Why wasn't Bush arrested?

1. 61

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   See what this horrible person is doing?
   
   http://www.voanews.com/content/george-b … 63615.html
   
   
   I thought he was supposed to be arrested if he left the country?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I thought he wouldn't leave the country?

      replyreport
   2. 75

      bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ok I might have missed something? But what did bush do AFTER his presidency that would get him arrested.
      
      BTW If you want to make this political, then why hasn't Obama been arrested for crimes against the constitution?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         brimancandyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Please. The constitution in this country has been used as an excuse by so many people, and has been re-examined more times then Disney tries to re-invent itself. Their is also a huge difference between the constitution and creating a pack of lies to justify and attack on an entire nation.
         
         You want to get angry with someone, go after these republican a-holes who want to set our civil rights back to the 1950s. Also the original constitution is a joke, as nothing from that era can be compared to the complex problems we have today, and it is constantly questioned. Obama isn't the first, and he wont be the last. Or do we forget the gun battles that have been going on since the Reagan years. Not to mention others.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am about to write a hub about the "lies". You might want to read it when I do. You will be wondering where all that really started.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               brimancandyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I have a feeling I already know. It's not that hard to figure it out.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Unless you have been following some of these other forums you have no idea.

                  replyreport
   3. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bush has had an international warrant extended for war crimes however only certain countries have accepted it, parts of Europe and South America for example are legally bound to deliver him to the international court.
      
      It's as simple as he obviously broke the Geneva convention when he knew of and allowed torture (and admitted it) so he is guilty of war crimes, there are other charges as well, of course most countries are too scared to anger the US by completing the arrest.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Depends where he goes.  I think if there was any chance he would go back to cheerleading instead of putting himself in harms way.  Although he can duck a fast shoe in a pinch.

      replyreport
2. 71

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   You don't seriously think an ex-President would actually get arrested, do you?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well I get this from some here who were crowing at one point about some small country who basically had a kangaroo court and convicted him in absentia.
      They insist he won't leave the country for fear being arrested and jailed.
      Their idea not mine but I found it amusing he was off doing humanitarian works....vampire that he is you know.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I wouldn't be surprised he would be convicted in some country's court. But, then again, I'm not a Bush supporter nor do I think he is honest in anyway.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh I only really voted for him because of the alternatives. I would give you my honest appraisal of them but I don't want to be banned. Let's just say not the sharpest crayons in the box.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               There hasn't been a true representative of the citizens since the inception of America.
               
               The original ideals of America were to be based on Equality and Equal rights. However, true competition has never been properly applied to America's Economy, which negates equality. And when America was formed, to get away from the British tyrannical regime, Equal rights were supposedly one of the main reasons outside of taxation.
               
               But, when you look at history- blacks were still slaves(and you could almost considering the workforce presently - slaves too) and women were not considered equal, but completely the opposite.

               replyreport
      2. 81

         Dr Billy Kiddposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ronmey and Ryan want to take away free sceening for cervicul cancer in the U.S., which is a part of the Affordable Care Act.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Many voted for Barack Obama with the certainty in their hearts that he, Being he, would have Bush and Cheney arrested and tried for "war crimes".
      There was much dismay now muted that he did not do so. Fact is he never intended to and as you say in this post would it ever happen? Not likely because of the precedent it would set.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And anyone willing to believe that is truly deluded. You don't seriously think Obama was going to do that, considering Bush was nothing more than a puppet, which he found out, shortly after he was elected himself.
         
         Obama ran on the change. That change was supposedly to break the "status quo" in America, but he has done nothing to break it. His actions actually point to supporting it. Should he be tried for Treason?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh yes i agree...
            
            But many on the far left...and I suspect one would have been Love My Chris...believed that Barack would serve justice for them just as they believed lot's of other delusional things about him.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not sure I understand what you are agreeing to. Sorry, sometimes I can be dense.
               
               I left a question, but I'm not sure you answered. The only reason I don't think you answered it is because I haven't answered the question myself.
               
