It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Bush stand trial as a war criminal?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

by ShadowEyes:

1- The crimes that have been committed by this state;
2- "the "war against Iraq?" ....deliberate and premeditated;
3- the U.S. has refused to support the International Criminal Court
4- The U.S. .... has waged a war of aggression which is considered by the Geneva Conventions to be a grave breach.."
5- the U.S. has recently labeled the Geneva Convention as ‘just a quaint old law",
6- the U.S. attacked the sovereign state of Iraq;
7- the Downing Street Memos;
8- ‘fixing the evidence’ in order to give itself the appearance of just cause. Further evidence that was to come out during the War on Terror would prove that the U.S. lied not only to its Congress and its own people, but also to the United Nations in order to start an unnecessary war of aggression.
9- The illegal detention and torture of prisoners and the denying of prisoners to trial is also an international war crime;
10- the growing problem of the U.S. renditioning prisoners to secret prisons;
11- The collective punishment of towns violates the Geneva Conventions;
12- The few news reporters who survived these sieges have produced evidence and testaments from witnesses that civilians and non-combatants were deliberately targeted by troops that were willing to shoot anything that moved including women and children. Attacking U.S. helicopters chased down fleeing families in the streets to kill them; So many people were killed that the soccer field became a graveyard that was completely filled;
13- use of internationally banned chemical weapons by the U.S. against the citizens of Fallujah including white phosphorus;
14- depleted uranium which is so radioactive that the land will remain contaminated for thousands of years;
15- when the U.S. couldn’t find Saddam’s hypothetical WMD, they wasted no time at all in bringing their own;
16- the U.S. has begun to threaten Iran with a nuclear attack;
17- if the U.S. does not cease its aggressive actions they could set off WWIII;
18- the U.S, has, in its own right, become a terrorist state in the eyes of the rest of the world.

REPLIES: OF COURSE this is just another Bush bashing, and is merely rehashing things that have taken up much space on other threads. It's just a desperate attempt to find those who agree with him (instead of just reading all the other threads so his rant is somehow validated.

1- America is not a "state."
2- It was a war against Saddam, not Iraq, and the premeditation claim has been disproven.
3- Clinton and Bush did not agree with the Int'l CC because it would make part of our Constitution invalid; and, it allows no real rights to those accused.
4- The UN sanctioned the; get over it.
5- The GC DOES NOT apply to those detained, because they do not act/fight in accordance with GC requisites.
6- Iraq, under Saddam, was NOT a sovereign state, as it is the freedom of a countries peoples that determine it's sovereignty.
7- The Downing Street memos did not prove that; I read them all, and the legal experts agree.
8- Every single intelligence agency in the world said the WMD's were there; there were no lies; WMD's were not the first, 'nor the only reason to get rid of Saddam.
9- The detention is not illegal; torture???? have your girlfriend play naked twister with you, or have her put her panties on your head; That's torture???
10- "Rendition" was instituted by Clinton, and isn't it odd that no-one has found any of the "secret prisons" despite many countries and organizations looking?
11- A part of the GC says that military actions need not be mitigated because of civilians in the vicinity (paraphrased).
12- Links to these claims please.
13- White phosphorus can be used in a few munitions; we used no chemical weapons.
14- Depleted Uranium has 2% the radioactivity of natural, unprocessed uranium.
15- The world media dropped this like a hot potato because it was/is BS. The WMD's were moved to Syria and the Bakaa Valley. Catch up!
16- Iran threatened the US and Israel with destruction. Bush said "all options are on the table" .... hardly a threat.
17- WW3 is the war of Islam against all infidels, and it began 1400 years ago.
18- We don't care (or shouldn't) what the rest of the world says. I'll be starting a thread on that sometime this weekend.

Damn. I can't believe I wasted half-hour on things that have already been covered ad nauseum. Have fun kids.....



[edit on 3-8-2006 by zappafan1]




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

REPLIES: OF COURSE this is just another Bush bashing, and is merely rehashing things that have taken up much space on other threads. It's just a desperate attempt to find those who agree with him (instead of just reading all the other threads so his rant is somehow validated.

