FLAME WARNING.
What the hell country is this? Should we just get rid of the court system and go back to public lynching? What is the standard for this crap now? Does it mean that if the MSM convicts you of a crime then the courts must make reality match what some pundit claims to be the truth? That's complete crap. You all have convicted people through mob justice before the truth or even a half-truth is known.
Lets start this off at the beginning and ain't a one of you going to like the whole thing.
Can anyone explain to me how Bush is guilty of war crimes? Can anyone show me a shred of realistic evidence that proves he is an evil Bushitler that put out an order to specifically torture prisoners? Better yet, just prove he engineered the evidence for war. You can't can you? You've had your head so far up the ass of what some guy told you was the truth that you followed along like a perfect little lemming. You don't get an opinion. You sold your opinion for some magic beans and no beanstalk ever came. Shut your cake eater and wait for the evidence, cause you ain't got it yet.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
Michael Schiavo is the most evil person on the planet for what he did to that poor, poor woman. He beat her up and put her in the hospice with the sole purpose of murdering her. Really? Did you ever cross correlate a few of your empirical facts of the case? Ever notice that the seven-year mark, the year Michael did the switch on euthanasia was the same year it was legalized down in Florida? To be fair I should also point out that Michael stated several times to several people, "I had no idea" what she would want in a situation like this. No one EVER got all the facts in that case and no one probably ever will. Call it an activist judge if you want. I'll call it a tough decision where NO ONE comes out ahead.
Lets go back a few years to O.J. Simpson. Did the glove fit? Did it matter? He was tried and convicted of murder by the media before he ever set foot inside his Bronco. Go ahead and explain how all of the evidence was mounted against him and how he's guilty as sin because you saw ALL the evidence on national television, direct to you from CNN. A court made a decision. They called him innocent. Was he? I don't know. You don't know either. You just THINK you know. You weren't one of the jurors in the case. Neither was I. All we have are the bits and pieces that Ted Coppell fed us. We ain't got jack.
Robert Blake's wife, to hear many people call it, was the biggest witch spelled with a B that the world has ever known. I guess that means Blake did it. He's a murderer because he didn't like his wife. He's a murderer because he was in the area. It’s funny that there was no witness that saw the shooting. Wouldn't it be sort of a gaping hole? All right, lets do the math here. Blake is at a restaurant. He steps out onto a sidewalk in broad daylight. He caps his wife. he then walks calmly over to a dumpster and drops off his gun. No one saw a damn thing. No witnesses at a popular restaurant in the middle of the day. Maybe there weren't? How would I know? Was I there? Were you there? You don't know for a fact one-way or the other. Shawn Hannity does though! He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Robert Blake is a cold-blooded murderer, and people believe him.
Now lets look at the most recent public lynching, Michael Jackson. Quite frankly, this guy has never had a normal life. He grew up with stardom and as a result never fully grew up in the head. He's had two wives. I'd be willing to bet he's even had sex with either one or both of them. He has two children that he loves and tries to keep out of the media spotlight. He has a pet chimp named bubbles. It's not a dog, but hey, there's a lot of people out there with snakes and tigers and all manner of animal. A chimp? That isn’t weird. That's just wealthy.
One of Michael Jackson's big charity deals is the time he spends with terminally ill children. He lets pre-teen children sleep in his bed...while he sleeps on the couch...or so he says. Doesn't his being a weirdo make him a pedophile? Because he's around young children he has to be diddling them, right? Well, maybe just to little boys. It doesn't matter that a jury found him not guilty of ten separate charges. They were just stupid people. What could they know? They didn't have the help of the media pundits to guide their minds. They had to rely on the facts of the case. They couldn't possibly make an educated decision by hearing the direct testimony without the media filter put on. Or could they?
It's the court's fault he got off. The system is corrupt. It's unconstitutional. It's a liberal/conservative activist judge. They jury was bought off. The prosecutor was a failure. Insert lame excuse for why the guy you thought was guilty went free here.
Is this sinking through for anybody? The media does not give you "the whole truth and nothing but the truth". They give you mob justice. They impress upon you their views and beliefs and many of you suck it up with a straw. Am I telling you that Michael Jackson isn't a pedophile? Am I saying that Robert Blake is innocent? Am I saying Bush didn't manipulate the truth? NO! I'm saying that you do not have enough information to cast your eternal judgment on any of these people, with or without the help of Chris Matthews.
Posted by aakaakaak at June 15, 2005 01:31 AMImpressive post Jeremy. You are right. We seldom get the truth. It is generally twisted and warped in one way or another.
My Mom always said "don't believe everything you hear, and only half of what you see,"
The older I get the truer this becomes!
Damn Straight.
Posted by: General Havok at June 15, 2005 11:52 AM"Can anyone explain to me how Bush is guilty of war crimes?"
Allow me to retort in less than 5,000 characters.
The crime of aggression http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm#aggression
War crimes http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm#war
Crimes against humanity http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm#humanity
FORMER NUREMBERG WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR DECLARES THAT AGGRESSIVE WAR IS NOT A NATIONAL RIGHT BUT AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME 16 June 1998
http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom8.htm
Google "Geneva Conventions of 1949"
United States Code> TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE> PART I - CRIMES> CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES Sec. 2441. War crimes.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C118.txt
http://caseagainstbush.blogspot.com/2005/06/legal-grounds-for-impeachment-of.html
Legal Grounds for the Impeachment of George W Bush and Dick Cheney
George W Bush and members of his administration often like to cite the "rule of law" as long as that rule is being applied to someone other than themselves. If Bush were held to the rule of law he and his administration would be impeached and tried as war criminals.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." - United States Constitution Article. II. Section. 4.