               I'm still considering whether or not Obama should be impeached and tried for treason.
               Yeah, I know.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think right now if you tried to try him you would absolutely guarantee reelection.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Interesting thought. Re-electing him while attempting to impeach him and try him for treason...would really show off the willful ignorance going on in America right now.

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     KK Trainorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You would also guarantee being called a racist, whether you are or not. It would have been fine to try to prosecute Bush, but anything to do with Obama is racism and we all know it, right?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No one is saying that, it's a textbook straw man attack.

                        replyreport
      2. 60

         S Leretsehposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I was hoping when Obama assumed office he would have enough backbone to get to the bottom of 9-11.  It's pretty evident who was behind it.  All one has to do is google 9-11- Mossad.  Obama is the most clueless , uneducated simpleton to ever be elected president. I have no expectations anymore about him doing a damn thing while he's president.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            9-11.
            
            Tell me about 9-11.

            replyreport
      3. 75

         bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         He was afraid that if her tried a former president that he would to be tried after 4 years of his presidency.  What has he done that has helped this country?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am no Obama fan but obviously he has done things to help this country. More to the point he hs not broken the Geneva convention or international law (that I can think of maybe he has) so he could simply extend himself a Presidential pardon for any crimes he committed in the US. The point with Bush is he is being charged by the international court.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If that were true, that he was being tried, then would be all over the liberal news, they wouldn't leave it alone.  If you want to talk about war crimes, then maybe we should talk about Libia. 
               If I may ask a question: you are talking about Bush being brought up on charges.  1. We were asked to step in and help Kiwait. and 2. What would you have done as President on the morning of 9/11 and your Secret Service man came up to you and said "A plane flew into the WTC in New York?
               I'm sorry but beng brought up on charges because we are protecting the world...or at least trying. Makes no sense to try a guy for war crimes, when all we re trying to do is survive and fight back.
               As far as Obama is concerned, hes only caused turmoil in the country. He's not helped the recession but prolonged it by pushing the flawed Obamacare through, and in the process robbed Medicare by 500 million dollars.  I won't continue, but both have issues.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Friend....this crowd thinks WE perpetrated 9/11.

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No......you won't be able to tell them otherwise.

                  replyreport
               3. 60

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  What is this rubbish?
                  
                  if that were true? No it is true, their is an international warrant for charge against Bush that several countries have accepted.
                  
                  Libya was not a war crime it was a UN sanctioned action to support rebels.
                  
                  Kuwait has nothing to do with this incident.
                  
                  If someone had told me that a group of Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis funded by Iranians had attacked the WTC I would not have invaded Iraq but that is irrelevant to the point.
                  
                  Torture is not an acceptable or legal method for "fighting back", people who commit crimes and admit it need to be punished for it.
                  
                  As for the economy you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and as an economist the recession has nothing to do with "Obamacare" contemplate this, last year our economic growth was surpassed by near all the countries with public healthcare.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You misunderstand. This forum is an attempt to get those who want Bush arrested to justify and also explain why it hasn't happened.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Bush allowed torture and admitted it, that is an international war crime therefore he should face a fair trial in Geneva to determine his guilt.
               
               It hasn't happened because Bush has been cautious to avoid the countries that would arrest him and because most countries are too scared to risk angering the US.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well I am not talking about other countries. I am talking about in the US.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Those are the places willing to arrest Bush, no one in the American institution has the nerve to do it, and he has not broken US law but international law.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You know I am sure maybe some of those other nations have broken some international law as well.
                        One of the things Obama's leftist based counted upon was  the hanging of Bush and Cheney.
                        They feel slighted, this I know.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Obama should be tried for treason.  He's shredded the constitution, and now that Obamacare is "Law" tell me why? When the constitution states hat the government can not force the citizens to purchase anything from the government.  Obama is the worst president that this country has seen in recent history.

