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.

 

International Criminal Court's case against Bashir could provide precedence for going after Bush

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

International Criminal Court's case against Bashir could provide legal precedence for going after Bush.


thinkprogress.org

The International Criminal Court (ICC) yesterday issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Today, the AP reports that, based on the legal principles the ICC used to arrest al-Bashir, former President George W. Bush could be next on the list:

David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects. Crane is a former prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal that indicted Liberian President Charles Taylor and put him on trial in The Hague.

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 5-3-2009 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Interesting...

I have long stated that if any TRUE justice were ever going to be served toward the most corrupt and perpetually criminal regime in history---The Bush cabal---That it would likely be on an INTERNATIONAL setting, outside of the states, where the entire "justice" department has been entirely compromised and "croney-ized" as well.

Will this set the precedent to finally bring these war criminals to justice? The world can only hope...

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Obama will not go after Bush. ICC will not go after Bush.

However, you will see Obama announce a special envoy to Darfur according to George Clooney and i predict that our military will soon play a role there.

Word was that Obama was waiting for ICC to issue warrant.

George Clooney


The US did not sign the ICC-enabling Rome treaty in 1998. President Clinton did sign at the end of his term, but President Bush repealed it. The Hague invasion act, passed under Sen. Jesse Helm's Foreign Relations Committee, calls for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by … the International Criminal Court."


abcnews.go.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

Flag & Stars, Stars, Stars!

I knew which member would be on top of this, from the beginning...
The article is short, sweet, and MOST exhilerating.

Don't know if it WILL ever happen, but I'll take two tickets towards the front, please, if it does!



-Good links jam!-



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I agree with you about "let's move forward" Obama, but I am still up in the air about the ICC. Im not holding my breath that they will go after these monsters, but if anyone on the planet MAY, it would likely be them IMO.

FRIGHTENER-Reserve a ticket for moi.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The ICC would, were it to pursue Bush, do more than simply announce and issue a warrant.

Since the Federal Government, bolstered by her legistlator and judicial lackeys, refused to accept the ICC's legitimacy, the ICC can expect no cooperation from us.

Knowing that, and knowing that the Federal Government (at least) will do everything in their power to block, confound, and otherwise resist the ICC; it would fall upon UN peacekeeping forces and or Interpol to execute the warrant.

Local and federal officials would shield Bush; eternally.

Why? Because he was our President, and ostensibly acted in the name of the people of the United States. We haven't had a president who was not guilty of crimes in numerous generations. DO we really trust the rest of the world to treat our president justly?

If Justice were to be a 'wish-granted' I would have to say the magical gift would be OUR OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM actually fulfilling it's mandate, ignoring the 'political machinery' and its 'transnational corporate masters' and charge him IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT would be justice. What the ICC offers to too many influential 'interests' is a chance for 'revenge' NOT justice.

Still, the truth needs to be exposed and dealt with in less than 50 years, which seems to be the political machines 'comfort zone' with revelations of their disingenuous behavior and generally un-American motivations.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
And now a former UN prosecutor is echoing the same sentiments:


Ex-UN prosecutor: Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court

An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.


Full article:

rawstory.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
You are a straight up fool if you are daring to compare Bush Administration's actions with Bashir's. If Bush committed war crimes, I suppose I blindly followed orders and should be hung at the gallows as well?

It's a shame people fall for this crap. Maybe the war was illegal-- depending on who you says legalizes war (I don't think anyone can...it wouldn't be war if there was a legal way to settle it) but Bush's actions weren't war crimes. He didn't gas anyone, or murder civilians-- in the cases where this stuff has happened the soldiers have been held accountable for their actions.--NOTHING LIKE DAFUR. I challenge someone to make a serious parallel that holds ANY WEIGHT.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Though, the cynical part of me would find some humour, the grotesque type, if Bush were hung only shortly after Saddam was. Though, I would unfortunately have to take up arms against the individuals who do this to my former Commander-in-Chief. And, that is no joke-- unless you find some Nixon-like tapes having him laugh about killing Iraqis or prove he's a reptile, I will defend him to the grave.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Most people don't seem to understand that the UN, turning on Bush, alongside the presidents and PMs of other countries, was a smooth move done for the world to ignore the UN Oil For Food Program Scandal.

There was a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that several officials in the UN, entire governments in the UN, and including UN boss Kofi Annan's son, Kojo was involved in this scandal.

