UN May Prosecute Bush, Regardless of US Action

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by TheStev
a statement on German television by a UN official calling for the US to pursue Bush and Rumsfeld.

While I consider waterboarding to be torture, there is no proof that any torture took place at GITMO and therefore there is nothing to 'pursue' Bush and Rumsfield for.

It's just a foreigner, connected with the CORRUPT and USELESS UN, blabbing anti-bushisms.

I hope we both agree that they should be prosecuted if such evidence will be shown?
There's no question on my mind that they have tortured, and as long as evidence can be provided, I see no reason why they should get a ''free bail out''.

Such behavior is not tolerated in our Western society. We should stick to the values and principles our society has been built on. If we don't we aren't any better than the terrorists.

Source Raw Story

Monday, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney made a startling statement on a nation-wide, televised broadcast.

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

"I supported it," he said regarding the practice known as "water-boarding," a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding, a practice which the outgoing Bush administration attempted to enshrine in policy.

From the UN webiste:

The UN’s human rights chief also welcomed the fact that President Obama’s Executive Order issued today sets a framework for regularizing the situation of the remaining detainees in Guantánamo.

She also raised the issue of compensation for those judged to be innocent and called for a thorough investigation into allegations of torture at the Guantánamo centre.

“Under international law, there is an absolute prohibition against torture, and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” she said. “There must be accountability for those who have ordered such practices or carried them out, and victims should receive recompense.”

Ms. Pillay saluted Mr. Obama for taking such an important step so swiftly upon taking office. “This is a good day for the rule of law,” she noted.

source


More Here

Reading between the lines, and cutting through the bureaucratic language, it COULD be interpreted that the UN is indeed calling for prosecution.

The thing to do is to wait until tuesday, try and view the TV show and then check back on the UN website.

This will show us how serious they are.

Certainly, the statement posted seems like an opening salvo, and in the language of diplomacy is actually pretty harsh.

I'm going to flag this and wait for further developments

_______________________________________________________________

On a slightly different note - this is a conspiracy site, and this is alternative news. Raw Story is usually pretty reliable - at least as reliable as the MSM, and I think we should give this and other similar sites a chance rather than just attacking the source because some don't like what they see.

A lot of the time there is more than a kernel of truth in there, and the spin is certainly no worse than MSM sources.



[edit on 24/1/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by Total Reality
reply to post by jdposey

 

Hmm.. I thought that this was a reliable news source. Any reason you don't? Would you rather I posted something I got off the Fox News website? lol

Fox News gets their stories from Reuters and the AP, so...yes, actually Fox would be a reliable source. They might put a spin on it, but if they reported it, it probably happened. So basically, Rawnews is not reliable, and I'm willing to bet the UN won't do a thing, since the US is their biggest supplier of....everything. Name something the UN does that doesn't require the US in some way? I think the US should just leave the UN, along with other international things that don't do America any good at all, WTO...etc

Originally posted by nyk537
This idea of trying Bush as a criminal is ridiculous.

WHY?

They admitted to allowing "detainees" to be tortured!

Bush Administration: 'We Tortured Qahtani'

Crawford's admission of torture is in relation to the case of a Saudi national, Mohammed al-Qahtani, 30, accused of involvement in the 9/11 attack.
******SKIP******
Crawford, a Pentagon official who last year was put in charge of military commissions that decide whether detainees should be tried, told the Washington Post: "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]." She added: "The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent."

Cheney Admits Authorizing Detainee's Torture

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture.

"I supported it," he said regarding the practice known as "water-boarding," a form of simulated drowning. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding, a practice which the outgoing Bush administration attempted to enshrine in policy.

Hmmm, funny how when another country "waterboards" US soldiers it's a crime, but when the Bush administration has US intelligence agencies do it, it's not a crime!

Just because Congress didn't have the kahunas to impeach Bush or go after his administration doesn't mean that there wasn't enough evidence or that a crime wasn't committed!

