Reuters reports that Amnesty International has called for the arrest of George W. Bush during his visit to Africa later this month. The international civil rights group is claiming that the former President is guilty of human rights abuses for his authorization of the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques in his “War on Terror.”
“International law requires that there be no safe haven for those responsible for torture; Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia must seize this opportunity to fulfill their obligations and end the impunityGeorge W. Bush has so far enjoyed,” Matt Pollard, senior legal adviser, said in a statement.
Fox News and Republicans are critical.
“They’ve been trying to get any country where President Bush and Vice President Cheney visit to harass them wherever they go,” former (Bush administration) Justice Department attorney John Yoo said of Amnesty’s actions.
“It could be taken as a call for violence against the president,” said Brad Blakeman, a former Bush adviser who accompanied the former president to Africa in 2003.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also took Amnesty to task for its latest statement. “If Amnesty International had any intellectual honesty, it would give President Bush a medal to honor him for liberating so many oppressed Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and for assisting millions of AIDS victims in Africa,” King said in a statement.
Bush will be in Africa to promote world AIDS and cancer awareness. Both Bush and his former Vice President, Dick Cheney, have been in staunch defense of their torture policies, but neither they nor their spokespeople have commented on Amnesty International’s request.
Look, folks, these methods of torture are not deadly, they are meant to be moreso mentally strenuous than anything. Mind you, these terrorists are the type of people who MURDER for their RELIGION. I feel no remorse for those that can kill innocent men, women, and children over anything, let alone a goddamned book.
Yes, torture, without just cause, is wrong. However, in the event that we are torturing people who are responsible for the deaths of OUR citizens, who cares? Not I.
I say we execute ‘em all and save the lives of people that aren’t psychopaths.
Logic & Reason: What’s in your wallet?
Your argument is not based on logic or reason, it’s based on your emotional need for revenge against people you hate. But the logic is this: torture does not yield reliable information. And if people are held without trial, then you end up torturing innocent people along with the guilty. Inflicting brutal treatment on anyone is that tactic of the fanatic. Equating suspicion with guilt is not reasonable either. It is also against our laws and international law. Ignoring law when you are especially angry at bad people is not rational either.
Whether torture works or not does not matter, that is a distraction. Torture is wrong, period!!! Morally reprehensible and a stain upon our country’s honor. Get it now???
Our bloodthirsty acts are no different than theirs. We are no better than them. We gave up the moral high ground 50 years ago, but we can still dream of being the shining city on a hill.
Classic cover your ass with distractions.
Your argument (such as it is) is based on the fallacy that it is possible to authoritatively and accurately assign motives and labels to other human beings. We give the study and practice of those attempts to psychiatrists and playwrights. Neither are infallible, or capable or even predicting the future. That’s why we have stock markets. Everyone guesses.
Let’s break it down.
First. You claim it’s not what it is. Torture.
Sorry. You are not the OED. Or the Warsaw Pact. Or the Geneva convention. The grownups have already talked this one out.
Second. paint any sympathetic opponents as evil and murderous. Now you’re off subject – torture.
Third. Make the lame excuse :”they did it first to us.”
So what? Is this a playground? This has happened in every other country in the world. Now its happened to us. Suck up and learn from those who have already been there.
Fourth. Cover butt with lame excuse. “Even if we were, we’re not as bad as them and I don’t care.”
How adult. Not.
Fifth. Bold proposal “kill them all” that STILL doesn’t talk about the question: torture. Everyone remember torture? With a reference back to our superpower of being able to read minds. All you’ve argued is that we as a nation have superhuman powers and special privileges. Guess what. The rest of the world is laughing at us.
That is not an argument. It is whinging.
In other notes, you’re okay with anyone torturing our soldiers because they blew up their village, house and family by ‘accident’? Or is there a certain number of dead that’s okay, then it’s not? Do you grade them by color and religion as well?
You’re good with rabid Christians murdering OB-GYN doctors? That’s murder for religion.
Think. To tens of thousands of Iraqis, we are the monsters who destroyed their lives, killed their families and shattered their country. Heck, in India a Dow chemical explosion killed over 30,000 people. 30,000. Does that make it okay for India to attack Dow chemical headquarters?
The world is a big place. You should get out more.
Robin, Granted that Anthony R’s original statement wasn’t very clever nor very well worded, this is still the most comprehensive, skilled, convincing and effective demolishment of an argument that I’ve seen in a very long time. Nice work and congratulations.
One of the most depressing things about the Bush era was the certain knowledge our government simply would not enforce the law.
All presidents have the title of President or Mr. President for the rest of their lives. Not that I think of Bush as a president, maybe as a joke of a president—but he is President Bush until he dies.
