That's good. Lets all stand up and applaud Bush & Co. for decreasing the 427 billion

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

So, this "man of the people" who funds the loony left and wants all the rest of us to be communists rakes in $billions from the recession. He's out there picking up stuff at bargain-basement prices just like JP Morgan and his kind did.

Aaron Glantz, OneWorld USFri Aug 25, 8:57 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.

He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.

Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.

Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.

The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.

Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.

Saddam Hussein. � Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.

Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.

Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.

In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.

Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.

The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.

I doubt anyone will listen for the reasons you listed. Everything you said is true and I agree wholeheartedly.

When I first came to this board, it was about the issues. There was no name-calling or nastiness, but as the election went on, it got really nasty. Links were posted so we could verify the information and/or come back with a retort. I came back after the election hoping that was all over with and was confronted with messages that were even WORSE than before the election. Like you said, there are no discussions on the issues. There aren't any links to verify anything. It's nothing but rumors and inuendos and O worshipping.

I've said it many times and it always falls on deaf ears. I see some are even on the gab board now about taking off work tomorrow for the inauguration. Lose money just to see "one of the most historical moments in history"? Not me. I've had it up to here with all of it. I've never seen an election where they had so many "historical" items for sale either. It's not the serious ceremony it should be this year. It's more like a circus or parade.

Sure, I wish him luck. He's really going to need it, but I doubt he can pull it off. There's going to be a lot of disappointed people in this country in a year or two.

Regardless of who 'WINS' in November, we ALL win in January when we get to watch that crook leave OUR WhiteHouse...

History will show he was the all time worst, and that Americans, the American media, and the Congress ALLOWED him to trash our Constitution and raid our treasury to pay for fake wars for 8 years. We are all responsible.

how do you know no one has anyone serving over there. You have no way of knowing that.

Eligible Applicants

Agency Name

Description

Link to Full Announcement

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

Okay, let's have Mrs. Palin on the interview shows. I want to see her interviewed by Bob Shieffer, Mat Lauer, Andrea Mitchell, George Stephanopoulous, Meet the Press, etc. We saw that she can really deliver a written speech well. I want to hear her personal views on foreign affairs and improving the economy. She has experience in Alaskan news, so I will expect a camera-ready, polished performance.

Let's say for the sake of argument that he is Muslim. With this in mind, he would be going to a christian church, all the while faking having the christian belief. So when Rev. Wright gets up and preaches, I can assume that since Obama is supposedly a Muslim and not a christian, that he would not believe what is being preached. If Obama is not influenced by what is preached in this church, then what's the big deal about Rev Wright and the supposedly big impact he had on Obama?

all plays out. As for McCain being incontinent, I did not know that until you said so. That's a shame.

Seems like each time a president leaves office everyone "hems and haws" at the list of people they pardon (especially those who dislike whatever president is leaving office). Every exiting president has had their list of people who should never have received pardons. Some yes, like first time offenders, people arrested for mairjuana, or caught turning back odometers, etc).

Maybe you should have also posted the list of people Clinton pardoned. All you said was "he pardoned some nice ones too". You make it sound like GW is pardoning hardened criminal while BC only pardoned some people who did petty crimes. Even though you didn't say that, by saying "he pardoned some nice ones too" it takes away from the seriousness of the people he did pardon. But since you didn't post Clinton's pardons I will. Now before anyone throws a fit because I know a lot of you think Clinton is the best thing since sliced bread, I'm just posting to show that he pardoned as many creeps as Bush is. (BTW - I didn't, have never, and do not support Bush - can't stand the guy, but at let's try to keep it honest here). Oh and my favorites are the money launderers, income tax evaders, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the government, issuing worthless checks, bank fraud, etc - all those things that helped to start bringing our economy down). Those and Roger Clinton, Marc Rich, and Susan McDougal, I did notice how he pardoned a lot of people who lied, but then again that was Clinton's whole 8 years in office - one lie after another, so doesn't surprise me he pardoned people who lied under oath.

You said something in regards to food stamps...look at #22 on Clintons list - Unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps. I found an interesting article called "10 Heated Presidential Pardons" that goes back to George Washington. I'll post the link. All I'm saying here is that each president throughout our history has pardoned some pretty bad people that should not be pardoned. GW is no different and no more worse than any of the previous. Here's the article - an interesting read.

That's good. Lets all stand up and applaud Bush & Co. for decreasing the 427 billion

IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)

Eligible Applicants

Agency Name

Description

Link to Full Announcement

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

[edit] Pardons

[edit] Commutations