George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Found Guilty of War Crimes

[The Big Dog]

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.

well said

 

[Beerina]

Some squeedunk village in Italy tried to issue an arrest warrant for Bush before he left office, when he was visiting.

 

[theprestige]

The OP does not strike me as particularly celebratory.

Body of work.

 

[Upchurch]

I think you will find that the person to which I was replying did, as does the headline.

First, don't judge a thread by it's title.

Second, are you referring to this person?

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.

Still nothing that says this was legitimate or credible.

But ain't this kind of a heads I win, tails you lose type of thing?

I don't really see how.

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?

No, it's not pointless. We can still discuss such things even if we have no power or authority to enforce anything we might decide. Not that we would.

 

[The Big Dog]

First, don't judge a thread by it's title.

...

No, it's not pointless. We can still discuss such things even if we have no power or authority to enforce anything we might decide. Not that we would.

Don't do what now? The OP wrote that title.

That they don't have power to enforce anything is bleeding obvious, what I said is that they were utterly lacking in credibility.

Lets make this easy:

Do you think this entity is credible: yes or no?

 

[Upchurch]

Don't do what now? The OP wrote that title.

That they don't have power to enforce anything is bleeding obvious, what I said is that they were utterly lacking in credibility.

The OP also wrote that.

Do you think this entity is credible: yes or no?

No.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Neither the OP, nor any of the links contained within, presented the actual charges, let alone any evidence in support of those charges.

Well, one could always ask or google if more information is required.

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.

I see the problem. The keyword here is "command responsibility".
This is a firmly established principle of international law which the US supreme court has done much to establish.
Given public knowledge about "enhanced interrogation techniques" it seems hard to believe that the law could be stretched so far as to absolve Bush.

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.

I get where you're coming from. It always depends where you are coming from. If you don't know the first thing about the legal background and are eg too young or disinterested to be knowledgeable about the Bush presidency then the OP does not contain enough evidence to decide.
However, as no one asked any pertinent questions in that regard, I consider it rude to assume ignorance.

 

[The Big Dog]

I consider it rude to assume ignorance.

I don't think that anyone just "assumed" that this kangaroo court was ignorant, people just did a little digging and confirmed it.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I don't think that anyone just "assumed" that this kangaroo court was ignorant, people just did a little digging and confirmed it.

You misunderstand. I know I should keep my grammar simpler. Sorry.
I mean: No one asked for more evidence. Because of that I assumed that people had all necessary information. I know that people sometimes don't ask when they don't know something. But just assuming that people don't know something is rude and condescending.

Also you are misremembering things. No one here posted anything about the tribunal members.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

You misunderstand. I know I should keep my grammar simpler. Sorry.
I mean: No one asked for more evidence. Because of that I assumed that people had all necessary information. I know that people sometimes don't ask when they don't know something. But just assuming that people don't know something is rude and condescending.

Also you are misremembering things. No one here posted anything about the tribunal members.

I find you passive/aggressive insinuations quite amusing

Let me make my grammar very simple:

1. we have all of the information we need to conclude that this "tribunal" is lacking any credibility whatsoever, a complete farce

2. if you want to talk about Bush and Iraq, here are 100's of threads that you will wish to review:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=iraq

ENJOY!

 

[theprestige]

What I want to know is, how was this Malaysian tribunal able to reach a consensus on the matter, when our own esteemed forum cannot?

 

[Brainster]

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?

No, it is not ad hominem to point out that the organizer of this tribunal is an anti-Semite and a crazy person to boot. It goes to the heart of his credibility, which is all he has to offer, seeing as how he did not invent the transistor. It is only ad hominem when the charge against the person is clearly irrelevant to the point at hand. If I had said, for example that Mohamed did a lousy job managing the Malaysian economy during his time as prime minister, that would be irrelevant to the point and ad hominem.

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".

You are on moderately stronger ground here. My point was that the OP mentioned that while it might be a hoax, he has provided citations from Esquire (which was not provided) and Foreign Policy Journal, as if the latter bolstered the credibility of the charges. In fact it does not, but as I don't dispute that the tribunal existed it's probably irrelevant. Just pointed it out because a lot of people have confused FPJ with Foreign Policy, which does have some real credibility.

 

[sunmaster14]

Well, one could always ask or google if more information is required.

Hey, if you've been able to dig up more details about the evidence that the "court" considered, as well as the legal reasoning it used to come to its decision, then please post it. I'd love to discuss it. For the record, consider this me "ask"ing, as you suggested.

I see the problem. The keyword here is "command responsibility".
This is a firmly established principle of international law which the US supreme court has done much to establish.
Given public knowledge about "enhanced interrogation techniques" it seems hard to believe that the law could be stretched so far as to absolve Bush.