                           replyreport
   3. 60

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Definately your ex-president would get arrested in at least one autonomous region of Germany and in some other parts of Europe he is the subject of arrest on a warrant for war crimes - which make it a legal requirement for European countries to deliver him to the court.  There was a law in place that heads and ex-heads of state were immune from arrest etc - but you guys trashed that with the brutal executions of various heads of state in countries you invaded, illegally.  It is also a shame that the UK bears as our own traitor Blair was also complicit.

      replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   What happened to Love My Chris? I liked her.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately she was banned from the forums. I am afraid it may have been permanent. Not sure what brought that about. I miss her too. I am sure she thinks I'm lying.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         KK Trainorposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         She was probably banned because she was competely unreasonable and said horrible things to people. What's so wrong with being respectful in a discussion?

         replyreport
4. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   One of the few people on the left who knew what she was talking about. Have to respect that on either side.

   replyreport
5. 64

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   The real question behind any of Bush's moves is what does it hide? Which pharmaceutical company will benefit Bush's raising money campaign? After all the retro-viral medicine were not manufactured by African companies! Who will benefit?
   Given the high prices on minerals on the international market and the initiative of Zambia to grant licenses to exploit nickel, tin, copper and uranium..., is Bush presence a coincidence? Obviously not.
   For Bush it is business, as usual. And I understand why his low profile! It isn't hard to guess his agenda!

   replyreport
6. 61

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   If it was all so heinous and horrible......basically the left seems to place Bush above Hitler on the horrible list....it should be a snap to get a conviction on war crimes right here in the US with most likely the willing help of the UN.
   But it doesn't and has never happen despite the fact that Keith Olbermann believed he should be arrested at the Obama inauguration.
   
   Why not?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He isn't as bad as Hitler or any of that nonsense but he committed a war crime by allowing torture repeatedly it's a serious crime and he admitted it so there is no question of his guilt.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ok wait now..
         
         He actually said yes I am having people tortured? Those words...period?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president told a business audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "I'd do it again to save lives."
            
            The international courts have affirmed waterboarding is torture.
            
            So yeah he admitted it.
            
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju … mastermind

            replyreport
            1. 61

               JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Do you know how much intelligence was gained by that?
               How many people, Josak, do you want to see die just so a man doesn't feel like he's drowning even though he won't be drowning or actually take any harm from it?
               You have no idea, and neither do I, how that may have personally affected your life somehow.
               The problem is you think all that has stopped now......don't you?
               
               You are naive when it comes to the left my friend.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Firstly evidence gained from torture is usually unreliable and regularly gets people killed.
                  
                  Secondly you have obviously never been waterboarded. I had it done to me as an experiment and as someone who has been tortured by far more brutal methods I can tell you it was actually worse, it is also sometimes fatal and regularly causes heart attacks, something you will understand immediately if you try it.
                  
                  Thirdly we are not discussing the value of torture merely whether Bush broke international law, and he admitted to doing so, the law prohibits it, he did it therefore he should face trial. Simple.
                  
                  Fourthly did I say i believed it has stopped? I did not and if any evidence appears that it has not then I will be more than happy to have Obama tried too.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Considering as I have said most of the nations who would really love to try him are probably guilty of the same crime.
                     Of course there is still the matter of all the WMD intel going way back to Clinton....you know...that Bush was supposed to have lied about.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        he would be tried by the international courts in Geneva who have done no such thing, other nations are also guilty of certain crimes, some of them after the Geneva convention but that has nothing to do with this case. he did it too" is not a legal defense.
                        
                        The second thing is utterly irrelevant to this case.
                        
                        Bush admitted to torture, torture is a war crime and international crime, Bush should be tried and sentenced to the same punishment as extended to those who have committed torture because no one is above the law. Very simple.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           So why didn't Barack Obama and Eric Holder see to it?

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              #1 does it matter? He should be tried regardless.
                              
                              #2 I am guessing because it would be politically damaging but honestly I don't know, you would have to ask them.
                              
