Must be Bush sending all those Jewish people into gas chambers huh...yea uh um...I see the resemblence now.Rolling with tanks into France,Poland, Russia..too for the "Purpose" of conquering them.Bombing England into the stone ages...with no regard for any civilians whatsoever.I see your point

You Wankers!

Strain at a knat and Swallow the camel.

And silly me, I thought this was actually a debate! My bad. :-j

Someone fix the poll results, it's not showing the correct answer. :rotfl:

give me 20 minuets and il think of some thing to charge him with i know

how about double parking out side the white house thats a conviction

Those being detained at Guantanamo Bay are not prisoners of war. POWs are protected by international law on the grounds that the state they are fighting for is responsible for their actions, and Al Qaeda is not a state. Therefore, the 3rd Geneva Convention does not apply.

no but the humaniterian side still does regardless

oh and i was talking about the brits there

I guess you didn't bother to read my comment. You just twist it to your liking. I just point out the obvious. It's not a call to arms against Europe. I feel as though Europe is and should be an ally. But again I state the obvious. If European "forces" decided to try to come to America to arrest Bush.......America wouldn't tolerate it and would probably lash out.

Plus don't be so intellectually dishonest. The American Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to invade. Look it up. And I point out the hypocrisy in regards to Europe's response when Clinton moved in the Balkans with no authorization of any kind. Where was your outrage then, Type 941???

Sea Demon

Can you show me the exact passage in international law you believe has been violated?

This is just plain ignorant! Care to elaborate on your comparison's gdogghenrikson?

Sea Demon

Re: Should Mr G.W.Bush be charged with War Crimes
 

I hate to quote myself, Kapitain. But it's all in the Laws of Armed Conflict who is a legal and illegal combatant. The Geneva Convention was never a vehicle to protect TERRORISTS. Do you need me to give you a working definition of what a terrorist is?

Sea Demon

im note saying protect the terrorists what im saying is the non terrorists that are kept at guantamino there the people who can throw up claims under the humaniterian means and its not just the geneva convention either

the U.N N.A.T.O both have policys concerning strict humaniterian issues

i dont give a toss about the terrorists all i care about are the people who have been wrongfully convicted ie the brits that were sent back.

american laws say do they not that every man regardless deserves a fair trial within a certain time limit ?

so why have some of these guys been waiting years ?

Hmmmmm. I wonder what these "British" citizens were doing near the battlefield with AK's, staying in houses protected by Taliban thugs. I'm guessing they were there for a picnic? :roll: (SARCASM OFF)

Sea Demon

You remind me of an idiot... :roll:

American criminal law does not apply to them either, so they can be detained indefinitely without breaking any laws.

I ain't, this took me 3 hrs to try to word it properly with draft copies in the old style of writing on paper...