1- America is not a "state."
2- It was a war against Saddam, not Iraq, and the premeditation claim has been disproven.
3- Clinton and Bush did not agree with the Int'l CC because it would make part of our Constitution invalid; and, it allows no real rights to those accused.
4- The UN sanctioned the; get over it.
5- The GC DOES NOT apply to those detained, because they do not act/fight in accordance with GC requisites.
6- Iraq, under Saddam, was NOT a sovereign state, as it is the freedom of a countries peoples that determine it's sovereignty.
7- The Downing Street memos did not prove that; I read them all, and the legal experts agree.
8- Every single intelligence agency in the world said the WMD's were there; there were no lies; WMD's were not the first, 'nor the only reason to get rid of Saddam.
9- The detention is not illegal; torture???? have your girlfriend play naked twister with you, or have her put her panties on your head; That's torture???
10- "Rendition" was instituted by Clinton, and isn't it odd that no-one has found any of the "secret prisons" despite many countries and organizations looking?
11- A part of the GC says that military actions need not be mitigated because of civilians in the vicinity (paraphrased).
12- Links to these claims please.
13- White phosphorus can be used in a few munitions; we used no chemical weapons.
14- Depleted Uranium has 2% the radioactivity of natural, unprocessed uranium.
15- The world media dropped this like a hot potato because it was/is BS. The WMD's were moved to Syria and the Bakaa Valley. Catch up!
16- Iran threatened the US and Israel with destruction. Bush said "all options are on the table" .... hardly a threat.
17- WW3 is the war of Islam against all infidels, and it began 1400 years ago.
18- We don't care (or shouldn't) what the rest of the world says. I'll be starting a thread on that sometime this weekend.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by zappafan1]


1. In the international community countries are called states. Look it up.
2. Yeah right. That's why Saddam is out of power but we're still over there killing the citizens.
3. Provide a link.
4. Wrong. The U.N. did not authorize the war. In fact, bush brushed aside the U.N. Security Council objections to launch the invasion.

Running to the U.N. for help: Bush forced to eat humble pie

Annan trounces Bush at U.N.

5. Wrong. Look back at SteveR's link.

The real meaning of the Hamdan ruling

6. Wrong. Look up international law.
7. Wrong again.

Downing Street II

8. Wrong. Try researching Joseph Wilson. This administration was telling lies and they knew they were lying.

The garbage intelligence that helped to unleash a war

9. Grow up.
10. The time is long past to be blaming Clinton. The buck stops at bush and he will have to shoulder his own responsibility.

Senator Robert Byrd: Securing America without destroying liberties

11. Provide your link.
12. Links were already given in the original post. Try reading them.
13. Provide your links verifying we are allowed to use internationally banned weapons. Yes we did use chemical weapons.

White phosphorus, a California embed, and The Times

Nothing new about Haditha

14. Where's your link? Here's mine.

Depleted uranium: The war crime that has no end

15. Get an education.

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

16. Bush wants a war with Iran so badly he can taste it...so badly that he will continue to lie.

Will the White House moron bring on Armageddon?

To stupid for citizenship: Will Americans fall for Bush's lies again?

Iranian oil bourse for dummies

17. WWIII is what bush is trying to start now. Wake up!
18. If the nukes start flying it will impact the entire world. At that time your opinion will change, although by then it will be too late.


Gee thanks Zappafan1, you just helped to strengthen the case against bush. Nice going.

.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
ShadowEyes: Links to "smirkingchimp"???? You make accusations about things you believe to be true, yet have been disproven time and time again. You provide links to sites that only agree with your views, and that makes you right.

I've studied economics and politics for 35 years, and you tell ME to grow up.
Another barking moonbat, now ignored.

But, just for fun before you are ignored, I'll reply:

1- Screw the international community. For them to call an entire country, with 51 separate states, a "state" shows how screwy they are.

2- Iraqi and non-Iraqi citizens guilty of killing innocent civilians.

3- Do your own research; no habeas corpus; your defense attorney has no right to see the evidence of the charges against you; the Int'l Court could come to your place of work and arrest you, and whisk you out of the country, without having to prove anything in an American court...... for starters.

4- We don't need UN authorization to go to war, thank God, but "allowed" it because they don't have the nuts or means to enforce the 20 or so resolutions Saddam violated.

5- I don't care about a forum link; the insurgents do not fight according to the GC, and as such they are not afforded many protections under it. I and many others have linked to the specific wording many times. Do your own damn research! The Hamdan ruling was a travesty, because it ignored legal precedent, directly related to enemy combatants, that go back to WW2. Anyways, the Supreme Court is not the end-all be-all. The Constitution does not give them that power.

6- Again; screw international law. We, and many other countries, are not bound to it or by it. A sovereign state is determined by the freedom of it's people, NOT a country ruled by a tyrant and/or dictator.

7- Sorry.... wrong-o.

8- Wilson has been covered and discredited; it's been on many threads.

9- Hans Blix is the Mr. Magoo of WMD searches, and couldnt find his arse with both hands in his back pockets.

