Amnesty International Wants Bush Prosecuted for Admitted...

The US is a signatory of that international law. Piracy is also against international law. If Somalia refused to sign on to it, should other countries who've been victimized by Somali pirates be unable to prosecute them if Somalia doesn't? If you formally agree to abide by a law, you can't slide out on the excuse that you had a good reason. "Good reasons" are easy to come by where the breaking of the law is concerned. By the logic I'm hearing here, we had no right to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan (al Queda, after all, felt like they had a perfectly good reason to launch terrorist attacks on 9-11) when that country refused to do anything about him.

Sometimes I have to laugh or at least shake my head when I see how many "law-abiding citizens" are trying to shrink the sphere of laws they don't agree with right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't like a federal law? States' rights! Don't like a state law? County rights! We can regress to those thrilling days of fiefdom or, hey - anarchy is always good. The fact of the matter is that there are always going to be people who don't agree with laws but that doesn't mean you can opt out of them without repercussions.

appleannie wrote: The US is a signatory of that international law. Piracy is also against international law. If Somalia refused to sign on to it, should other countries who've been victimized by Somali pirates be unable to prosecute them if Somalia doesn't? If you formally agree to abide by a law, you can't slide out on the excuse that you had a good reason. "Good reasons" are easy to come by where the breaking of the law is concerned. By the logic I'm hearing here, we had no right to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan (al Queda, after all, felt like they had a perfectly good reason to launch terrorist attacks on 9-11) when that country refused to do anything about him.

Sometimes I have to laugh or at least shake my head when I see how many "law-abiding citizens" are trying to shrink the sphere of laws they don't agree with right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't like a federal law? States' rights! Don't like a state law? County rights! We can regress to those thrilling days of fiefdom or, hey - anarchy is always good. The fact of the matter is that there are always going to be people who don't agree with laws but that doesn't mean you can opt out of them without repercussions.

...and your point? What's your position on waterboarding...your position seems to be on the fence, like a good liberatarian.

Nmysys wrote: For what? The same things that Clinton did? At least he wasn't getting a BJ with his fingers inches from the red button to start WWIII. At least he didn't lie to the American people.

He kept you and your family safe for 7 1/2 years and called terrorist acts, Terrorist Acts, instead of some PC words that mean nothing.

Oh I know, he wasn't a Democrat. Blame Bush for everything.

Does comparing despicable men to despicable men make one of them a wonderful man? That seems to be your logic and it does not hold water.
The wrongdoings of one man does not make the wrongdoings of another acceptable or less wrong.
Surely, we teach our children to think more logically and clearly than that.

major bean wrote: Does comparing despicable men to despicable men make one of them a wonderful man? That seems to be your logic and it does not hold water.
The wrongdoings of one man does not make the wrongdoings of another acceptable or less wrong.
Surely, we teach our children to think more logically and clearly than that.

Doesn't two negatives make a positive? Where's SC when we need her?

Hold on SC, maybe Major Bean has solved the problem of America.

-Obama + -Biden = Zero . Got it.

-Pelosi + -Reid = Socialist Healthcare Program Roger that.

-Frank + Dodd Barney Frank Boyfriend + Franklin Raines

---

X

---

Divided by
Wall Street Investment Bankers + Main Street Banks Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae / Liar Loans ^100

Treasury Bills Bought by China

---

= Housing Bubble
-Frank + -Dodd

residenttroll, it appears that the serious crimes of Bush against the world are a hoot to you. Our moral foundation should keep us from laughing while discussing the horrors during the Bush/Cheney era and we should be able to logically determine the realities of what happened in a sober atmosphere.

major bean wrote: residenttroll, it appears that the serious crimes of Bush against the world are a hoot to you. Our moral foundation should keep us from laughing while discussing the horrors during the Bush/Cheney era and we should be able to logically determine the realities of what happened in a sober atmosphere.

Give it a break...will you. How stupid is it that Americans are going around screaming and yelling our President and VP committed war crimes? Dropping atomic weapons on Japan was a war crime too - but 50 years later we know it was the right thing to do.

I don't like war and I too am fatigue over 9 years of war...and the only skin I have in the game is the money I earn to pay for it. It's time to unleash a fury of hell on Afghanistan or get the heck out.

residenttroll wrote:

appleannie wrote: The US is a signatory of that international law. Piracy is also against international law. If Somalia refused to sign on to it, should other countries who've been victimized by Somali pirates be unable to prosecute them if Somalia doesn't? If you formally agree to abide by a law, you can't slide out on the excuse that you had a good reason. "Good reasons" are easy to come by where the breaking of the law is concerned. By the logic I'm hearing here, we had no right to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan (al Queda, after all, felt like they had a perfectly good reason to launch terrorist attacks on 9-11) when that country refused to do anything about him.

Sometimes I have to laugh or at least shake my head when I see how many "law-abiding citizens" are trying to shrink the sphere of laws they don't agree with right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't like a federal law? States' rights! Don't like a state law? County rights! We can regress to those thrilling days of fiefdom or, hey - anarchy is always good. The fact of the matter is that there are always going to be people who don't agree with laws but that doesn't mean you can opt out of them without repercussions.

...and your point? What's your position on waterboarding...your position seems to be on the fence, like a good liberatarian.

Why would you even ask? I thought it was clear - my position is it's illegal under international law and we are bound by it as well as anyone else who signed the law is bound by it.

International law or international treaty?

Amnesty International is an advocacy group, they have no power whatsoever, all they can do is issue press releases, post to websites, and stage protests. Who gives a crap what AI wants?

Grady wrote: Amnesty International is an advocacy group, they have no power whatsoever, all they can do is issue press releases, post to websites, and stage protests. Who gives a crap what AI wants?

Exactly! The problem is that some whacky libtard newsperson will make it front page news and some libtard professor or teacher will discuss it the students without the same preface you gave the organization.