The program was supposed to give aid to Iraqis in exchange for oil from Iraq, but in fact Iraq was recieving banned military weaponry, in exchange for oil.

This scandal involved important people from around the world that were getting rich, meanwhile Iraqis were not recieving the aid they were supposed to get, and were dying because of this. Not to mention the banned military equipment being send to Iraq, when UN sanctions prohibited this.

The whole argument that the war was illegal, is only a red herring being used as a political tool by people who simply don't like Republicans, and decided to turn their hatred towards one man, and one administration.

The Iraqi war was a "military engagement authorized by Congress", and was perfectly legal.

Throughout the history of the U.S. several times have "military engagements authorized by Congress" been done, without making a formal declaration of war.



In twelve instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

.................
Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002 77-23 296-133 Ongoing

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the charges of torturing insurgents? American lives were saved by this, and it is ironic that several countries which are part of the UN are dictatorships in which worse things happen, yet nothing is done against these nations.

Do any of you know that there are at least 35 terrorist organizations in the U.S. that are training to kill Americans?... and that's the number that we know, there are probably a lot more.

BTW, if ex-president Bush was to be prosecuted for torture, then the same should be done in every country where this has been happening...



Rights group criticizes France's terrorism strategy
By Elaine Sciolino Published: July 2, 2008

PARIS: France's much-praised system of using sweeping arrests and aggressive interrogations and prosecutions to combat terrorism violates the rule of law and prevents suspects from receiving a fair trial, according to a human rights report released Wednesday.

France prides itself on having the most efficient counterterrorism strategy in Europe. French counterterrorism officials insist that the flexibility of French law and the French judicial system has been crucial in their ability to respond to the threat of international terrorism and has helped prevent attacks on French soil.
.......

www.iht.com...

Fighting a war against an enemy that is willing to kill himself/herself to kill infidels, and which resort to behead people and record the beheadings, when we know these people are not going to give information that could save lives on their own free will, leaves only one choice whether you like it or not.

War is always, and will always be savage, whether it conflicts with the sensitivities of those who have no idea of what war is, and even if it is used as a political tool by certain groups.




[edit on 8-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why not? Bush is planning to do a tour around the world with lectures, once across the borders we can at least arrest him[and Cheney, Rumsfeld]...i think we can take good care of him here in The Hague

Prosecuting him could be a good example, for al the hundreds of thousands of people tortured and without prosecution held captive...



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
Why not? Bush is planning to do a tour around the world with lectures, once across the borders we can at least arrest him[and Cheney, Rumsfeld]...i think we can take good care of him here in The Hague

Prosecuting him could be a good example, for al the hundreds of thousands of people tortured and without prosecution held captive...


Could you show proof of these "hundreds of thousands of people tortured"?.... Or is this just a claim of yours?

Those people that were detained were fighting against U.S. and allied forces...they were not "innocent"...and most of them were not even iraqis, as most insurgents are from Saudi Arabia and other nations who went to fight the U.S. and allied forces because they are terrorists.

Why don't you demand for Kim II Sung, Fidel Castro, and their entire regimes plus other regimes which have really tortured innocent civilians, and have had, and still have political prisoners which never used violence for years and even a decade or more?....

There are regimes which have opressed their own people for decades, and are still opressed, starving, and without any Human Rights..........

Why don't you demand for the real dictators to be prosecuted?...


[edit on 8-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Foppezao
Why not? Bush is planning to do a tour around the world with lectures, once across the borders we can at least arrest him[and Cheney, Rumsfeld]...i think we can take good care of him here in The Hague

Prosecuting him could be a good example, for al the hundreds of thousands of people tortured and without prosecution held captive...


Could you show proof of these "hundreds of thousands of people tortured"?.... Or is this just a claim of yours?

Those people that were detained were fighting against U.S. and allied forces...they were not "innocent"...and most of them were not even iraqis, as most insurgents are from Saudi Arabia and other nations who went to fight the U.S. and allied forces because they are terrorists.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


Hilarious. Pot meet kettle.

Most of them were not Iraqis, eh? Could you show proof of that, or is this just a claim of YOURS?

And yes, the vast majority of the tens of thousands of people killed and maimed over there WERE innocent. They were subject to an invasion and occupation of their country based on NOTHING BUT LIES. So they had EVERY RIGHT to defend their country from a foreign intruder that was occupying their land based on totally false premises and accusations.