                              None of that changes his admitted guilt or the necessity for punishment for crimes.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Not sure how it would be politically damaging.....most of his base voted for him under the mistaken belief it would happen. Not the only thing they were mistaken about......
                                 
                                 It's the whole political game. You see if that happens to one president it opens the door for others to be tries like that. Like I said...you don't think Bush and the Republicans are the only ones do you?
                                 
                                 So basically all that about trying Bush and Cheney was started for political gain and all the WMD evidence which has been around for almost 20 years now was made up by who?????????

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    maybe that's why they didn't do it, none of that has anything to do with this case.

                                    replyreport
7. 71

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   He wasn't arrested because there's no official warrant to do so.
   
   The question is : At anytime during Bushs' Presidency did he act in a Treasonous manner? And, if you are attempting War Crimes against Bush, then you better be able to DAM the Nile River from flowing and bring so much forward(evidence) that there's no doubt at all.
   
   Otherwise, it's not happening.
   
   As for whether or not a past President could be accused of the same...well you would need to do the same thing I mentioned above with regards to arresting them.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There are official warrants out for his arrest in several different countries - and yes they would be implemented as they have the authority of the Hague behind them.
      
      However, he set all the precedents so maybe at  some point he will be whisked out of sight and interred in some other concentration and torure camp that is not Guantanemo,  or some drone will drop out of hte blue sky and dissapear him (totally illegally and in a country that has not declared war) in the fashion that he started.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently, the U.S. isn't recognizing them. Get it? Otherwise, hand him over.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The US isn't recognising most of the civilised international agreements and treaties in regard to torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, murder of innocent women and children by remote drone in places where somebody the US doesn't like just might be, HOWEVER  -  if anyone manages to get the war criminal Bush or Blair or Cheney to the Hague then what the US wants is no longer any concern.  The international courts will try them on the warrants issued and nothing the US can do about it.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well we should be hearing about this in the newspapers and in the UN shouldn't we? I wold think the international community would be actually working towards it.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The blatant illegal acts of past presidents and America has been going on for many years.  We love democracy but place dictators in charge of countries so we don't have to deal with it.  A little two faced I would say.
                  
                  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Th … ators.html

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You should be worrying about how the American / British press and news is not talking about it, it was big news in countries that do not censor out unpalatable stuff.   And as the UN has been so devalued through being pretty much bought or bullied into supporting America generally nothing much will happen there either,  however, as other non-ass-licking countries gain power it is to be hoped that the UN will become more united and less biased.  I still live in hope of seeing Bush Cheney and Blair sitting where the german war criminals sat, and sharing a cell with the other most recent war criminals from what was Yugoslavia.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow, you sound a bit bitter.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        bitter about how our media lie their faces off and omit anything against the interests of the small group of people who own you ?   or bitter about how many stupid people are so gullible ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Well I agree people are gulible, but Clinton knew about Alquida and didn't do a thing about it, I honestly don't think that Bush knew anything about it until 9/11.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Which would make him a complete idiot (spot on really) since the CIA had been keeping an eye on Alqaida since it's inception and even had some dealings with them as allies.

                              replyreport
                           2. 60

                              recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              So you really don't know anything about it all.  Al Qaeida was formed with training and funding from the US as the resistance in Afghanistan to Russian occupation.  So, unless you are saying that your security services don't tell your president what is happening around the place, every president 'knew' about them from 'lie in your face' tricky dicky to Bush. 
                              
                              Al Qaeida were based in Afghanistan, and after fighting the Russians to a standstill, they started to react to the US blatant attacks on Islamic countries, all before Bush junior, culminating in 9/11. 
                              So now why do you think the US immediately attacked Iraq - that had nothing to do with it and did not allow Al Qaeida into the country ?
                              Why did 'lie in your face' Bush directly lie to the American public backed by the traitor to the british people Blair ?  -  They were proven to have deliberately lied and yet the subsequent media lies and distortions have convinced many people that there were WMD when it was shown absolutely that there were none.

