There's a huge difference between this and Ukraine. You see, throughout my career I've sailed a lot of countries, but without a shadow of a doubt the United States of America is the greatest one of all. See, we have fought to make this the land of the free and the home of the brave, and of those freedoms is the freedom of speech. The right to state your opinion, but as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes everybody has one. Even a master debater like yourself. You see we as a country didn't start this this thing. Terrorists started this, terrorism started this when they hijacked planes and flew em into buildings on 911. Terrorism started this and Iraq was known to harbor, finance, support, and even train terrorism. They started it, terrorism started it. Not us. Terrorism drew first blood on 911and we need to get even and finish it.

TL;DR; “Yes”

But the bottom line is there were thousands of Americans, men and women who fought for our freedom make the ultimate sacrifice. They're the real heroes, and I support them, so you, the Dixie Chicks, all those Hollywood numbnuts, that don't support our troops can go straight to hell... Or France, same difference. Just don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, because we ain't gonna miss ya.

Cenas delicate little psyche has finally gone full 2003 republican. Gonna start eating freedom fries from now on?

That government indoctrination routine is really effective.



Also American soldiers are war criminals and only defend the interests of American mega corporations. The afghani goat herders you murdered indiscriminately were never a threat to America.

Looks like references went over your unsophisticated head. My replies were based off the Scott Steiner/Chris Nowinski debate.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m4f1r

Wait, are you doing a sarcastic act or are you really a dumb jingo republican again, telling us we’re unsophisticated sheeple?

This is one of those times I’m glad I didn’t get the reference.

“Bush wrote a memo, sent a copy to the UN, and no one at the UN said anything, so he can’t be persecuted for war crimes under multiple international laws”

Is the most horseshit American excuse for protecting themselves from international persecutions.

SolRo, child, what I am saying is not that I agree with not prosecuting his ass -- throw his ass, dick cheney, rumsfeld, and probably 100 other underlings of his who perpetrated the deaths of hundreds of thousands in jail or execute them for all I care and is exactly what I want -- but the one governing body that could have done that or could do that, agreed not to do it out of a mutual dislike for Saddam Hussein. That's the history, not that this is some excuse being actively made now -- the authority that could have done something about it chose not to because they were on Bush's side. That's the point here. Did you read any of the articles I helpfully linked? This is not about Americans excusing themselves, this is about the Americans being excused.

So what you’re saying is that western countries won’t prosecute one another for war crimes out of political preference and no other reason.

Took you a while to admit that. Good boy!

The Nuremberg Trials did not have a basis in established law. We just made it up. What prevents doing that for Bush is that there's no will and power to do so. The DOJ isn't going to (even under Obama, lol) and the US has enough clout and power that no one is try getting him in the Hague. In international relations, at least, justice is the preference of the strong.

Also, you're misreading the timeline.
"On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after the attacks, a U.N. High Commissioner issued this brief letter reminding his host country of the "non-derogable nature" of its obligation to the Geneva Convention against Torture. The UN wrote:

The Committee against Torture is confident that whatever responses to the threat of international terrorism are adopted by State parties, such responses will be in conformity with the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention against Torture." -Atlantic article

"This prompted Gonzales to write a memo, on January 25, 2002, that is still chilling to read. In it, he argued that the War on Terror required new interpretations of old rules. He wrote: "This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges." -Atlantic article

That letter couldn't have been endorsing the memo because the memo was written afterwards. And it was reminding the US of their responsibilities, not excusing them from it.

There's no legal reason the ICJ couldn't prosecute Bush et al. Or that the DOJ couldn't do it. They violated ratified treaties and US law. The Gonzales memo is just one guy's half-assed interpretation for why that's ok, it's not legally binding.

I think I misread you! Sorry. I don't think you were mistaken about the timeline, I just saw the UN thing in the Atlantic article and thought that's what you were talking about.

HOWEVER

the text ""As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

is from a presidential declaration by Bush endorsing the memo.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.02.07.pdf

Where did anyone from the UN endorse the Bush administration's skewed interpretation of the Geneva Convention? I cannot find this anywhere. Articles such as https://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/justice-after-bush/
do not mention it.

I was also confused about the ICJ/ICC. The ICC is more for like treaty disputes. The ICC handles war crimes. Bush et al. can't be prosecuted there because we never signed the ICC treaty, so that we can't be prosecuted for war crimes. Smart move on our part, considering all the war crimes.

God. "The ICJ is more for like treaty disputes."