You are mistaken…
This is from U.S. government protocol expert Robert Hickey of the The Protocol School of Washington
“A FORMER PRESIDENT
This issue is complicated since we hear former President’s referred to as President Clinton and President Bush on the media all the time; Here’s what is ACTUALLY CORRECT:
Former President of the United States
Envelope, official:
The Honorable
(Full name)
(Address)
Letter salutation: Dear Mr./Ms. (surname):
Conversation: Mr./Ms. (surname)
This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents … only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President … formers are not officially addressed that way.
That’s not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname) … BUT FORMALLY AND OFFICIALLY THESE ARE INCORRECT.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time … senators, admirals, judges, etc. … former office holders DO continue to be formally address in the former style, since it’s not disrespectful to a singular, current office holder.
To explain the CORRECT FORM I would say “using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is NOT RESPECTFUL TO THE CURRENT OFFICE HOLDER. There’s only one “(name of the office)” at a time.” “
Well, actually, properly they don’t. The rule is that where a title is unique, there is only one holder of that title. So a Colonel can be a Colonel all his life, and a Senator can be a Senator even after she leaves office, but there is only one President (except on Fox News, and among people who never learned the rules of respect). Former Presidents are “former President XXX”, then afterwards “Mr XXX”, or, if they had a common title before that, they revert to that title (e.g., General Eisenhower).
Precedent for that was set by George Washington, who when he left office stated, “There is only one standing President of the United States.”
Bush and Cheney shouldn’t have to travel to some foreign country to be arrested; we have the same treaty obligations. They should be arrested here and handed over to the Hague for prosecution. Any thinking person will realize they planned the Iraq War before the 2000 election. They just didn’t bother to mention it.
For one,President Bush didn’t plan the Iraq War. No one knew that 9/11 was going to happen except for the stupid a$$es who had it done. What did you want President Bush to do?? He showed the other country that we weren’t going to take their assault on our country. He wasn’t a coward. He stood up for the whole country. Freedom isn’t free, and if President Bush wouldn’t have done anything, only heaven knows what other crap that country would have done to us. I cherish the freedom we have in this country and most of us take that freedom for granted.
Um. You do know that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11, right?
Oh. Fox “news” forgot to mention this fact to Ms.Susan.
I find it interesting that Faux news is still referring to him as ‘President Bush’. They are saying “It may be taken as a call to violence against the president”. Actually, no, it can’t be as he is no longer the president and hasn’t been for a few years now. This group has every right to call for his arrest though I doubt they will succeed.
Personally I would expect Mr. Bush to simply avoid going to those particular countries.
Also some comment about all the good he did as president to help some of these countries, to quote Admiral Norrington speaking to Jack Sparrow, “One good deed does not excuse a lifetime of wickedness.” Bush has committed crimes, not only against other countries but against his own. He will likely escape punishment as well. I do not care if he is arrested or not as long as he never again is allowed to hold power over others.
I hate Faux News as much as the next guy, but your comments are just misguided frustration.
The simple fact is that EVERY U.S. president is referred to as president until they die, even when they are ex-president.
I hear news reports form FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the like making remarks about President Clinton visiting this or that university. It’s just a title of respect is all.
The simple FACT is that You are mistaken…
This is from U.S. government protocol expert Robert Hickey of the The Protocol School of Washington
“A FORMER PRESIDENT
This issue is complicated since we hear former President’s referred to as President Clinton and President Bush on the media all the time; Here’s what is ACTUALLY CORRECT:
Former President of the United States
Envelope, official:
The Honorable
(Full name)
(Address)
Letter salutation: Dear Mr./Ms. (surname):
Conversation: Mr./Ms. (surname)
This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents … only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President … formers are not officially addressed that way.
That’s not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname) … BUT FORMALLY AND OFFICIALLY THESE ARE INCORRECT.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time … senators, admirals, judges, etc. … former office holders DO continue to be formally address in the former style, since it’s not disrespectful to a singular, current office holder.
To explain the CORRECT FORM I would say “using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is NOT RESPECTFUL TO THE CURRENT OFFICE HOLDER. There’s only one “(name of the office)” at a time.” “
Dear Hague,
He likes pretzels and picture books.
Sincerely, Me
Nice!
Amnesty International has got my vote. I only wish they could get Cheney,, Bush is simply too stupid to actually be guilty of much more than being a moron. But Cheney is one of the masterminds of the whole 9-11/War on Terror/overthrow of the Constitutional government by corporate sociopaths/War on America currently being waged by the plutocrats on our soil with the aid of our police and Republican governors and mayors like Walker and Bloomberg .
Mr. Jurgens, you have an excellent point. (Really think the smirking chimp would ever admit there was a question about right or wrong? He’d show up i his borrowed flight suit..)
100% agree with bringing these 3 stooges to justice — for all the lives lost because Bush, Cheney and Rove are sneaky, greedy, despicable despots with a power-driven, sinister need to dominate and control. Let FOX news cover the prosecution, so we can be sure it is all “fair and balanced.”