10- The truth hurts, don't it?

11- I was just citing a fact, but, this once, I'll do the work for you and get back in another post.

12- KKK Byrd is a senile moron.

13- You provided no link to claims of chem weapons. The GC allows use of phosphorus under certain circumstances.

14- Nowhere in all that did it refute the fact I presented. I worked building the MI-A2 Main battle Tank, and there was no dosimetry required; no geiger counters anywhere. THATS how safe DU is.

15- Sadly, it's you who refuse to believe all the indications.

16- Again, I supply facts, you provide nothing to prove I'm wrong.

17- Learn world history.

18- Yes, it would indeed, but it does not refute what I said. Sorry!



[edit on 4-8-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
ShadowEyes: Links to "smirkingchimp"????

Look again, those articles carry links to the originals, however, these sources are not owned by propaganda media. Furthermore, most of the links I provided didn't come from there.

Hmmm, knocking my links and yet, you can't seem to provide even one. I understand if you can't find any to back what you say but until you do your opinion is just that...only your opinion and nothing more.


3- Do your own research; no habeas corpus; your defense attorney has no right to see the evidence of the charges against you; the Int'l Court could come to your place of work and arrest you, and whisk you out of the country, without having to prove anything in an American court...... for starters.

Sounds no different than what bush is doing.


And now, before YOU are ignored, here's a little bedtime story for you.

See the poor ostrich, how his head is buried in the sand while his butt is sticking up in the air with a big fat bulls-eye painted on it.

Poor ostrich,...he doesn't see that train bearing down on him and won't even know it's coming until its hit him.

.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
ShadowEyes, this is a good thread and deserves to continue to get notice. Mr. Bush should have been put in jail a long time ago. And not only as a war criminal.

We also have to remember that he has been arrested three times. In the states that consider the "three strikes" laws, he would have been incarcerated for life.

Furthermore, he ran AWOL from his national guard duty. That alone affords being tried by a military tribunal. The destination would be also prison.

But I'm with Fallen. Convicting the man is just a pile of broken dreams because the NeoCons continue to be in power and fill the airwaves with their kind of ideological garbage. As long as there are people who are brainwashed into believing them, we have to sit here and watch the car wreck turn into a 120 car pile-up on the interstate.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

But I'm with Fallen. Convicting the man is just a pile of broken dreams because the NeoCons continue to be in power and fill the airwaves with their kind of ideological garbage. As long as there are people who are brainwashed into believing them, we have to sit here and watch the car wreck turn into a 120 car pile-up on the interstate.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ceci2006]


That's true enough, for now, but who knows what the future may hold or how quickly things could change?

I've always believed that if I'm going to dream then I might as well dream big.
.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
CECI: The military records available BEFORE Bush was president shows he was NOT AWOL. This has been gobe over time and again. It was the president pantload who actually was AWOL.


The New York Times also looked into the charge and found it lacked substance:

Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.

Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum.


Actually, Bush asked three times to be allowed to go and serve in Viet Nam.

The 3-strikes law pertains to felonies.


[edit on 4-8-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
.
Well now, it looks like a growing number of people are asking the same question that I am. I found these two articles late last night.

Could Bush be prosecuted for war crimes

Can and should Bush be prosecuted for war crimes

Edit to add this...

.The Constitution in Crisis

We have a mountain of reports that strongly indicate that this Administration was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they told the Congress and the American people the opposite in order to satisfy a predetermination to go to war. The "smoking gun" of these reports is the Downing Street Memoranda, contemporaneous reports from the highest reaches of the British government recounting meetings with their American counterparts, meetings where the facts were being fixed around the policy of going to war.

We have a mountain of statements from Administration officials making claims designed to conflate Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, and corresponding mountains of reports that credible intelligence officials in our government disputed such claims. We also have evidence showing that government officials instituted policies which endorsed the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and international treaties.

We have scores of sources indicating the Administration engaged in a concerted effort to discredit and defame anyone who came forward to expose these outrages, and have largely done so without consequence. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson dared to question whether Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, Administration officials retaliated against him by outing his wife as an undercover C.I.A. operative. When General Eric Shinseki and others in the military dared to dispute the Administration's wildly optimistic assessments of what was needed to pursue the Iraq conflict, he was summarily replaced. The pattern repeats itself with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey. And Cindy Sheehan. And the list goes on and on.

The full report is well over 300 pages.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

To view the full report

.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Furthermore, he ran AWOL from his national guard duty. That alone affords being tried by a military tribunal. The destination would be also prison.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by ceci2006]


There has been a concerted effort to make bush look like he filled his service, but here's an interesting link.