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Keyhole]

Right, wrong or otherwise, not gonna happen.

Let me say this again, "NOT" gonna happen.

No president is going to allow the "UN" to try a current or ex president.
(Foreigners can not be allowed access to information the president has)

No country or group of countries is in a position to really do anything about it.

reply to post by mrmonsoon


Agreed - with reservations.

But we can still dream can't we?

Yes, there will be no justice enacted against the criminals, who behaved in the same ruthless manner Saddam Hussein did.

So much for that. Sad; very sad. Such an example would show the World that america is not enitrely evil natured, as most believe of it at this time (even many americans).

Oh well, another criminal gets away scot free. UN will do nothing but bluster on this matter.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by SS,Naga]

reply to post by nyk537

Originally posted by nyk537
That's because the charges themselves lack any substantial credit.

No they don't. Just because they have been shrouded in secrecy by a politicized Justice Department doesn't mean they hold no water.

* Deception of Congress and the American Public
o Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
o Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
o War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
o Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)
* Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment
o Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)
o The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
o The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
o United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
o Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)
o Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)
* Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals
o Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)
o Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)
o The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)
o Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
* Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information
o Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)
o Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)
* Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance
o Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)
o National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
o Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)
o Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)
o Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)
* Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)

Keith Olbermann may be an obvious partisan, but he isn't wrong on this and it is not being spun. These things are ILLEGAL. And should be prosecuted.



Here's another rawstory article that was also true and well researched. The problem with people on this site is that they don't look at the actual article and think Fox News is the epicenter of truth, when we know they are just the Neocon propaganda wing:

rawstory.com...

George Bush is a criminal. And because he decided to ignore international Law. All of which we signed and ratified...Under Article 6 of the US constitution those Laws are part of the US constitution.

www.usconstitution.net...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

This includes, the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter. Violations thereof are direct violations of US Constitutional Law and in some cases can even be tried as TREASON. But I don't expect you or anyone else to actually READ the Laws that this country signed onto, and in the case of the UN charter, wrote.

www.un.org... Here's a good place to Start
www.usconstitution.net...

Read these and try to understand them. Before pretending to be a lawyer and saying it hold no weight.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

American forces in Japan after WWII convicted Japanese soldiers of torture by waterboarding American troops. The Geneva conventions forbids torture and the US is a signatory on the Geneva Conventions making it instantly the law of the land. What is the question here? These men are war criminals and should be treated as such by the world community including the US!

Were North Korean leaders prosecuted for war crimes for the torture of UN personnel after the Korean War?

Were North Vietnamese leaders prosecuted for war crimes for the torture of US personnel after the Vietnam War?

Was Saddam tried for war crimes against coalition soldiers following the First Gulf War?

Just asking.

To advocate the want/ability of the UN to prosecute an American citizen is a purely globalist view.

No matter what your political stance, to endorse the UN stepping in concerning any legal matter is Un-American (no pun intended).

The UN's history speaks for itself. I'm not comfortable with them deciding any American's future, no matter what his/her crime.

We have laws and courts in the USA that are fully able to handle this situation.

And yes, credibility of the source is in question.

And yes, as mentioned in this post, Olberman is partisan. (Entertaining though!)

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Marmota monax]

reply to post by Marmota monax


Huh? We WROTE THE UN CHARTER! The US essentially created the UN. How is that un-American?

You must not read history. WW2 was horrible and the world was seeking closure and a way to prevent that level of suffering from ever occurring again. Read some history will ya.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The UN will NEVER go after an American POTUS.

You are 100% correct. The UN knows it can't REALLY try to prosecute an American president, just as they knew they couldn't REALLY prosecute Putin, when Russia invaded Georgia. This is just posturing on the part of the UN, which is all that it ever does. The UN- all talk and no action. Pick any conflict you like recently- Israel versus Gaza, Iran and nukes or no-nukes, Russia-Georgia. The UN is like the weather- Everybody talks about it, but no one ever does anything about it. Why not just shut the UN down, and convert the building to housing for the homeless. At least the building would be put to good use.

reply to post by projectvxn

WW2 was horrible and the world was seeking closure and a way to prevent that level of suffering from ever occurring again. Read some history will ya

I guess they haven't been very successful at preventing that "level of suffering", have they? Or did you miss the Israeli-Gaza "repeat of history"?

