Mayor of London Warns Bush To Stay Away From UK Or Face Possible Arrest

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Nov 24, 2010 4:53 PM GMT
    Mayor of London Warns Bush To Stay Away From UK Or Face Possible Arrest

    http://indiglit.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/stay-away-from-u-k-or-face-possible-arrest/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2010 5:07 PM GMT
    that would be fun ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2010 10:05 PM GMT
    And let's just remember here:

    Boris Johnson is a CONSERVATIVE

    [which means he's a Democrat].
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2010 10:16 PM GMT
    mmm that sounds very interesting, didn't they also have that for the pope?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 24, 2010 10:17 PM GMT
    That's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2010 10:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThat's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful


    Perhaps authorizing illegal torture was also ridiculous and disrespectful?

    Bush, Cheney etc ought to be brought to account for their shameful crimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 2:28 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThat's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful
    Agreed. It is disrespectful not only to a former head of state, but to this country. It would be great if there were something about this politician's past that would enable us to prevent him from ever setting foot on our soil, should he ever want to visit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 2:33 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Agreed. It is disrespectful not only to a former head of state, but to this country. It would be great if there were something about this politician's past that would enable us to prevent him from ever setting foot on our soil, should he ever want to visit.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    This nation is shit anyways. Why would he ever want to set foot on it?

    Bush is an idiot.

    A bigger one than I am.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 2:52 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ saidThat's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful
    Agreed. It is disrespectful not only to a former head of state, but to this country. It would be great if there were something about this politician's past that would enable us to prevent him from ever setting foot on our soil, should he ever want to visit.


    agree with both!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    First, I agree that morality is not determined by poll results, but point out this anyway:

    CNN poll: Majority support waterboarding terrorists, 50/46

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/06/cnn-poll-majority-support-waterboarding-terrorists-5046/

    Americans Support Waterboarding

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/192142/americans-support-waterboarding/jonah-goldberg

    I think even if waterboarding falls within the definition of torture, people do not consider waterboarding with the apprehension that it causes to be in the same league as techniques that cause intense pain or organ failure.

    Second, just to relay conversations I have had with opponents of waterboarding. I have postulated the standard type of scenario where their adult children, son and daughter, are living in the Bay Area, and a terrorist suspect is captured who boasts there is a dirty bomb that will go off soon in the Bay Area. While there are no guarantees, the experts believe the best way to get the location of the bomb is via waterboarding. There is no time to evacuate the city. I ask the person if they would approve waterboarding if it provided a possibility of saving their son and daughter. The answer in all cases "In a heartbeat". So I ask if waterboarding is ok to save their children, what about the children of others?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:36 AM GMT
    ^-----Idiot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:40 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThat's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful


    and what, exactly, was Bush? To say that Bush was simply, "ridiculous and hugely disrespectful," would be among the kindest if not most ill-informed things ever said. he was a great many awful things more, "war criminal" chief among them.

    Obviously, more names need to be added to this list, and from many more nations, both past and sitting heads of state and chief foreign policy officials. For example, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Condolleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, (a great many more) and due to the ruthless and reckless expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and extension of the "never-ending war" into Pakistan, Yemen, with US-supported coups in Honduras and an attempted one in Ecuador, Obama has added his name to that list, too.

    But hey, a good 'first' step.

    One thing we must keep in mind about the history of 'war crimes,' is that the only ones ever tried are those that lose the war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:42 AM GMT
    We owe no respect whatever to a person authorizing torture, we have prosecuted previously, those who have conducted the same torture that this president authorized. Maybe even worse, is covering their asses, by continueing to lie that the results of torture saved lives. From what I've read and from what has been brought before congressional hearings on the subject, none of the cases they've claimed the torture saved lives and thwarted terrorism have been substantiated, in fact they've all been debunked. The neo con propaganda tactic of telling a lie, slanting the story to fit the desired outcome and so on, then repeating the story as often as possible does not make a previous wrong a current right. The Bush/Chenney Admin. brought shame to our country, to an unprecidented low level. We ignore such matters to our own demise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Take for instance the now highly regarded Reagan, who was party to Bush number 1 (through his CIA connections) paying off the Iranians to keep the Hostages for a few weeks longer to improve their chances of winning the presidency over Carter. (the October Suprise) Check out Robert Perry's research on Indiana's Congressman Lee Alexander's commission covering the story up with the approval of Clinton. The belief was that keeping it under wraps was better for the country. Look what we got for covering Bush family crime tendencies. Does anyone think that if those actions of Bush #1 had been exposed that Bush #2 would have become president, or that the Neo Cons and their crooked efforts to gain power would have brought us to what happened with the Illegal war in Iraq ? Again, we do ourselves great harm in not exposing such illegal actions as these presidents commited. This problem crosses the isle to both the Repub's and the Dem's, Continueing to hold up bush/cheney illegal actions as OK because they "Kept us Safe" does our country a great disservice and never will change the fact that it was wrong. Hiding behind Patriotism as the reason to support such actions from our presidentand protect him from the results of those actions is a tragic sham.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:52 AM GMT
    And hey, let's face it, George W. wouldn't be the first war criminal in the family. Not only was his father, the previous president Bush, a war criminal, but even his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a war criminal.

    Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, "was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany."

    "His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    So his grandpa helped the Nazis. No biggie, right? So from the perspective of the Bush's, and those like them (i.e., powerful people), why should Bush Jr. get tried, no one else has!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 3:52 AM GMT
    Very simple question - no theoretical treatises, no bullshit:

    You have the choice - a good chance of saving your family, but requires scaring the shit out of a terrorist for 30-60 seconds, or kiss your family goodbye.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:02 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidVery simple question - no theoretical treatises, no bullshit:

    You have the choice - a good chance of saving your family, but requires scaring the shit out of a terrorist for 30 seconds, or kiss your family goodbye.


    No theory? Okay, try this.

    Never has there been a moment where this scenario took place, where they tortured someone for information, and extracted said 'information' in the "nick of time" to stop a disaster. It happens... in Hollywood. It's morality ala Jack Bauer. You judge reality based by what you see on tv, which is fantasy.

    The fact that you imply that you are torturing a "terrorist" is also misleading to reality. Torture "creates" terrorists, and it produces false information. It produces exactly what the torturers (i.e., criminals) want to hear. This has been proven time and time again beyond any reasonable doubt.

    No wonder, then, that this whole imperialist "war of terror" is built upon "information" provided by tortured individuals, including kids.

    "Democracy" in action. And if you think torture started with Bush, think again. He just made it official policy, and Obama legalized it. But look at the whole history of the "School of the Americas" throughout Latin America, for a more accurate portrayal of the recent history of American torture.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:07 AM GMT
    MeOhMy said
    socalfitness saidVery simple question - no theoretical treatises, no bullshit:

    You have the choice - a good chance of saving your family, but requires scaring the shit out of a terrorist for 30 seconds, or kiss your family goodbye.

    The fact that you imply that you are torturing a "terrorist" is also misleading to reality. Torture "creates" terrorists, and it produces false information. It produces exactly what the torturers (i.e., criminals) want to hear. This has been proven time and time again beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Former CIA Director says otherwise

    ...His remarks are similar to remarks made on several occasions by former CIA Director George Tenet and contained in his book, At the Center of the Storm. Specifically, Tenet aggressively defends the use of waterboarding by claiming that it produced results....

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/08/hbc-90005633
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:10 AM GMT
    Who is that mayor of London anyway? Since when do mayors issue arrest orders.

    That guy just wants to score points with the Londoners or cause a riot because the former mayor of London was such a leftie riot as well, and he fears being permanently overshadowed.

    The whole waterboarding discussion from the moral high ground is a bit hypocritical, as far as everything that happened under Bush goes, this is probably the most harmless one. How many people actually got waterboarded, maybe a 100? 200? a 1000? Even then it's still peanuts compared to all the lives that were either affected or ruined by the Bush years, at home or abroad.

    Having said that, I am absolutely in favour of the waterboarding... it's less evil than other torture methods involving a lot of pain or permanent damage. Waterboarding is technically tricking the brain into invoking the human preservation drift, without doing any actual damange.

    There's a reason why intelligence services operate largely outside of public scrutiny; you can't have the public drag in all kinds of moral considerations while they're not aware of the actual tactical situation.

    In the scenario's as above, or placed with either torturing one person or risking a great many lives, I'd authorize the torture too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:12 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    MeOhMy said
    socalfitness saidVery simple question - no theoretical treatises, no bullshit:

    You have the choice - a good chance of saving your family, but requires scaring the shit out of a terrorist for 30 seconds, or kiss your family goodbye.

    The fact that you imply that you are torturing a "terrorist" is also misleading to reality. Torture "creates" terrorists, and it produces false information. It produces exactly what the torturers (i.e., criminals) want to hear. This has been proven time and time again beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Former CIA Director says otherwise

    ...His remarks are similar to remarks made on several occasions by former CIA Director George Tenet and contained in his book, At the Center of the Storm. Specifically, Tenet aggressively defends the use of waterboarding by claiming that it produced results....