Hammering Bush on AWOL

.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
ShadowEyes: You give links to sites with unquestionable agendas instead of factual information. And, yes, I actually wasted my time and read through the content on them; it's all stuff that has been refuted or debunked, with no real substance.... unless it proves your wishes/beliefs.

Truthout... Indymedia... what crap-ola. Even Wiki is suspect because most anyone can edit the content.

"There has been a concerted effort to make it appear like Bush did not fulfill his service requirements......" would be more accurate.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Speaking of sources, zappafan, where's your attitribution about Mr. Bush's AWOL? There's nothing to click on.

Mr. Bush's arrests, as far as I know, have to do with drunk driving. If someone can clear this up, it would be most helpful.

Now if he had three arrests pertaining to drunk driving, it is considered a felony in some states. And that means jail time--even in his own state of Texas--who has more strict drunk driving penalities than most states.

Here is a list of states and their different drunk driving laws .







[edit on 5-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
ShadowEyes: You give links to sites with unquestionable agendas instead of factual information. And, yes, I actually wasted my time and read through the content on them; it's all stuff that has been refuted or debunked, with no real substance.... unless it proves your wishes/beliefs.

Truthout... Indymedia... what crap-ola. Even Wiki is suspect because most anyone can edit the content.

"There has been a concerted effort to make it appear like Bush did not fulfill his service requirements......" would be more accurate.


And you give no links whatsoever.
Once again, until you provide links, your opinion is just that...only your opinion which by the way is unquestionly biased, so much so that it really looks like YOU are the one with an agenda.

If all that stuff has been refuted or debunked then you should have no trouble backing up your statement.

.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

by ceci2006:

Mr. Bush's arrests, as far as I know, have to do with drunk driving. If someone can clear this up, it would be most helpful.

Now if he had three arrests pertaining to drunk driving, it is considered a felony in some states. And that means jail time--even in his own state of Texas--who has more strict drunk driving penalities than most states.

Here is a list of states and their different drunk driving laws .


REPLY: Your link of state laws is dated 2003. One would have to go back and check the existing laws at that time. However..... as is shown in the following link, the incident (sorry.... only one, not three) occurred in Maine.


"....Bush had been at a bar in Kennebunkport with three friends and his sister, Dora. After he left, she said, he was pulled over by police about a mile away from his parents' home -- apparently because he was driving so slowly.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Fair enough, even though there isn't a link to your story about Mr. Bush's arrest in Maine. But, he was still arrested for drunk driving. Was he not?

And he was arrested two more times after that. So, it doesn't erase the fact that he broke the law.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   

by ceci2006:

Mr. Bush's arrests, as far as I know, have to do with drunk driving. If someone can clear this up, it would be most helpful.

Now if he had three arrests pertaining to drunk driving, it is considered a felony in some states. And that means jail time--even in his own state of Texas--who has more strict drunk driving penalities than most states.

Here is a list of states and their different drunk driving laws .


REPLY: Your link of state laws is dated 2003. One would have to go back and check the existing laws at that time. However..... as is shown in the following link, the incident occurred in Maine.


Bush said: "I'm not proud of that. I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." Bush said he was not jailed after the arrest. "I told the guy (the arresting officer) I had been drinking, what do I need to do? He said, 'here's the fine.' I paid the fine."....Bush had been at a bar in Kennebunkport with three friends and his sister, Dora. After he left, she said, he was pulled over by police about a mile away from his parents' home -- apparently because he was driving so slowly.

Bush, who was 30 at the time (1976), pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine. Kennebunkport Police told CNN on Thursday night that the charge against Bush -- operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor -- was a Class D misdemeanor.


As for the AWOL, there's much speculation out there, but, having been in the military, I have no problems with their records about the issue. It's been covered for what? .. ...... 6 years now?

Anyway, here's a link, since I obviously don't have a copy of his records; believe what you wish:

[link] www.geocities.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I've read FactCheck.org plus the web site you posted. And just because the miltary records of his service "mysteriously" appeared and memos "mysteriously" come up after the allegations does not mean anything new.

It just convinces me that things can be "mysteriously" orchestrated to appear different than what they are.

What would change my mind though is whether Mr. Bush earned any awards for his "service" in the military. That would truly prove he was a hero.





[edit on 5-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Could Bill Clinton be convicted of being a rapist? Could Ted Kennedy be tried for treason? Should Hillary be allowed to roam the streets without a muzzle? At what point do people get tired of hearing the Bush-Bashers out? Lets ask unloaded questions the way Liberals do.

