Bush and Whitehouse staff to get war crimes immunity!!!

Teki187 · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:27

President Bush Passes a Bill giving himself and his whitehouse retroactive immunity for possible war crimes!

Source - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

Does he feel the guilt i wonder.

Dolph · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:30

Have you got a source for the full bill, news clips don't tend to give anything approaching the full details.

Muffin` · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:30

Dolph said:
Have you got a source for the full bill, news clips don't tend to give anything approaching the full details.

^

Teki187 · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:31

Muffin` said:
^

Looking now, just got it from youtube.

Tefal · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:31

if that's true that's a pretty screwed up legal system...

platypus · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:33

Tefal said:
if that's true that's a pretty screwed up legal system...

Given the American legal system it's about what I'd expect. Will wait for full details before I jump on the bashing bandwagon though.

badbob · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:33

Teki187 said:
Does he feel the guilt i wonder.

Nah, much like a rapist doesn't feel anything towards the vicctim. He just doesn't want to get banged up.

Teki187 · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:34

Ok media is removing the links now.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref23b.html

That used to be the link, now it just links to the index page.

Dolph · 22 Jan 2008 at 10:40

My skepticism is rising...

Helium_Junkie · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:03

hehe, class...

Surfer · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:06

doesnt give much details in The Guardian article

Dolph · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:10

Teki187 said:
P
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0923-22.htm

Op-ed piece posted on a self-confessed "internet activist" website.

http://justicelibraries.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-seeks-immunity-for-violating-war.html

Blog, and same op-ed article as before.

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=nethercutt

Not the same issue at all, hence irrelevant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,975476,00.html

Does he feel the guilt i wonder.

Same as above, this does not refer to the same issue as is under discussion.

Reputable news source links? Anywhere?

Teki187 · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:40

Dolph said:
Op-ed piece posted on a self-confessed "internet activist" website.

Blog, and same op-ed article as before.

Not the same issue at all, hence irrelevant.

Same as above, this does not refer to the same issue as is under discussion.

Reputable news source links? Anywhere?

Google isn't bringing anything up for me, i guess you'll have to use CNN as your reputable source.

Dolph · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:57

Teki187 said:
Google isn't bringing anything up for me, i guess you'll have to use CNN as your reputable source.

The link you've provided isn't CNN, it's a youtube video of a claimed CNN broadcast. If it was a video or written piece from the CNN site, that would be totally different.

miracleboy · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:09

He can pass laws under the US system, but surely he is still subject to international law. It would be the same as Milosevich or Saddam passing internal laws - would have no effect on the ability of the UN, or the Hague (have no idea who is responsible) to prosecute for war crimes. Although to date Israel seems to be pretty much immune - does it depend whether you sign up to the Geneva Convention or something?

Bill101 · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:17

As this is the country that took in and sheltered Klaus Barbie(and Von Browne )nothing suprises me

#Chri5# · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:46

Wouldn't surprise me.

Lookup last order of the CPA in Iraq (run by Paul Bremner) - Order 17.

semi-pro waster · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:53

miracleboy said:
He can pass laws under the US system, but surely he is still subject to international law. It would be the same as Milosevich or Saddam passing internal laws - would have no effect on the ability of the UN, or the Hague (have no idea who is responsible) to prosecute for war crimes. Although to date Israel seems to be pretty much immune - does it depend whether you sign up to the Geneva Convention or something?

As far as I'm aware the US isn't subject to the ICC since it hasn't signed up to it and it therefore has no juristiction over the US so while a court could find Bush et al guilty it would have to be in absentia unless they willingly surrendered themselves to the authority of the court.

The US doesn't allow it's soldiers to be prosecuted by the ICC because it claims it will deal with the matter(s) internally so I can't really see how refusing to let their leaders be subject to the courts authority would be all that different if it were true.

Iraklis F.C. · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:57

^^ isnt the former minister of defence already involved in legal cases?

Vonhelmet · 22 Jan 2008 at 12:59

OK, surely I'm not the only one who saw Winehouse and wondered what Amy had done wrong now.