How can people can Cheney call a war criminal

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and hundreds of congress members agreed with him, in fact lets pull up some of their quotes up:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Not a member of congress but major player in the democratic party

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

and on and on. Were they not selling the war as well?

A Hillary Clinton quote, how.....convenient.

We now all know now that most of the above turned out to be false.

Congress, dem and repub alike thought they were getting valid information. Much has changed and Im sure this topic has been hashed and rehashed. If you still believe that the intelligence congress recieved was the real McCoy then you must be living in a bubble. Never in the history of this country have we stooped so low and for those that embroiled this country in the mess we now find ourselves, they need to be held accountable and prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. We must guarantee ourselves as a nation that we do not put men into power that think because they are president, they have free rein over this country and the world without fear of retribution. If you are not just as concerned then you will help to guide this country to authoritarian rule and when you get your toes stepped on their will be no recourse.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what exactly did he lie about?

Intelligence ... WMD's. He fabricated intelligence via the Pentagon "special cabinet" (as they called it), it was a ThinkTank inducted into the Pentagon walls to suit his own ends. It was very machiavellian, and he did it shamelessly.

YouTube - Think-Tanks and The Bush Doctrine
YouTube - Fabricated Intelligence

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I know next to nothing about war law, what is legal and what isnt, but Im pretty sure a pre-emptive stike under false pretenses just might qualify especially when the casualty count it taken into consideration. Cheney is 2nd in command in leadership of this country and was very much involved in the decision making process.

Care Salesman,,, please JaJa, that remark was standard 8th grade bullshit.

In order for someone to be a criminal they must first break the law. What law did he break?

Promoting a war you disagree with or telling a one sided story doesn't make him a criminal.

You have to break a law in order to be a criminal.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In order for someone to be a criminal they must first break the law. What law did he break?

Promoting a war you disagree with or telling a one sided story doesn't make him a criminal.

You have to break a law in order to be a criminal.

There have been 2,942 coalition deaths, 2,711 Americans, two Australians, 117 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, five Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Romanians, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of September 29, 2006, according to a CNN count.

Many of these deaths occurred because proud Americans signed up to fight the WOT. They were willing to sacrifice and die to protect this country and eliminate those who attacked our homeland. But because of lies told by Cheney in order to garner support to send these very volunteers to Iraq, most have died at the hands of rebels fighting because their country had been invaded. They werent killed nor were they killing Terrorists. Dick Cheney's lies have caused the death and mutilation of 1,000's of innocent human beings. Dick Cheney's lies has now created the very Iraq he justified this war for.

You dont think this is a crime?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

There have been 2,942 coalition deaths, 2,711 Americans, two Australians, 117 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, five Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Romanians, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of September 29, 2006, according to a CNN count.

Many of these deaths occurred because proud Americans signed up to fight the WOT. They were willing to sacrifice and die to protect this country and eliminate those who attacked our homeland. But because of lies told by Cheney in order to garner support to send these very volunteers to Iraq, most have died at the hands of rebels fighting because their country had been invaded. They werent killed nor were they killing Terrorists. Dick Cheney's lies have caused the death and mutilation of 1,000's of innocent human beings. Dick Cheney's lies has now created the very Iraq he justified this war for.

You dont think this is a crime?

No, your perception of lies and emotional use of deaths doesn't make a man a war criminal.

[motivez]

The entire Administration is guilty of war crimes because of torture, now that it's "official official" policy, rather than "hidden and secret, but official" policy.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

The entire Administration is guilty of war crimes because of torture, now that it's "official official" policy, rather than "hidden and secret, but official" policy.

The administration now? You have to name names and name the law that they specifically broke.

We're three pages in of calling people war criminals yet no person has been linked with a direct law that they broke which makes them a war criminal. Also, you're personal feelings doesn't make someone a criminal. I believe Michael Jackson rapes little boys, that doesn't make him a criminal.

[motivez]

I guess The Geneva Conventions don't ring a bell?

The entire Administration is complicit in torturing those we capture, or "designate" as enemy combatants and then torture, or send to our secret prisons in other countries to be tortured, or hell, ship to other countries to be tortured..

If someone in the Administration doesn't want to be complicit in the crime(s), they should turn in their resignations.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I guess The Geneva Conventions don't ring a bell?

The entire Administration is complicit in torturing those we capture, or "designate" as enemy combatants and then torture, or send to our secret prisons in other countries to be tortured, or hell, ship to other countries to be tortured..

If someone in the Administration doesn't want to be complicit in the crime(s), they should turn in their resignations.

When we start discussing Geneva Conventions we get into International Law and at this time the debate arises as to whether or not these people qualify for protections under the Geneva Conventions.

It's a pretty hard fight to say they do.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When we start discussing Geneva Conventions we get into International Law and at this time the debate arises as to whether or not these people qualify for protections under the Geneva Conventions.

It's a pretty hard fight to say they do.

It's really not hard at all. In fact, it's an easy debate to win. Watch, I'll win real quick:

The Supreme Court said they do.

End of debate.