Given that nothing so far presented in this thread establishes that the evidence presented to the "court" was a product of the enhanced interrogation program, such knowledge is irrelevant. One man claims that he had his fingernails pulled out with pliers; another claims that he was given electric shocks. None of these were techniques used in the CIA interrogation program, which was the only one authorized by the Bush administration. In fact, none of the evidence so far presented establishes that the witnesses who testified to the "court" were tortured by Americans, or anybody acting on orders from Americans, at all. It's quite a leap to go from "some guy claims he was tortured in Iraq" to "the President is culpable under the doctrine of command responsibility." A lot more information needs to be provided, and in the absence of that information, the best we can do is look to the credibility of the people claiming that such information exists.

I get where you're coming from. It always depends where you are coming from. If you don't know the first thing about the legal background and are eg too young or disinterested to be knowledgeable about the Bush presidency then the OP does not contain enough evidence to decide.

No, I don't think you do get where I'm coming from. First, one does not have to be too ignorant, or too young, or too disinterested [sic]^* to believe that the OP lacks sufficient evidence. Those of us who are knowledgeable and old enough (whether or not we are disinterested) can see quite clearly there is virtually no evidence at all to go on. Second, to the extent that you are relying on exogenous knowledge of the facts and the law to make a determination about Bush et al.'s culpability, your defense of the "court's" verdict is a tautology. You're essentially saying that you know Bush is guilty and that because the "court" thinks so too, the "court" must be credible. And I suppose the conclusion you and RandFan would like us to draw is that since the "court" is credible (since it correctly determined that Bush was guilty), the argument in favor of Bush's guilt is now even stronger.

However, as no one asked any pertinent questions in that regard, I consider it rude to assume ignorance.

Somehow I doubt you worry too much about coming off as rude.

^* An embarrassing malapropism to find in such a haughty post, by the way.

 

[jakesteele]

Well, unlike with truther claims, we know the Bush Administration actually did torture prisoners, specifically a kind of torture that the US has prosecuted as war crimes after WWII.

So, while the trial itself lacks much credibility, the charge is legitimate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Interesting video of Christopher Hitchens volunteering to be waterboarded. End result is Christopher quoted by Vanity Fair, "Believe me, it's torture."

 

[Trakar]

I don't know about Biden but Obama is, IMO, guilty of war crimes.

I would not object to that nor offer any mitigating defense of Obama on those charges.

 

[Upchurch]

I would not object to that nor offer any mitigating defense of Obama on those charges.

Off topic: I've kept an open mind about wether drone strikes are war crimes, as has been suggested. Not that I'm fully versed, but I haven't seen a precedent that would suggest that it is. I'd listen to the argument, but perhaps in another thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Obama uses drones, therefore the torture condoned and performed under the Bush/Cheney administration is fine.

It's typical that they try to change the topic to Obama anytime the failures of the Bush/Cheney administration is brought up.

 

[theprestige]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Interesting video of Christopher Hitchens volunteering to be waterboarded. End result is Christopher quoted by Vanity Fair, "Believe me, it's torture."

And the end result of my workout session with my personal trainer this morning is theprestige quoted by ISF, "Believe me, it's torture." Slightly more seriously, waterboarding and similar forms of water play comprise a lucrative niche market in pornography, with a seemingly endless line of willing and even enthusiastic models signing up to participate. They're getting paid, of course, but if they don't mind doing it for money, surely a noble freedom fighter wouldn't mind doing it for the intense personal satisfaction of knowing they have not betrayed their righteous cause.

 

[Upchurch]

And the end result of my workout session with my personal trainer this morning is theprestige quoted by ISF, "Believe me, it's torture." Slightly more seriously, waterboarding and similar forms of water play comprise a lucrative niche market in pornography, with a seemingly endless line of willing and even enthusiastic models signing up to participate. They're getting paid, of course, but if they don't mind doing it for money, surely a noble freedom fighter wouldn't mind doing it for the intense personal satisfaction of knowing they have not betrayed their righteous cause.

This is no different than the argument that we do it to soldiers as part of training. There is a world of difference between voluntarily being waterboarded in a situation with people you trust and know that they mean you no harm and being forcibly waterboarded by enemy forces.

 

[theprestige]

This is no different than the argument that we do it to soldiers as part of training. There is a world of difference between voluntarily being waterboarded in a situation with people you trust and know that they mean you no harm and being forcibly waterboarded by enemy forces.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that going to war means doing challenging and stressful activities with your enemies instead of with people you trust and know. Presumably you have already decided the trade-off is worthwhile. If you don't think the tradeoff is worthwhile, then you should probably not go to war in the first place. Consider a career in water bondage pornography instead. If you only come to realize that doing activities with your enemies sucks giant salty balls after you've already committed to war with them, I believe the customary thing to do at that point is surrender, not bitch about about how they're being mean to you.













For the purposes of the above jest, I am considering only activities that your own forces may do during training, or that well adjusted porn models would willingly do for money. I believe in activities that are almost always inexcusable crimes. It is not my intent to try to excuse those here.