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I did not forget. But I must say that the UN has been MADE spineless by the power of the Christian Right wing in the United States and AIPAC. It is the reason why the US used it's veto power in contravention of international law. The UN needs the will of the biggest power players to actually enforce those laws. To blame the institution itself does not change the fact that the largest players are the worst offenders.

Lead by example.

reply to post by projectvxn

To blame the institution itself does not change the fact that the largest players are the worst offenders.

That is because the largest players don't want to play by the rules, never have, never will. Because of that, the UN will never be anything but a big bag of wind. Considering that the biggest players are usually the ones that are called on, to provide the vast majority of troops, though, can you really blame them for not wanting to play nice? Altruism is a nice concept, but there is very little of that in the 21st century by ANY nation, not just the big players. Therefore, I suggest we just stop making believe that the UN can be effective, because it never will be.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I believe that leading by example is the best course of correction for the UN and the players that make the UN policy. Ignoring the rest of the world and pretending that the world ends at the shores of America is a mentality we need to get over. We are part of a global community. And the term "Globalist" has alot of bad connotations, and only because we don't give a voice to the rest of the world...We reign supreme and expect other to play by OUR rules when the world is very mixed with cultures and beliefs.

I believe we should make the world smaller and smaller until we're all world citizens. But I do not want, for instance, an NWO type of deal where we answer to a dictator. What I would like to see is the philosophy of self governance in a united world.

We will never see our true potential if we keep ignoring or ravaging the rest of the world to maintain some illusion of grandeur. The UN isn't perfect. But it is a step forward.

reply to post by projectvxn

Ignoring the rest of the world and pretending that the world ends at the shores of America is a mentality we need to get over. We are part of a global community. And the term "Globalist" has alot of bad connotations, and only because we don't give a voice to the rest of the world...We reign supreme and expect other to play by OUR rules when the world is very mixed with cultures and beliefs.

First of all, did I ever say that the world ends at the shores of America? Did I ever use the term Globalist? Did I ever say we reign supreme? Please don't put up strawmen and then knock them down. If you wish to make comments and reply to me, then please stick to what I SAID, not what you believe I think, because then you would be wrong.

I'll tell you what I believe, and you can respond to that. I believe that the UN is a relatively USELESS organization, that has ignored huge problems such as Darfur, Israel vs. Gaza, Russian-Georgia, Irag, Afghanistan, world poverty, child slave labor, and the list goes on. Virtually all talk, no action.
In fact, one of the few UN actions that was set in motion, was the CREATION of the state of Israel, by taking away land that belonged to Palestinians, which of course, was given to them by the British Mandate. Look at what THAT has done for WORLD PEACE.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Chill man you seem a bit apprehensive...

I wasn't telling you what you believe, I was telling you how I feel about these issues. I even started the first 2 paragraphs with "I believe".
[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by jerico65
Were North Korean leaders prosecuted for war crimes for the torture of UN personnel after the Korean War?

Bad example.

Lawfulnes s of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions

122 The Geneva Conventions did not apply de jure to the war in Korea as not all parties had yet signed or ratified them.

(It's down around page 30)

Were North Vietnamese leaders prosecuted for war crimes for the torture of US personnel after the Vietnam War?

Kinda like what might happen with Bush, North Korea didn't "give them up", so to speak.

Was Saddam tried for war crimes against coalition soldiers following the First Gulf War?

Again, how would you have gotten him out of the country after the Gulf War to prosecute him?

Sometimes these crimes obviously aren't prosecuted because their country won't allow the trial to take place, does that make it right?

Does that mean that the US government should hide somebody if they are a war criminal or perpetrated crimes against humanity?

I hope we're above that!

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Keyhole]