Imminent Arrest Of Americans For War Crimes?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times
Topic started on 23-4-2008 @ 09:44 AM by DimensionalDetective

Imminent Arrest Of Americans For War Crimes?


existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com
The Bush administration planned to commit war crimes from the outset of the administration, perhaps even earlier. Long before 911, Bush prepared legislation that would exempt US troops from war crimes prosecution at the Hague, specifically, violations of the Geneva Conventions later violated at Abu Ghraib. The measure positioned Bush in advance to exploit the crime of 911, though it had not yet happened. To this end, Bush sought Congressional authorization to go to war with the Netherlands should US troops find themselves on trial for war crimes at the Hague!

The measure exempting US troops from 'war crimes' was introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001, on May 8, 2001. It passed the House 282-137 on May 10 and introduced as S. 857 in the Senate on May 9 by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Zell Miller (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Frank Murkowski (R-AK).
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 09:44 AM by DimensionalDetective
O...M...G.

Just when I think these maniacs have reached the acme of their lawlessness, I learn something new that leaves me breathless...The following expose reads like something straight out of Ivan the Terrible's personal journals.

Not only did the Bush admin know that 9/11 was coming , but they knew they were going to use it to commit untold war crimes, and to subjugate, very blatantly, international laws and treaties. So much so, that they instituted THREAT OF WAR and INVASION upon International courts if they found themselves, or any other american under investigation or trial!!!

This is MUST-READ stuff!

The bill authorized Bush "...to use all means (including the provision of legal assistance) necessary to bring about the release of covered US persons and covered allied persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court [International Criminal Court, ICC, in the Hague]. Some highlights:

The President is authorized to invade The Hague. Specifically, the bill empowers Bush to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of US or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.
No US governmental entity --including State or local governments and court of any US jurisdiction --may cooperate with the ICC in arrests, extraditions, searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, or similar matters.


I hope people read these paragraphs VERY closely...As it is absolute proof that our gov believes that NO LAW applies to them---They can murder and torture whoever they want, whenever they want, and as the below sentence declares, no one can even investigate their actions! If that doesn't send a chill up your spine, you must be comatose.


No ICC agent may conduct any investigation in the US.
No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries Party to the Rome Statute.
These provisions are in addition to existing US law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any US funds going to the ICC once it has been established unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.


-----

This measure was introduced before 911 in anticipation of a 'War on Terrorism' and the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly no one but Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, the Project for the New American Century and high level members of the Bush administration anticipated the improbable series of events leading to the American quagmire in Iraq. Certainly, they are not 'psychic' despite a mantra repeated ad nauseam post 911: "No one could have foreseen...."! In fact, only the Bush administration 'foresaw' 911 in such detail, that they planned in advance to make legal the very laws they have in fact violated in the post-911 world.


-----


Certainly, no one but Bush would have foreseen that US atrocities at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and a gulag archipelago of US torture centers throughout eastern Europe would have necessitated measures in advance to put himself, US brass and members of his criminal junta above the law! This measure amounts to a criminal administration positioning itself --in advance --to exploit the crime of 911. It is more evidence that 911 was anticipated. It is evidence that 911 was an inside job.


Anybody still think that this entire thing wasn't meticulously calculated and planned out by these animals?

existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 23-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

[edit on 23-4-2008 by DimensionalDetective]


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 10:40 AM by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Hakii



Indeed...And it goes MUCH further than being lied to...These people have all but declared war on the populace with procedures they've put into place...They are striving for uncontested power and rule over EVERYONE, with no chance at being stopped in doing so. It is something straight out of an Orwell novel. People better wake the hell up quickly, and start furiously writing their congressmen...But even that, I'm afraid, may not do much...As we see, these criminals have insulated themselves from even INTERNATIONAL laws, and they have threatened anyone who tries to bring them to justice with extreme prejudice. It is enough to make me sick to my stomach.

Very, very disturbing...


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 01:00 PM by flice
Just had to find an authentic piece of paper on this... ranting articles often tend to paint bigger pictures than they have paint for.

I found this however:

Article 98:
www.state.gov...

I think this article nicely makes itself vague enough to be interprited in whatever way an American president intends to.
I haven't read the ICC treaty, but I'm amazed how they got away with creating it. Naivly it seems like the American president wanted this bill to favor the Americans 100%...

Treaties are about compromised you freaking redneck! (read Bush)
You can't have it all...


