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.

 

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
A Nurumberg prosecuter who got 22 convictions of Nazi officers has stated that Saddam Hussien and George W. Bush should both be tried in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for starting "aggressive" wars. Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait and George W.Bush for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The ICC is located in Hague, Netherlands. The ICC was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. Less than a year after the US ratified the ICC, the US withdrew its signature on the treaty, less than a year after that, the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
 



us.oneworld.net
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferencz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferencz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

Ferencz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a court of last resort that tries people "accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely gonocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (www.icc-cpi.int...)

In my opinion Bush shouldn't be brought up on charges of "aggressive war" charges. He stepped up when the UN showed no backbone. The US went into Iraq due to intelligence that Iraq had forbidden WMD and would not let inspectors go wherever they thought they might be hiding WMD.

Bottom line is WMD and prohibited ballistic missle programs were found. I actually think the UN should pay the US back for giving UN sanctions some meaning and backbone.




Related News Links:
www.humanevents.com
www.mediaresearch.org
www.worldnetdaily.com



[edit on 26/8/06 by Keyhole]



apc

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I think the whole idea of "War Crime" is laughable. War is war. War is not pretty. War = kill the enemy. All of the enemy. And anyone who supports the enemy.

Whether or not our invasion was justified is irrelevant in a criminal matter. If the rest of the world feels we were unjustified, they can stop importing our goods, stop selling to us, etc. This hasn't happened. But bringing our 'leader' to court would just be a last ditch effort to circumvent the opinion of the majority.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
he should be tried.




Bottom line is WMD and prohibited ballistic missle programs were found. I actually think the UN should pay the US back for giving UN sanctions some meaning and backbone.


Hey, man, just an FWI for you, we never found any WMD's.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by alpha_omega]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by alpha_omega
he should be tried.

Hey, man, just an FWI for you, we never found any WMD's.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by alpha_omega]


Please read the Related News Links.

[edit on 26/8/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
First off, I have zero idea what that person above me posted. Every other contradiction left me more confused. If you're so hip on no war crimes, then Slobodan Milosevich must be exonerated posthumously, and Saddam Hussein must be cleared of his charges. Sorry, your words work it that way, not mine.


What happens, will happen. The time to wait for a concensus of the few to join with a higher majority is becoming a waste. We do not need to see more people die for the few that want to play us like chess pieces. Great for this guy, but lets get the ball rolling.

How ironic that we use these systems when acting as plaintiff, but when they come to us, we are the running defendants.

No such thing as warcrimes... please.


*Edit - the person above me when I typed this was APC. Sorry for any confusion, didn't know this thread would take off this late!


[edit on 8/26/06 by niteboy82]


apc

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Murdering your own people isn't a war crime. It's just plain old murder.

If everyone who ever invaded someone else was to be tried in court, the line would be very, very long, and stretch back to the beginning of our species. Incorporating the notion of criminal act into war defeats the very nature of war. War surpasses crime. War is war.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I'd say this prosecutor is an expert, and he's calling it as he sees it. He certainly knows more than any of us as to who's a candidate for war crimes



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Why would only Bush be tried? He's merely the puppet for his cabinet.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
war is war you rabsolutley right, however when uneccsary torture comes into play as saddam had performed during his dictatorship and Bush allowed to happen with abu gharib that is another situation in all its own.

That is pre meditated torture of humans for personal gain not bystander deaths as result of bombs so yes Bush should be put on war crimes charges for allowing it to happen as the commander in chief.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I doubt very much Mr. Bush will ever be lead in handcuffs for the world to see...

I'd like nothing better, really. *sigh*



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Murdering your own people isn't a war crime. It's just plain old murder.

If everyone who ever invaded someone else was to be tried in court, the line would be very, very long, and stretch back to the beginning of our species. Incorporating the notion of criminal act into war defeats the very nature of war. War surpasses crime. War is war.


Agreed. Killing your "own people" is murder. But is killing other people--people you are warring with--is that murder too?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by jupiter869]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Its nice to dream, isnt it?

I doubt very much Mr. Bush will ever be lead in handcuffs for the world to see...


