Because at the end of it all it is the President’s responsibility. If he is a spineless jellyfish that dances to his puppeteers it still remains HIS responsibility and no one else. Hopefully future presidents would take note and be a bit more careful of manipulation by their underlings.
That said Cheney and others may well deserve prosecution as well. I think they do. But shipping the whole government off to the ICC has a lot of issues tied up in it. Bush as the final decision maker must bear responsibility.
I’d like to introduce the practice of Oilboarding, ya know: same concept and time honored technique, but with an extra special viscousity; crude oil dripped on the heads and suffusing the orifices of greedy transgressors .
I try to be a decent person, but these idiots have pushed my mind to it’s limits.
The problem with your scenario is that it does nothing to deter the alleged puppet masters from manipulating a weak president, and, in such a situation, it is the puppet masters who are the true danger.
It does bother me. However, I would like to see it happen anyway, in the hope that the incident and subsequent uproar would then lead to our government conceding that it’s not okay for any government, ours in particular, to use extrajudicial means to apprehend and detain people.
Apparently there are not enough of them. In another thread discussing ways to prosecute Bush it was suggested if the people wanted it to happen then Congress would see it done.
But since Congress is not moving on the issue then I guess not enough people have gotten the message so we need MORE threads on this!
You can open a Pit thread excoriating the practice and you can ignore the threads as tedious redundancy. You do not need to wander into a thread and do a bit of threadshitting because you do not like the topic. (In addition, this particular thread was addressing a somewhat different topic: that of U.S. sovereignty. While it has drawn the usual Bush is the suxxors comments, the actual thread has tended to address the OP.)
As the OP, I think I’m the best person to answer. My interest was not to provoke a “let’s hang the bastard” fest, but to discuss issues of sovereignty; morever, I wanted to see how many persons would distinguish what they personally would like (Mr. Bush being prosecuted for his perfidious behavior) versus what is best for the nation.
Bullshit and you know it. I already posted a definition of masturbatory and it has nothing to do with wrapping your hand around your cock. You’re out of line, pal, and you are threadshitting.
I would react very badly to this…and I imagine so would the rational part of the country, including the Government. I imagine Obama would have no choice but to react to this forcefully. Not that this is more than a dream of the faithful.
It would be one thing if the US decided to put Bush on trial for supposed illegal activities during his Presidency. That has at least a snowballs chance in Death Valley in the summer time (but not in the shade). Then if the US so chose to turn Bush over for supposed war crimes to the IC then that would be ok (again, think snowballs in very hot places). But to have an ex-President abducted while on travel? No…this would be very bad and would set off events that the loony lefties have no idea what the consequences would be wrt the US’s relationship with (in your example) Great Britain…and what it would force Obama to do in retaliation.
It would probably mean war or at the very least heavy sanctions and perhaps complete embargo. This would be a good thing how exactly?
(BTW, I know the loony lefty fringe takes it for granted, but are there even proceedings against Bush in the Hague atm? If Venezuela snatched him and in the unlikely event they simply turned him over, what exactly would this do? Would they suddenly rush to bring charges since they had him in hand? Or does all this presuppose that the Euro’s actually BRING charges against Bush at some future point?)
If we could find out where he was I’m guessing we’d launch a military rescue attempt. If a nation state were involved it would probably mean war or at least extreme displeasure in the form of all the nasty things the US can do to countries that displease them to that degree.
I’m with CISCO here…there is a plague of these feel good type Bush war crimes threads lately that have zero grounding in reality. I could see (MAYBE) some crimes wrt US law being violated by Bush and perhaps he being prosecuted for them here in the US after he leaves office…though even that is highly unlikely. But to think one of our allies would grab him while visiting their country? Or that he would A) visit a country like Venezuela and B) they would actually grab him and C) they would then turn him over to the Euro’s instead of either executing him on the spot or putting him on trial themselves?? Or that mercs would come into the US and that Bush would be so fickle (not to mention the Secret Service) that they would be able to do a smash and grab on an ex-President and spirit him out of the country for trial (instead of just trying to assassinate him outright)??
There aren’t enough :dubious: or :rolleyes: in the world…
In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, I often found myself bemused at Saddam Hussein’s continued instances of sabre-rattling and chest-pounding. My thinking was that, as the bad guys in a war of agression, Iraq had pretty much forfeited any default expectation of continued sovereignty. That Iraq remained an independent nation-state largely by the sufferance of the world community.
Now, in 2008, I have a difficult time believing that the United States is still entitled to a default expectation of sovereignty, and for the same reason: we are the bad guys in a war of aggression.
As long as the invaders contented themselves with the removal of the human tumors who thought up this exercise in evil, I’d be okay with it, and my celebrations would be dignified. That is, I would do the jumping up and down with glee. I would send my two-year old to the store for the champagne.
