General Discussion

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)

81. A magisterial response to my late-night fantasy. As perhaps a historical

Mon Jul 29, 2013, 09:12 AM

Jul 2013

curiosity, I thought you might be interested in the only war crimes tribunal thus far to reach a verdict on Bush and Blair:

In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.[7][8][9]

In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.[10] The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.[11]

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

Not sure whether this is an outlying relic or a harbinger. I prefer the latter, even if acknowledging the probable truth of your final sentence.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] anobserver2 Jul 2013 OP

de jure, no; de facto, yes. nt delrem Jul 2013 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #7

First answer is the correct answer. nt means no text, there's nothing in the body of the reply. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #18

nt or n/t = "no text". nt heh delrem Jul 2013 #20

What does 'nt heh' mean? :) - nt (heh :) HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #73

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #13

No, he not going to be arrested. former9thward Jul 2013 #19

I don't think so, I think so, and there's no fucking way tularetom Jul 2013 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #5

I mean no matter WTF he's guilty of, THIS administration won't do squat about it tularetom Jul 2013 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #16

perhaps he'll partake in some med maryjane elehhhhna Jul 2013 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #9

I guess that's what I mean tularetom Jul 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #17

POTUS like any other LEO had limited personal immunity Recursion Jul 2013 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #6

I was taking about what he did while President Recursion Jul 2013 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #10

Well, he's rich and famous Recursion Jul 2013 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #14

G H W Bush is the only ex-President, who reads the daily briefings iemitsu Jul 2013 #51

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #52

You have my compassion and goodwill in your fight against the powerful Bush Crime Family. iemitsu Jul 2013 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #54

Yep, I am for the "equal justice for all" policy that we so often iemitsu Jul 2013 #60

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #61

Sounds like they have really given you the run-a-round. iemitsu Jul 2013 #66

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #69

Thanks for the link to the evidence. iemitsu Jul 2013 #77

when the director of the cia becomes president, it can't be good spanone Jul 2013 #68

You got that one right, iemitsu Jul 2013 #70

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #71

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #74

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #76

It is very unlikely that a former president of the USA would ever face criminal prosecution. branford Jul 2013 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #22

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to state. branford Jul 2013 #31

As long as he was not given a blanket pardon for acts in office, yes to both. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #24

After Democrats took control of the House in 2006, talk about impeachment and investigations shrunk Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #25

I think the "anyone" is an enormous overreach. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #29

Probably got a secret pardon already elehhhhna Jul 2013 #50

Bill Clinton could not give Bush a pardon because he was not in office Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #56

I think there is a reluctance to do this for fear we'll end up being a country pnwmom Jul 2013 #28

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #30

You don't think we'd have bogus prosecutions? pnwmom Jul 2013 #37

I very much agree. branford Jul 2013 #32

Welcome to DU, branford! n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #35

Thank you. branford Jul 2013 #40

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #36

I am in no way stating that politicians are immune to criminal prosecution. branford Jul 2013 #39

GWB and Cheney should be investigated, indicted and tried for war crimes and HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #75

You may be right. branford Jul 2013 #78

Thank you for your balanced and civil tone. With reference to your second paragraph, the HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #79

You raise many substantive and relevant points. branford Jul 2013 #80

A magisterial response to my late-night fantasy. As perhaps a historical HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #81

Interesting. branford Jul 2013 #82

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #38

You Nixon reference fails to address the OP or our discussion. branford Jul 2013 #41

1) There is a 5-year statute of limitations. 2) He has and has had de facto immunity from Obama. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #33

I've asked this before and I'll ask again... brooklynite Jul 2013 #34

You say that "no elected official" called for Bush's impeachment? Do you remember this guy? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #44

Huh???? branford Jul 2013 #45

I stand corrected --- and you've made my point brooklynite Jul 2013 #47

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) was one. It would be necessary to use Google to find others. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #49

Thank you for remembering this. nt LWolf Jul 2013 #57

Amen. Thank you. branford Jul 2013 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #46

I checked out your blog rusty fender Jul 2013 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #58

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #59

I hear you rusty fender Jul 2013 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #63

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jul 2013 #65

The Florida Bar Associate Cannot Indict Anyone branford Jul 2013 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Aug 2013 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Sep 2013 #84

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Sep 2013 #85

This message was self-deleted by its author anobserver2 Jun 2014 #86