Reply to Griff:
Just write a piece of paper that clearly states that your property has renounced its relations with the US and also acknowledges any form of trespassing onto your country as an act of war thus giving you power retalliate with lethal force

Apparently since you didn't sign the ICC treaty, so you can't be held accountable for any deaths happening by your hands in whatever way.


/sarcasm

[edit on 23/4/08 by flice]


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 01:24 PM by burdman30ott6
Here's an idea... try reading the actual House Resolution in question instead of blindly taking some goober with a blog's opinion (not to mention his outright fabrications) of the issue! www.govtrack.us...

Maybe this blogger is confused and listed the wrong resolution because H.R. 1646 says nothing whatsoever about "invading the Hague" nor does it allude to such actions. This is why op-ed pieces and blogs aren't news, alternative or otherwise. Now it's my turn to tell some folks to deny ignorance!


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 02:23 PM by dariousg
reply to post by burdman30ott6




Thank you for posting this. I was wondering about it. However, I have seen other bills passed by this administration that cannot be argued over. The moves are that of a dictatorship no matter how you look at it. National Security is a shield that murderers have used to hide behind.

However, I do not want to blindly accept everything written. Thank you for doing the research. The only problem is that one needs a law degree, or not in many cases, to understand that it comes down to interpretation.


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 02:29 PM by flice
reply to post by burdman30ott6



I refer yet again to Article 98...

I'll agree to that the ranting in the bloggers article blows it out of proportions. He did however get it right when he states that the US will never accept sending people to the ICC...

Article 98:


The Political-Military Bureau at the State Department leads the United States' worldwide campaign to secure bilateral non-surrender ("Article 98") agreements protecting American citizens from the International Criminal Court (ICC)



in 2005:


The United States welcomes the signing of the 100th Article 98 Agreement. On May 2, 2005, Angola became the 100th country to conclude such an agreement with the United States. These bilateral agreements, which are provided for under Article 98 of the Rome Statute, ensure that U.S. persons will not be surrendered to the International Criminal Court without our consent. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Constance Newman signed the Article 98 Agreement on behalf of the United States and Ambassador Josefina Perpetua Pitra Diakite signed on behalf of Angola.


So as long as mr. Bush doesn't recognize a specific action to be crime in his eyes, he ofcourse won't give consent.
Having said that I bet that diplomacy still plays in, but it doesn't seem to me like to many politicians around the world are questioning the Americans type of diplomacy.


[edit on 23/4/08 by flice]



reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 02:44 PM by Hakii
reply to post by Xeven



You are indeed correct, we did, vote these people in, and we did push them into office.



But i want to propose and honest question to all in this thread. What can we do to stop them now? They are there, and not going anywhere for some time it seems. WE can write to our congress men, we can protest, we can stand up and fight, and get thrown in jail for being a terrorist, each day few and few of us remain who are knowledgeable, slowly we are being stuck down by the hands of the elite. . . But has it helped our cause at all? we can sit here and post on a thread about what we see going wrong? but does it help? does anyone but the ones open minded enough to hear us out, care to actually listen? nope they blow us off like we are some crazed lunatics. So i ask once again, what can we actually do to stop this and help wrold from getting more blood soaked then it already is? and if an answer does come and i hope someone is able to help us out. . . When do we take action, this past week has been full of horrible news of how America is slowly yet swiftly falling to pieces. . . not to mention the whole world seems to be put in a sort of checkmate, or a janga tower, waiting for that last piece to be removed before all hell breaks lose. . . What can we do NOW to stop this? and if someone is able to give a good answer, WHEN do we do this? The Waves are already huge, just waiting to collapse us all


Hakii


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 02:49 PM by kelbtalfenek
reply to post by DimensionalDetective



First off, I wasn't aware that you could post a blog that refers to the post about itself. Seems counter-intuitive to me, and shows a lack of credible resource material.

Secondly, if this passes, or if it has passed, it certainly sets the US and Israel against the rest of the world. I shiver at the Orwellian/Clockwork Orange type of world that we're becoming.

So if crimes against humanity/war crimes are not prosecuted, what next, will torture become legal. Oooops sorry, it already is. No, we really need to educate as many people as we can about the escalating dissolution of our Constitution and the utter disregard for human life that this, and probably future, government administrations are showing.


reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 02:57 PM by flice
reply to post by kelbtalfenek



It was passed years ago... read my post.

Sry for 1-liner
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 81 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 15 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 3 days ago with 48 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 10 days ago with 37 member flags