                              replyreport
8. 75

   bn9900posted 12 years ago

   JSC-It surprises me how dumb this generation is, always blaming the republicans,The same ones that want business to flurish so that we have jobs.  But I honestly believe that the democrats and  liberals are just lazy.  They want everything to be free and paid for by someone else, where as conservatives  save their money and give it out as they see fit. I may have looked this wrong, but it just sounded like another conservative bashing blog.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No you have to watch me because I sometimes play devil's advocate for the sake of conversation. Lots of them don't like it either.
      
      But in truth both mainstream parties are the problem. Two senators from each party berate each other all day long publicly and then you find them out in a D.C. restaurant at night hiving surf and turf together. It's the status quo and it hasn't changed because of Barack Obama.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well I've not seen any hope and Change from BO just alot of change.

         replyreport
9. 60

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   As a former president, he has secret service at his side...and more where they came from. The sitting president, no matter the party, wouldn't stand for it either. Wanna see people get real upset...arrest a former president on foreign soil. Diplomatic Incident in spades! We still carry a big stick...even if we have forgotten how to walk softly.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think he knows where he is welcome.  Besides with all that security that pesky shoe got a shot at him.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You are right about the screaming and stick waggling - however, the US depends on support from all those countries that it would have to deal with and would be powerless (if noisy). 
      Anyway I guess many poeple in many countries would prefer treating him as he has treated others, by getting some gang of scumbags to mock him spit on him hang him and then display his beaten body for photoshoots,  or waterboard him in some disgusting concentration camp or whatever

      replyreport
10. 76

    brimancandyposted 12 years ago

    Just one more comment. I agree that jailing a former president would be a very bad idea, on a foreign policy stand point. It would also give those that want to do harm to the US, huge ammunition to rally more people to their cause, using our war mongering president as their case to fight. Proof that he is guilty of war crimes can take them in any direction they choose to go.
    
    And, even if they do charge him with crimes, any sitting president can pardon him, and for the sake of the country probably would, no matter who it is. Or, do we forget the whole Iran Contra thing and Ronald Reagan. Not war crimes, but, pretty damn sneaky dealings, that killed a lot of people. There was a lot of sneaky crap going on under Reagan/Bush that Skipped Clinton, and just reignited under Bush JR. So, there are a lot more people involved than just Bush Junior. Cheney Too.
    
    A whole lot of people involved.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If he is tried by the international courts the US president has no power to pardon. Frankly I think all the presidents and major politicians who have committed war crimes and torture etc should face trial too, no one is above the law and I think it would be great for the country and the world at large for presidents to learn that.

       replyreport
11. 59

    Cody Hodgeposted 12 years ago

    So let me sum up what people are saying here....
    
    1) 9-11 wasn't perpetrated by us. That's crazy of course. However, Israel was the country that instigated the attack?
    
    2) Bush is a war hero
    
    3) Obamacare is to blame for the poor economy despite not even being fully implemented yet. It is also illegal despite the Supreme Court saying otherwise...

    replyreport
12. 59

    Cody Hodgeposted 12 years ago

    Just for fun....let's also put the whole "well Clinton used the same intelligence that Bush used to invade Iraq" to bed and to shame.
    
    Let's say I was suspected of having some sort of illegal drug in my home......
    
    Clinton basically decides that they are going to limit my movement while also targeting any ability to possibly produce more of this substance. Police officers are going to inspect my property to insure that I have none of the illegal substance.
    
    Bush still believes that I have the illegal substance in my house. I am a danger to my people and must be eliminated despite being no threat to his people.
    
    Police officers are again summoned to my home and nothing is found.
    
    Bush decides that isn't good enough and bulldozes my house and takes over my property despite having nothing that he claims I have
    
    See how that would be a little different?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You missed the whole point of my hub. It went right straight over your head.

       replyreport
13. 75

    bn9900posted 12 years ago

    Ok Josek, you think WE killed 3000ur own. That is so close minded it's scary, but then again you are one of the many that are scary...called liberals.

    replyreport