Nightingale 0 #101 July 13, 2006 It would depend. Prosecution would have to prove that Bush knew what was going on at Guantanamo, and they may or may not be able to do that. ultimately, prosecution would really depend on another country catching him and demanding he be held accountable. I really doubt that would happen. No, Bush being given bad advice isn't a defense, but I think it's the main reason why he did what he did. Someone told him what he wanted to hear, and he went with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #102 July 13, 2006 >so really Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others are war criminals? If they had done the same things in Liberia, I have little doubt they would now be up on such charges. But the charge of "war criminal" is so much empty rhetoric without the possibility of trying someone for said crimes, and there is no such possibility here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #103 July 13, 2006 QuoteSomeone told him what he wanted to hear, and he went with it. That is not the same as bad advice. But I get your point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #104 July 13, 2006 Very good article in the Wall Street Journal today on this matter. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008645 They don't use the phrase "protected person". They use the phrase "lawful combatant". Which one is right here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
