bargaining with Congress is usually essential to Presidential success.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside..._United_States

[libyanhero]

That's not proof that's speculation and impossible to prove in court. Where is your proof?

pictures of abu ghraib prison? doesnt that do anything

brother geronimo its not speculation dont the eyes do anything in a court of justice

its like u dont see u dont hear dont speak until u see it material proof thats just nonesense

[Geronimo]

pictures of abu ghraib prison? doesnt that do anything

brother geronimo its not speculation dont the eyes do anything in a court of justice

its like u dont see u dont hear dont speak until u see it material proof thats just nonesense

Where is your proof that Bush authorized what happened at Abu Ghraib? The fact bad things happened there does not put Bush at fault unless you want us to haul the whole Saudi government in front of the ICC for 9/11 or the whole Sudanese government for the bombing of emassies or the whole Iranian gocernment...

[din_gen]

Ok, it's logic if we say the President also have the limit to his power in country. But, may i know? Who released the permission on attacking Iraq ans so Afghanistan? The military general? Is that meant the General is more powerful than a President? If not, so who? The dajjal?:?

[Woodrow]

I would like to see whoever is responsible for the mess we are in be punished. However, nobody has been able to come up with any verifiable evidence to convict GW. There have been many conspiracy theories, but they all make the error of attributing more powers to Bush then what he actualy has.

Unless, congress were to Grant Bush war-time powers he does not have the authority to order any military force anyplace for any reason.

[libyanhero]

Ok, it's logic if we say the President also have the limit to his power in country. But, may i know? Who released the permission on attacking Iraq ans so Afghanistan? The military general? Is that meant the General is more powerful than a President? If not, so who? The dajjal?:?

the dajjal lol brother thats hysterrical seems like theres noone could be

[Geronimo]

Ok, it's logic if we say the President also have the limit to his power in country. But, may i know? Who released the permission on attacking Iraq ans so Afghanistan? The military general? Is that meant the General is more powerful than a President? If not, so who? The dajjal?:?

The US Congress are the only ones that can declare war. They signed commitment to use force for both Afghanistan and Iraq. The President was then free to act on those countries. If congress wanted to they could also end the war by refusing to fund it like with Vietnam

[Woodrow]

The US Congress are the only ones that can declare war. They signed commitment to use force for both Afghanistan and Iraq. The President was then free to act on those countries. If congress wanted to they could also end the war by refusing to fund it like with Vietnam

Correct, if anyone is to blame, if there is to be blame it is our congressmen that brought it about and allow it to continue.

[libyanhero]

Where is your proof that Bush authorized what happened at Abu Ghraib? The fact bad things happened there does not put Bush at fault unless you want us to haul the whole Saudi government in front of the ICC for 9/11 or the whole Sudanese government for the bombing of emassies or the whole Iranian gocernment...

bring all the proof against the saudi sudanese iranian president and if there doing any harm dont telll me nuclear weapons man america and israel got nuclear weapons and how come they couldnt get a hold of pakistan they noticed just after they had nuclear so they couldnt gang up on it afraid they will get burnt so kept close ties.

[din_gen]

The Congress.. Yes.. now i remember, thanx for remind me.. I also remember, once ago, my colleagues has sent me the facts about one of the largest U.S petroleum company and it's conquered bt the George Bush family. From what i read, the next mission is to create a pipe in some of the countries in the middle east. At that time, there is still no war at Afghan and Lebanon. I got that mail during the Gulf War. (Sorry the mail already deleted long time ago).

What makes me interesting is, the pipe line will going through the Afghan and Lebanon. And this is what i saw today, the Lebanon and Afghan already bombed at certain areas. Seems like there is a connection between the war and the petroleum company. I'm not sure the truth is, but what i really remember, the facts that i read during "Gulf War" is happening today. Wallahualam...

[Woodrow]

One thing that is coming out of this is the fact that Persian Gulf oil is not cheap oil and never was. Because of the reduced production from the area countries are now starting to rely more on their own resources and oddly, the price of Gasoline is dropping just about world wide.

It is estimated that the Persian Gulf reserves are only sufficient for 5 to 10 more years. Right now it does not make sense for any oil company to do any further investing in the area. the profit margin is too low.

Right now the 2 next biggest areas look like they will be Colorado, which has reserves approximentaly 3 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia and Northern Canada which has at least 5 times the reserves of Colorodo. It makes more sense for the oil companies to invest in those areas now.

Whatever the reason we got our noses into Afghanistan, and Iraq is a moot point. The hard part is how to get out without causing more damage.

[libyanhero]

proof bush needs to go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LuvQRt4kw

[Geronimo]

proof bush needs to go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LuvQRt4kw

No that's a speech not proof. You being a Canadian this shouldn't be so hard. We need proof that will stand up in a court of law

[din_gen]

dont just asking "where is the proof?".. you also can contribute your ideas on how to get the prove... lol..

[Geronimo]

dont just asking "where is the proof?".. you also can contribute your ideas on how to get the prove... lol..

Why would I prove your case for you? If I'm a lawyer I'm not gonna ask the defense how can I win.

[din_gen]

Hi All,

Can anyone drag Bush to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Is it reasonable and possible? :?

That's why i make this thread. To discuss on how to get the prove and the possibilities if it's happen. Dont you ever read the 1st message lol... thanx for being the virtual lawyer of Bush. At least we all know what we need on this matter if we are really in the court.

[Geronimo]

That's why i make this thread. To discuss on how to get the prove and the possibilities if it's happen. Dont you ever read the 1st message lol... thanx for being the virtual lawyer of Bush. At least we all know what we need on this matter if we are really in the court.

and I addressed this. There is no way short of war with the US could this happen.

[din_gen]

yes you can talk what ever you want.. but please visit this site..

Cnn News

[Geronimo]

yes you can talk what ever you want.. but please visit this site..

Cnn News

It's not talk it's fact. It can not happen.

[din_gen]

It's not talk it's fact. It can not happen.

I've gave facts, i've gave talk. Anything you want mr. lawyer?

[Keltoi]

I still haven't seen any "evidence" of an impeachable offense against Bush. The Iraq War was a war of "choice" in many ways, but it was also a war that the American congress authorized. Congressional oversight is important on this issue. Perhaps the people that should be replaced are the men and women in congress who authorized the action. If one is inclined to impeach anyone.

[Ninth_Scribe]

So, what should we do to make it happen? :?

Run the numb3rs - that's all we're trying to do, so stop complaining and jump on... it does't even cost money!

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/Page...ename=homepage

Ninth Scribe

[Geronimo]

Run the numb3rs - that's all we're trying to do, so stop complaining and jump on... it does't even cost money!

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/Page...ename=homepage

Ninth Scribe

You impeach Bush you get Cheney. Go right ahead:D