See, wasn't so bad.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's really not hard at all. In fact, it's an easy debate to win. Watch, I'll win real quick:

The Supreme Court said they do.

End of debate.

See, wasn't so bad.

There's a difference. The Supreme Court ruling is from now on. Before the ruling, there was no law in place. It's like saying a principal who ran a segregated school was a criminal before the Supreme Court ruled against it.

Court rulings like this don't apply back in time.

The debate isn't that easy... You can't use the SCOTUS ruling as justification for previous "offenses."

So again, who broke what law? Has anyone broke the court ruling since? It doesn't work the way you want it to. And this is also why the detainee bill was presented. They need to interrogate and they need to know what they can and can't do.

Thankfully we don't live in a nation where liberals have wacked out our court system so greatly that you can make up new laws and go back in time and charge people with them. It's bad enough our court system is being used to make up liberal agenda laws. Surely you wouldn't stand for this as well?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I guess The Geneva Conventions don't ring a bell?

The entire Administration is complicit in torturing those we capture, or "designate" as enemy combatants and then torture, or send to our secret prisons in other countries to be tortured, or hell, ship to other countries to be tortured..

If someone in the Administration doesn't want to be complicit in the crime(s), they should turn in their resignations.

dick cheney had nothing to do with that bill

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

dick cheney had nothing to do with that bill

Doesn't matter. He's a part of the Administration.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's a difference. The Supreme Court ruling is from now on. Before the ruling, there was no law in place. It's like saying a principal who ran a segregated school was a criminal before the Supreme Court ruled against it.

Court rulings like this don't apply back in time.

The debate isn't that easy... You can't use the SCOTUS ruling as justification for previous "offenses."

So again, who broke what law? Has anyone broke the court ruling since? It doesn't work the way you want it to. And this is also why the detainee bill was presented. They need to interrogate and they need to know what they can and can't do.

Thankfully we don't live in a nation where liberals have wacked out our court system so greatly that you can make up new laws and go back in time and charge people with them. It's bad enough our court system is being used to make up liberal agenda laws. Surely you wouldn't stand for this as well?

Like I said earlier, every time you post information lately on this subject it makes less and less sense to anyone who's followed what's been going on..

Honestly, blaming liberals for this and that is completely pointless to the discussion and is simply a red herring tying to divert attention away from the fact that your argument makes no sense and is completely basless.

The Supreme Court only clarified that they had Geneva Convention protections, it was already on the books and already a law, the Administration simply disputed it and said they had the inherint authority to do this and that, and then went on ahead and did it before being proven wrong.

We still have laws on the books against torture. The Army Field Manual, the McCain bill that passed, etc.. and the fact that we've been sending people to secret prisons, torturing them, denying American citizens due process rights, etc, etc.. is already illegal.

Thus, your analogy is flawed because what was going on at the time as far as segregation was status quo. Torture has never been a status quo for this nation and we again, already have laws against it. Torture violates the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War, McCain's bill, etc, etc, not to mention basic American principles.

It is as easy as that whether or not you want to admit it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said earlier, every time you post information lately on this subject it makes less and less sense to anyone who's followed what's been going on..

Honestly, blaming liberals for this and that is completely pointless to the discussion and is simply a red herring tying to divert attention away from the fact that your argument makes no sense and is completely basless.

The Supreme Court only clarified that they had Geneva Convention protections, it was already on the books and already a law, the Administration simply disputed it and said they had the inherint authority to do this and that, and then went on ahead and did it before being proven wrong.

We still have laws on the books against torture. The Army Field Manual, the McCain bill that passed, etc.. and the fact that we've been sending people to secret prisons, torturing them, denying American citizens due process rights, etc, etc.. is already illegal.

Thus, your analogy is flawed because what was going on at the time as far as segregation was status quo. Torture has never been a status quo for this nation and we again, already have laws against it. Torture violates the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War, McCain's bill, etc, etc, not to mention basic American principles.

It is as easy as that whether or not you want to admit it.

I didn't mean to intend as if I was blaming liberals. This was pushed by the GOP and was backed by the GOP. It's GOP legislation. I'm just trying to connect the dots. This legislation never would have had a need or a desire to have been brought up if the history wasn't involved.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Doesn't matter. He's a part of the Administration.

so everyone that is part of the executive branch of government is a war criminal?

[KatKanPlay]

3 pages of posts and no one can point to a specific law that labels Cheney as a war criminal. I have searched and I cant find any evidence that Cheney is a war criminal.

He did however play a tremendous role in convincing the American people to stand behind and support this war. War criminal, maybe not, but I do believe he committed a crime against the American people and this country. Whether he will ever be held accountable, who knows. I can only hope.

[motivez]

I already pointed it out. The Geneva Conventions, and the McCain bill against torture.

@ king: yes. If they are complicit in actions that go against the law, and that includes providing support to people who break the law, yes, they're just as guilty.

Just as a "get away driver" would be complicit in the murder of someone for a convienence store gone awry, this is no different.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

A Hillary Clinton quote, how..