Bush get into jail

  • Thread starter Thread starter din_gen
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 40
  • Views Views 6K
D

din_gen

Rising Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Hi All,

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

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.
 
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.
 
Woodrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

in that case, what are we waiting for

there so many evidence out there
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
libyanhero said:
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
Click to expand...
That's not proof that's speculation and impossible to prove in court. Where is your proof?
 
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:
 
libyanhero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States
 
Geronimo said:
That's not proof that's speculation and impossible to prove in court. Where is your proof?
Click to expand...

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
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top