Actually this is indeed a dream, no need for the question mark. We do not recognize the ICC nor do they have any authority over our president or service members. As for this guy’s opinion, well the war was authorized by congress, we in the US shouldn’t base our decision to go to war on how the world "feels" about it or on what other "think" about it. We have our own laws and views. That is all.


apc

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
Agreed. Killing your "own people" is murder. But is killing other people--people you are warring with--is that murder too?


If the killing is in the context of one nation vs. another, no. Because the hands doing the killing are just an extension of the government ruling the nation. And they are killing equivalent extensions of the opposing government. It is the governments at war. The soldiers are merely tools.

Note: "nation" here is a loose term that should also apply to nation states, large ruling entities independent of a politically defined country, or rogue elements that govern over a large group of people.

If there is such a thing as a war crime, it would be this: mass killing of unarmed civilian noncombatants uninvolved with the politics and unsupportive of the enemy. Wiping out a town of people located in enemy territory who have pledged their allegiance to the enemy is the essence of war. Wiping out a town of people who couldn't care less what happens to the enemy and have no desire to be involved, is genocide. This may be classified as a "crime", but not one that goes to any outside court.

Anyone the public feels is guilty of a war crime is under the jurisdiction of their home nation. If Bush is guilty of anything that could be called a war crime, then that is our problem. It is a matter for us to deal with appropriately. If the rest of the world wants to make it theirs, they are free to attack us economically or physically.

It's tricky I know. The Greeks, Romans, Sun Tzu himself, all saw the need to place restrictions on conflict. But also recognized that when these restrictions are violated, the consequences are an internal matter.

There is nothing higher on the ladder than war. No law, no court, nothing. Again, to apply "international law" to war defeats the very nature of war.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
of course war is MURDER. how ridiculous to put 'nicer' words around such heinous human behaviour.
'just doing my job' is no excuse for unjustified murder. if the government is wrong and/or outright LYING, you have the REPONSIBILITY to be a conscientious objector.

i would have fought pol pot, or hitler, or stalin, or any other evil, if i was FORCED into to it. as david icke says, 'you don't war for peace, you peace for peace'. but, people are complete lemmings when it comes to war. they are terrified into a complete us/them mentality. 'evil' is as 'evil' does. don't be evil, and you may live to not fight another day.

saddam was the most tolerant leader on the middle east, religiously speaking. maybe that's why they wanted to get rid of him. not 'muslim' enough. once the entire middle east is 'muslim', the jewish/christian crusaders can more easily shore up popular HATE against the entire middle east, and then we'll get some REAL WAR going on.
"war is good for business, invest your son" -a bumper sticker

i wonder where the real saddam is? probably dead, with spider hole saddam standing in for the purposes of the propoganda ministry.

only a fool ignores the 'reasons' for war.

reichstag - a lie
baby incubator atrocity - a lie
jennifer lynch horror - a lie
WMD in iraq - lie
yellowcake uranium -lie
911 - lie
saddam's torture worse than US dept. of evil's torture - lie
saddam gassed his own people - lie
saddam was a threat - lie, he was whipped by the international community to the point of destitution, with sanctions causing the death of as many or more than A MILLION babies by starvation, or disease, or plain old bombs and bullets.

holocaust

'by way of deciet, thou shalt make war' -the mossad

'he hit me first!' - yellow journalism



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Nice One Keyhole!


Here is my Humble Contribution:


Dust off the Nuremberg Files

According to a August 2002 report by the UN sub commission, laws which are violated by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'.


Pentagon War Crimes: 250.000 Nagasaki Bombs in Iraq

There are more than 77,000 Tons stored at the 103 nuclear waste plants and the several Nuclear Weapons Labs in the US.

Each one makes another 250 pounds of radioactive material a day for radioactive bullets, bombs, and missiles.


International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration

The tribunal will deliberate on four categories of indictable crimes:
  • Wars of Aggression, with particular reference to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • Torture and Indefinite Detention, with particular reference to the abandonment of international standards concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of torture.

  • Destruction of the Global Environment, with particular reference to systematic policies contributing to the catastrophic effects of global warming.

  • Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights, with particular reference to the genocidal effects of forcing international agencies to promote "abstinence only" in the midst of a global AIDS epidemic.




top topics



 
8

log in

join