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/08/hbc-90005633


    Haha, and I bet if you asked Joseph Goebbels if the Nazis should be tried for war crimes, he would have said the same thing. Please! Are you really citing one of the people at the center of the policy choice to mandate and implement torture... as an unbiased source of information on the subject? If he told the truth, he would be admitting to war crimes.

    How many former CIA directors do you know of who admitted they were war criminals? And this may be a 'shocker', but they all are. That is, after all, the nature of the CIA as an imperialist institution.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 25, 2010 4:14 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    CuriousJockAZ saidThat's pretty ridiculous and hugely disrespectful
    Agreed. It is disrespectful not only to a former head of state, but to this country. It would be great if there were something about this politician's past that would enable us to prevent him from ever setting foot on our soil, should he ever want to visit.


    Disrespectful????
    Was it disrespectful to lie us into a war where many men dies for this country for no apparent reason?
    Was it disrespectful where he rigged and cherry picked the intelligence to do it where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed ..... millions displaced and the entire region completely destabilized in Iran's favor?

    The man in every sense of the word is a war criminal and you might deny it but your denial doesn't change a thing

    war crime
    n.
    Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:16 AM GMT
    If nothing else, it's nice to see MeOhMy back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:25 AM GMT
    Tazo995 said How many people actually got waterboarded, maybe a 100? 200? a 1000? Even then it's still peanuts compared to all the lives that were either affected or ruined by the Bush years, at home or abroad.

    Having said that, I am absolutely in favour of the waterboarding... it's less evil than other torture methods involving a lot of pain or permanent damage. Waterboarding is technically tricking the brain into invoking the human preservation drift, without doing any actual damange.

    There's a reason why intelligence services operate largely outside of public scrutiny; you can't have the public drag in all kinds of moral considerations while they're not aware of the actual tactical situation.

    In the scenario's as above, or placed with either torturing one person or risking a great many lives, I'd authorize the torture too.

    As I recall from the interviews with Bush, a total of 3 were waterboarded. Also consistent with Reuters:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0517815120080205

    "Hayden told reporters later that the interrogations of Mohammed and Zubaydah were particularly fruitful."

    All the arguments trying to discredit Tenant, and the others, are attempts by many here to avoid answering the question. I suspect most people would authorize it if the specific circumstances indicated many lives could be saved, but they won't admit it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:30 AM GMT
    MeOhMy saidOne thing we must keep in mind about the history of 'war crimes,' is that the only ones ever tried are those that lose the war.


    Quite so.

    And since the Allies won WW2... "Bomber Harris" and "Butcher LeMay" were never held to account for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Pforzheim... and the many cities of Japan - including but not limited to Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Kure, and most notably, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    And of course, history cherishes the Churchill and FDR and Truman who authorized these brutal mass murders in the guise of strategic countervalue bombings.

    Of course I'm speaking in hyperbole, but you might get the idea.

    Ad victorem spolias.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:33 AM GMT
    Last time I checked any brain damage was considered permanent damage.

    Torture is torture any way you cut it- but when comparing water boarding to the kinds of torture that those 'terrorist' would be likely to perform makes it seem like a cakewalk. I'm sure that the only reason Bush went with water boarding is because it wouldn't bring about an-oh-so-obvious 'back-lash' like other, far more, /blatant/ forms of torture would have....

    Hypotheticals of that sort are useless and just weaken your argument:

    There's a runaway train heading down its scheduled track- you notice that your family is crossing over the train tracks, in an area label "prohibited- do not cross zone-" and will be hit by the train (and die...) if you don't do something quickly- You glance around to see what you can do and you notice a switch that will switch the track the train is meant to run on...-there's another family crossing that track as well- but it's not a "prohibited- do not cross zone" and they were given the green light to cross. What will you do?

    See pointless. You can rarely ever be 100% certain that the individual you are torturing was/is involved in the incident. -but hey, everyone makes mistakes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2010 4:35 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    MeOhMy saidOne thing we must keep in mind about the history of 'war crimes,' is that the only ones ever tried are those that lose the war.


    Quite so.

    And since the Allies won WW2... "Bomber Harris" and "Butcher LeMay" were never held to account for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the firebombings of Dresden....


    You mean the historic little beauty spot of no military significance, that was merely bombed in retaliation?

    War destroys the victors as much it destroys the losers. The latter is easily measured in bodies; the former, alas, is in the soul[*].

    [*] -- I mean this as a metaphor.