Yes, the organization has no authority to pass actual sentences. That is why it is an empty gesture.
The fact that no recognized court has taken up the matter means that the empty gesture is all there is.
I am not sure how that is unclear.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Found Guilty of War Crimes
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
Yes, the organization has no authority to pass actual sentences. That is why it is an empty gesture.
The fact that no recognized court has taken up the matter means that the empty gesture is all there is.
I am not sure how that is unclear.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
No fan of Bush and Cheney, but that "tribunal" in Malaysia is a textbook example of a Kangeroo court with no legal standing.
Sad that some people actually thinks this is some important event. When it comes to causing people to view the world through distorted lenses, religon has nothing on political ideology.
Sad that some people actually thinks this is some important event. When it comes to causing people to view the world through distorted lenses, religon has nothing on political ideology.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
It is no wonder why those in power find it so easy to abuse their power.
Because even when it is very clear that the those in power abused their power, then nothing substantive ever happens to them.
Because even when it is very clear that the those in power abused their power, then nothing substantive ever happens to them.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I can't speak for 16.5, but if it were the Clintons I'd be just as dismissive ("upset" is far too strong a word for what I feel), but probably less vocal. It's not like this forum has any shortage of Clinton spear-carriers ready to leap to their defense.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I consider this to be every bit as legitimate and important as the finding against Bush and Cheney by the Malaysian tribunal cited in the OP. Would you like to start a celebratory thread about this one as well?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
The OP does not strike me as particularly celebratory.
Jango
Graduate Poster
No one has ever been successful, nor even close to justifying any of the immoral/unconstitutional/illegal actions or programs W. adhered his signature or voice approval to.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,935
I think that you are doing a superb job of demonstrating the problem with a lack of critical thinking skills. Look up Mahathir Mohamad, the kook (and yes, former prime minister of Malaysia) who organized the tribunal. You might find his views on hook-nosed Jews particularly interesting. Or his statement that if the US could create Avatar, it could stage 9-11.
Then spend some time checking out Foreign Policy Journal, which has no connection with Foreign Policy, the respected website and magazine. Foreign Policy Journal is just another kook website, run by Jeremy R. Hammond. Here's Hammond on the trail of 9-11 Truth.
See, a bunch of senior executives at Warner Brothers were unable to attend a memorial service for an overseas managing director of the firm because it was scheduled for 9-11 and the Warner's brass knew something big was happening that day. But Hammond just uses that as a hook to talk about possible Israeli involvement in 9-11. Yes, he's that kind of 9-11 Truther.
Among the 14 writers listed for Foreign Policy Journal, at least three others (besides Hammond) are 9-11 Truthers: Kevin Ryan, Paul Craig Roberts and Richard Falk (who wrote the introduction to David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor).
In short, you have provided a textbook case of confirmation bias.
Lol
I'm sure its very hard for you to sleep while those innocent angels at Gitmo aren't getting any sleep, bet they're eating better than you.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Some of them were innocent, which is irrelevant since torture is a war crime and we have prosecuted it as such.
It's great that you are showing an interest in critical thinking but...
No offense meant but you have a lot to learn. For starters you should state clearly what your argument is.
People who study logical fallacies call this an "ad hominem argument".
For example; The inventor of the transistor was a racist. So what? Knowing this does not stop your computer from working.
That's why arguing "against the man" (=ad hominem) is not a rational argument.
You say that the former prime minister of malaysia is an antisemite. Well, so what?
This is, of course, another ad hominem. The FPJ is not a reliable news source. What this does mean, in fairness, is that if you value accurate reporting you should get it elsewhere. However, you are not actually suggesting that the tribunal did not take place. So what is your point?
These particular instances of ad hominem arguments can also be classed as "poisoning the well".
This is just irrelevant.
I think you now have the tools to see where the confirmation bias lies
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
this "tribunal" was offered as a legitimate and credible entity. Therefore it is not at all fallacious to rebut that assertion that this "tribunal" is grossly biased, packed with anti-semites and truthers and not credible at all.
ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Your argument seems to have fallen victim to the fallacy fallacy.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
By whom? Not the OP:
Nothing there screams "legitimate" or "credible" to me
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I think you will find that the person to which I was replying did, as does the headline.
But ain't this kind of a heads I win, tails you lose type of thing?
If no one is contending that the tribunal was "legitimate" or "credible" it would appear that "found guilty" and this entire thread is utterly pointless, now wouldn't it?
I don't see where the tribunal has been presented as anything it is not.
First of all, you must read carefully. Careless readers may be mislead when irrelevant facts are presented thinking they are relevant. That's probably one reason that people here get worked up. They assume that such posts- poorly reasoned and stuffed with irrelevant factoids -are only meant to mislead.
You came away with the impression that the tribunal was "packed with antisemites and truthers". However, that was not claimed.
The post I replied to talked at great length about a website OP linked which also promotes truther ideas. However that website is in no way, shape or form connected with the tribunal.
It also mentioned former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. However, Mohamed was not a member of the tribunal but only an organizer.
Mind that the people involved are all of high social standing. They are (former) high officials one kind or another. Those holding the tribunal were highly trained in law (AFAICT. I didn't check all).
They are by any standard people who must be taken seriously as a matter of social and political fact. If a similar group of people came together in the US (Ex-Presidents, VPs, Supreme judges, etc...) to raise awareness on some topic one would not simply dismiss that based on some kooky view that one or the other of them held. (I'm thinking there would be creationist among them and Hardcore Libertarians.)
It's really great that you know all this but we must ask if this is relevant here.
If someone asserts a fact which we cannot check then we are reduced to assessing that person's credibility.
Is this the case here?
The answer is no. Neither the law is secret nor the facts regarding the conduct of Bush & co. Special training may be necessary for some of the finer points but the big picture question should be open to anyone
We could debate their guilt with no recourse to the tribunal. Yet no one has even attempted to make a case against Bush's guilt. I can only assume that we have consensus on the issue.
That's why I don't see any particular reason to examine the reasoning of the tribunal or whether it's biased. Waste of time, IMHO.
Can you please quote what you interpret as saying that?
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
This thread is about this "tribunal."
It is clearly biased and their opinion is worth very little.
Yet you also claim that they should be taken seriously because of their "high social standing." Actually, no they should not, that is an appeal to false authority fallacy.
As for "the case against Bush's guilt," that would seem to be the subject of numerous other threads. I look forward to your comments there!
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 10,017
Neither the OP, nor any of the links contained within, presented the actual charges, let alone any evidence in support of those charges. All we have is a claim that there were several witnesses who testified that they had suffered torture in Iraq, but since the torture clearly was not done directly by any of the accused, the nexus with the accused is unclear. In the absence of any actual evidence or argument, all we have to go on is the credibility of those deciding the verdict. Therefore, it is not a fallacy to examine the biographies and motives of the panel members, as well as the driving force behind the whole process, in order to assess the credibility of the verdict.
Well, your assumption is wrong. There have been many threads where Bush et al.'s culpability has been discussed and disputed. We could have one here, except that, since the panel's evidence is not available for review, the discussion may be deemed off-topic. Really, the only topic that fits is an examination of the credibility of the panel. That's all we have to go on for now.
Last edited:
12AX7
Banned
