Amnesty wants Canada to arrest George Bush! - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Ozy_Flame · 10-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Arresting Bush and or Cheney would be an illegal act because the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC so the ICC has no jurisdiction.

Plus Waterboarding wasn't illegal under bush, it was made illegal under Obama so technically he didn't break the laws when he was in office.

Plus how can they arrest him when there is no warrent issued for his arrest arrest by the International Courts.

It would be nice if Amnesty International understood the laws that they were trying to use.

CC . . . Despite technicalities . . .

Arrest Bush and Cheney. What wastes of skin they are.

MelBridgeman · 10-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Arrest Cheney while you're at it. Their administration started a war they couldn't finish and it has cost an unnecessary amount of human life. What a waste of skin these two are.

Seems to be an american tradition, no?

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

CC . . . Despite technicalities . . .

Arrest Bush and Cheney. What wastes of skin they are.

Makes one a little hypocritical to complain about someone breaking the law, and then being willing to completely break the law in order to make a point.

You could actually argue that Bush and Cheney followed the law in their country and Amnesty is going against their own charter to ask for their arrest.

Ozy_Flame · 10-13-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Makes one a little hypocritical to complain about someone breaking the law, and then being willing to completely break the law in order to make a point.

You could actually argue that Bush and Cheney followed the law in their country and Amnesty is going against their own charter to ask for their arrest.

There's not much explaining to do really. I just think the Bush administration should be held accountable for the lives they've cost over the years. That's all. Arrest, waterboard, throw water balloons, deport to Siberia, whatever. Doesn't matter to me.

MoneyGuy · 10-13-2011, 01:41 PM

I can easily see 1,300 days and 600 jailhouse beatings if this happened.

valo403 · 10-13-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There's not much explaining to do really. I just think the Bush administration should be held accountable for the lives they've cost over the years. That's all. Arrest, waterboard, throw water balloons, deport to Siberia, whatever. Doesn't matter to me.

I don't even necessarily disagree with the point, but there is explaining to do if you want it to be taken seriously. How do you hold them accountable? Under what laws?

Ozy_Flame · 10-13-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't even necessarily disagree with the point, but there is explaining to do if you want it to be taken seriously. How do you hold them accountable? Under what laws?

I can think if of a faulty, horribly-designed NIE on WMD's in 2002 and was rushed through Congress and the UN as reason for their mind-boggling stupidity that cost people's lives. Among other things.

bizaro86 · 10-13-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Positive support of an organization does not indicate bias on its positions. It only indicates support of its positions. You must look at the objectivity of the evidence he gives to decide if there is bias.

Not to mention, you can arrive at apathy through bias as well.

The bolded part is fair enough, although a little presumptuous. It implies a perfect rationality, and a complete willingness to accept any new information independently of preconceived notions. I don't know anyone (myself included) who is perfectly without bias.

I was really only pointing out that no conclusion can be drawn from someone not being a member of an organization, while at least some conclusions on opinion/support/bias can be drawn from membership.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 01:55 PM

But Ozy, that wasn't illegal.

It was passed by Congress which makes it legal in the U.S., and technically legal according to the UN.

I don't disagree that Iraq was a war that didn't need to happen at that time, even though Saddam swinging from a rope at the end doesn't bother me too much.

But if AI demands that laws and human rights be respected, then shouldn't AI be acccountable to laws and processes.

If the ICC hasn't filed formal charges, then they don't really see the acts as illegal, whether on technicality or not.

valo403 · 10-13-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I can think if of a faulty, horribly-designed NIE on WMD's in 2002 and was rushed through Congress and the UN as reason for their mind-boggling stupidity that cost people's lives. Among other things.

That doesn't address the question. How do you hold them accountable? Under what laws? Pointing to things they did doesn't get you there unless you can tie that to a violation of law. I can't be written a ticket for spitting my gum on the street just because it's not a nice thing to do, it has to be tied to an actual law, say littering.

Ozy_Flame · 10-13-2011, 02:07 PM

Geezuz. I didnt know there were so many lawyers on this site.

Sorry guys I'm golfing in a few minutes. I'll try and come on later and post more.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Geezuz. I didnt know there were so many lawyers on this site.

Sorry guys I'm golfing in a few minutes. I'll try and come on later and post more.

You don't need to insult me or call me bad names pal

Kavvy · 10-13-2011, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But Ozy, that wasn't illegal.

It was passed by Congress which makes it legal in the U.S., and technically legal according to the UN.

I don't disagree that Iraq was a war that didn't need to happen at that time, even though Saddam swinging from a rope at the end doesn't bother me too much.

But if AI demands that laws and human rights be respected, then shouldn't AI be acccountable to laws and processes.

If the ICC hasn't filed formal charges, then they don't really see the acts as illegal, whether on technicality or not.

From what you say, you have a much better understanding of all this then I do, but how come it isn't iellgal, the US signed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Igottago · 10-13-2011, 04:14 PM

What are laws but a set of rules created by those who weild enough power to enforce them.

The Bush regime got away with what any other country would've been brought to justice for. The difference is they're American. If the rest of the world had enough power and willingness to hold them accountable, they'd be held accountable.

The black and white of it is they manipulated and misled their population in order to invade a country on false pretenses.

There is no such thing as international law. Its organized crime, and there's a perpetual turf war. The US has the biggest guns.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kavy

From what you say, you have a much better understanding of all this then I do, but how come it isn't iellgal, the US signed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

For the most part the American government has held the position that the Geneva convention does not apply to members of terrorist groups.

Canuck-Hater · 10-13-2011, 04:57 PM

Why cant the powerful people be accountable for the criminal activities they are involved in? The United States is still in a war to this day all based on a lie. Just think of the amount of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay without a proper trial. Good on Amnesty.