United States Code> TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE> PART I - CRIMES>
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
CHAPTER 21 - CONTEMPTS
CHAPTER 29 - ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
CHAPTER 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 49 - FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE
CHAPTER 51 - HOMICIDE
CHAPTER 55 - KIDNAPPING
CHAPTER 65 - MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
CHAPTER 77 - PEONAGE AND SLAVERY
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING
CHAPTER 95 - RACKETEERING
CHAPTER 109 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
CHAPTER 109A - SEXUAL ABUSE
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES
CHAPTER 212 - MILITARY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
http://www.caseagainstbush.com
Posted by: CaseAgainstBush.com at June 15, 2005 03:07 PMwell, lets switch this around a tad. the burden of proof falls on you to prove he is not a war criminal. you'll have a far harder time proving that, than i would he is a war criminal. life must be good as a BLIND patriot and sheeple.
Posted by: bushista at June 15, 2005 03:31 PM...and again another moonbat misses the point.
*sigh*
It's really nice that you can find the laws and everything, but what does your speculation have to do with fact? I have yet to see one of these items show fruit. Every one of these accusations have either been proven false or been unlinkable with anyone with any power.
Really funny that you can only take a select excerpt and ignore the major point of the entire article.
Posted by: Jeremy at June 15, 2005 06:58 PMHi there, CaseAgainst. I like your big, long comment there. Less than 5,000 characters? Certainly was. Vapid? That too. Inscrutable? Mostly.
Bulshista: Hunh? I'm still too inscruited by CaseAgainst's angst to finger you out just now. While I go get a beer, why don't you go find a logic and rhetoric textbook or website, and look under the chapter about the likelihood of anyone ever "proving a negative." And while you're at it, go sip some more Kool-Aid.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at June 15, 2005 07:05 PMIt does fascinate the Right-minded and sentient, doesn't it Jeremy? I bet you could have written this post on that recently discovered new aria by Bach, and our friendly Kool-Aid sippers would have grabbed the word "note" and extrapolated from it support for Bush's conservative, constructionist judicial nominations.
Not that there's anyting wrong with that.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at June 15, 2005 07:24 PMGod, I love it when you talk like that Warmonger!
Posted by: Housewife at June 15, 2005 07:29 PMCaseagainstreality copy and pasted "FORMER NUREMBERG WAR CRIMES PROSECUTOR"....so this guy makes international law that is binding on teh US government?
I don't think so.
The GC Does NOT apply to "unregulated militia"...do you understand that simple concept you cretinous bottom dweller?
War crimes are considered crimes against humanity and include things like genocide...do you have on SHRED of PROOF that ANYONE has been targeted for extermination by the administration except radical jihadists? (keep in mind you slime sucking DUmbass that jihadists are NOT a "protected class" by ANY stretch of imagination, as they CHOOSE to be jihadis, so it is also NOT racism.
Jeez you lefties are serious idiots.
And just because you write it in your little guano swamped hole of a blog doesn't make it correct, legal or even applicable.
Can you attempt to prosecute them for what you consider crimes?
No
Can you SHOW me where one thing they have doen is illegal???
NO!!!!
Do you actually have any DOCUMENTATION to back up your allegations???
Hell NO!!!
Show me the PROOF you slug.
Until then go pray to ST.FU
Bushista said "well, lets switch this around a tad. the burden of proof falls on you to prove he is not a war criminal. you'll have a far harder time proving that, than i would he is a war criminal. life must be good as a BLIND patriot and sheeple." ...
Excuse me?? We are going to a presumption of guilt now? Fine, I accuse you of stealing $1 from someone somewhere ... prove you didn't ... go on, prove it. Here is the problem - it is always easier to prove a positive, in fact it is generally considered impossible to prove a negative.
What I can prove is that 2 horribly oppressive regimes have been removed due to our President's course. Democracy is "breaking out" for the same reason. Deal with it.
... life must be good as a BLIND moonbat ...
/TJ
Wow -- how insightful of you...
Where were your high standards of proof during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq? Did you set out to prove for yourself through empirical study that Saddam was building a bomb or did you have your head up someone's ass?
I'm certainly NOT sticking up for Saddam, and I don't think bush should be tried for war crimes either, but any reasonable person would have to admit that there was no imminent danger from Iraq (draw your own conclusion on whether the failure to find WMDs was just an honest mistake) and the abuses at Abu Ghraib wasn't the work of a few 'bad apples'.
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
Posted by: CakeEater at June 16, 2005 08:54 PMThere were 22 reasons for the declaration of war in Iraq. ONE of them was nuclear wmd.
Saddam owned a rail gun. There is no question about that. We have that gun now. A rail gun's primary function is to calculate angles of impact for high velocity metals to create optimum impact. This is what is done in order to determine the angle of impact for implosion in a nuclear weapon, particularly one with smaller amounts of High enriched Uranium, which is what Saddam had been trying to obtain.
There IS an alternative purpose for a rail gun though. The Iraqis had been trying unsuccessfully to take down a U.S. plane in the no fly zone for many years. (This was one of the 22 items on the declaration of war.) The rail gun, if hooked up with any sort of capable guidance system, could have been used to take down U.S. and Allied planes in the no-fly zone. That would have been considered a violation of the 1991-2? cease fire agreement.
Why do I believe in this? Let me explain what an election is. Hell, I'll break it down for you.
When you vote you are casting your trust to one candidate or another. It's kinda like a national jury. America voted just recently as to the trustworthiness of his testimony. The majority believed him. End of story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Something I don't understand here. I put out one single hit to the bushitler group in comparison with about four controverted points against conservatives. I'm surprised its the bushitler fanatics that managed to latch on to a post that was supposed to be about not taking someone else's opinion as fact and make it AAB (All About Bush). Is there a quota for you guys or something?