"I AM SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING THAT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION THEN YOU ARE UN-PATRIOTIC!"

The funny thing about that is the reason Hillary's "rant" is so famous is because it is SO redundant.

I guess my point is.....Bush will go down in history as a very important president, like Ronald Reagan; Bill Clinton will go down in history as a shameful president; Kerry will go down in history (as in, down like a swirling turd in a porcelain bowl) and people who like to bash the current administration will someday mature, get real jobs, and come to realize that had a Democrat been in office during these trying times, America would be perceived by the outside world as a pathetic weakling because we sure as heck would have "cut and run" from a job that was started with the approval of the very people who are so apt to criticize and denounce it now! I'm proud of the job that Bush is doing. He warned people after 9-11 that is was a long rough road ahead dealing with Terrorism and he hasn't wavered. War crimes? Get real. These radical Muslims commit them every day! I've not heard of one instance at Guantanamo where a detainee's genitals were stuffed in their mouths after they were decapitated!

If you are American and you want to bring your president down during war, simply put:

YOU ARE TREASONOUS.


EDIT: By the way... If you want to hold this President to treaties and conventions dating back before or just after WWII, then hold yourself to them too. People like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and John Kerry--even that "Hillary" thing-- would have been rounded up for sedition and treason charges by WWII standards. Must be that freedom of speech thing......

[edit on 5-8-2006 by CreeWolf]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
The sad thing about it is this goes beyond any partisanship. The other shoe has dropped. There is troubling evidence which shows Mr. Bush to be guilty of war crimes. People know it. But the government is paralyzed to take any action.

In the end, history will define a place for Mr. Bush. But it certainly won't be one of the best presidents.

He has done far too much damage to not only his own country and to the rest of the world to garner than distinction.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf

If you are American and you want to bring your president down during war, simply put:

YOU ARE TREASONOUS.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by CreeWolf]


Correction.
The ones guilty of treason are those who destroy our Constitution, country, economy, troops...and those who continue to make excuses for them.

If we are treasonous, then we stand in good company.

West Point grads against the war

Instilled by the Cadet Honor System with a fundamental, longstanding respect for truth, we graduates of the United States Military Academy believe that honor is a basic attribute of character. That we are no longer cadets is irrelevant. We stand appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and, in particular, its widely known malefactors. Lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling not only has demeaned these deceivers and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve the lies.

The war in Iraq was launched illegally. It has since killed tens of thousands of innocents, causing incalculable damage to Iraq and the Iraqi people, as well as the reputation of the United States of America. We will not serve the lies.

When we West Point graduates took our commissioning oath of office one past June morning, we swore to protect our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The deceitful connivances of the current administration have resulted in a war catastrophic to our nation?s interests: politically, economically, militarily, and morally. We now stand to protect our nation from these deceivers. We will not serve their lies.


JUST IN CASE YOUR BLINDERS DIDN'T ALLOW YOU TO SEE IT THE FIRST TIME.

Edit to add...

FYI, it is Congress who is given the duty to declare war, not the president. And Congress NEVER declared war in the current assault upon Iraq.

Here are my links to back me up. If you wish to dispute what I've said, then include your links to back you up.

In time of war

Battlefield Earth

An Imperial president

U.S. war crimes and the legal case for military resistance

Unfit to be ruler of a free people

.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

[edit on 5-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Today brings yet another link to add to the list.

White House behind bars

The basis for any criminal case against the architects of the Guantánamo tribunals and other illegal acts related to the “war on terror” rests on the Geneva Conventions and laws of war—which were incorporated into domestic federal law by the 1996 and 1997 War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). These laws provide that any member of the U.S. armed forces or any U.S. national who commits a war crime may be fined or imprisoned for a term as long as life and may even be subject to the death penalty if death resulted from the violation. War crimes are broadly defined as “grave breaches” of Geneva or violations of Geneva Common Article 3, as well as violations of various parts of the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land....

Under Geneva, there is no form of immunity for such violations either. Geneva states that no party “shall be allowed to absolve itself . . . of any liability incurred.” And if that were not enough, the Nuremberg Charter, which grew out of the Holocaust and remains in full force as a treaty, exhorts: “The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility.” This means that neither the White House nor Congress may simply grant themselves—or others—immunity to get out of this problem. Withdrawing from such long-standing and widely accepted treaty law would be a major and unwise undertaking, but, in any case, officials may not write themselves an exemption into an already signed and ratified treaty. Again, treaties are the law.

.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join