And the people who signed off on these WAR CRIMES need to spend the rest of their lives behind bars for their crimes against humanity-period.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ragman
Though, the cynical part of me would find some humor, the grotesque type, if Bush were hung only shortly after Saddam was. Though, I would unfortunately have to take up arms against the individuals who do this to my former Commander-in-Chief. And, that is no joke-- unless you find some Nixon-like tapes having him laugh about killing Iraqis or prove he's a reptile, I will defend him to the grave.



Honestly, I applaud your loyalty. I served under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton; I can tell you that I understand the sentiment.

Unfortunately, this does not extend to Mr. G.W. Bush, who I fault, in the end; not for what he did, but what he didn't do; he did not tell the truth. Anything built upon a foundation of lies, loses any chance of being 'appreciated' on my part. Just my opinion of course, as you may hold that GW did no wrong (morally or legally speaking) as your own.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Hilarious. Pot meet kettle.

Most of them were not Iraqis, eh? Could you show proof of that, or is this just a claim of YOURS?

And yes, the vast majority of the tens of thousands of people killed and maimed over there WERE innocent. They were subject to an invasion and occupation of their country based on NOTHING BUT LIES. So they had EVERY RIGHT to defend their country from a foreign intruder that was occupying their land based on totally false premises and accusations.

And the people who signed off on these WAR CRIMES need to spend the rest of their lives behind bars for their crimes against humanity-period.


This is what happens when people politicize every topic and talk about subjects without having any real information...



Most foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia, despite attempts by US officials to portray Syria and Iran as the main culprits of violence, a US newspaper reported Sunday.

Citing an unnamed senior US military officer and Iraqi lawmakers, the Los Angeles Times newspaper said about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting US troops and Iraqi security forces were from Saudi Arabia, 15 percent from Syria and Lebanon, and 10 percent from North Africa

Official US military figures made available to The Times also show that nearly half of the 135 foreigners in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, the report said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, the paper said.
.........

rawstory.com...


By the way...this is what real Iraqis have been doing....



Most Tribes in Anbar Agree to Unite Against Insurgents

By KHALID AL-ANSARY and ALI ADEEB
Published: September 18, 2006

BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 — Nearly all the tribes from Iraq’s volatile Sunni-dominated Anbar Province have agreed to join forces and fight Al Qaeda insurgents and other foreign-backed “terrorists,” an influential tribal leader said Sunday. Iraqi government leaders encouraged the movement.

Twenty-five of about 31 tribes in Anbar, a vast, mostly desert region that stretches westward from Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have united against insurgents and gangs that are “killing people for no reason,” said the tribal leader, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi.

............

www.nytimes.com...

In case you, and others forgot, the insurgents have killed more Iraqi civilians, than they have killed U.S., or ally forces...

Even when the Iraqis were going in the thousands to vote for a new president, the insurgents attacked the voting polls to stop the real Iraqis from voting...


Iraqis defy insurgents in huge voter turnout

By Hannah Allam and Tom Lasseter

Knight Ridder Newspapers


BAGHDAD, Iraq — Yesterday was a rare day of jubilation in this war-weary nation.

Although the exact numbers were not certain, it appeared a surprise majority of eligible Iraqis cast ballots in their first independent elections in half a century, defying the insurgency that tried to silence them with a barrage of attacks, mostly suicide bombings, that killed 44 Iraqis and two U.S. Marines yesterday.

Voters danced in the streets and let out shrill cries of joy. They wiped away tears and hugged their children. They risked death and celebrated with chocolates.

............

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Keep laughing, and calling for a justice that you obviously know nothing about.

Most of the Iraqis who became insurgents were part of Saddam's regime, meanwhile the mayority, that is about 75% of all insurgents in Iraq are from other countries, and are not Iraqis...


[edit on 9-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Most people don't seem to understand that the UN, turning on Bush, alongside the presidents and PMs of other countries, was a smooth move done for the world to ignore the UN Oil For Food Program Scandal.

There was a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that several officials in the UN, entire governments in the UN, and including UN boss Kofi Annan's son, Kojo was involved in this scandal.

The program was supposed to give aid to Iraqis in exchange for oil from Iraq, but in fact Iraq was recieving banned military weaponry, in exchange for oil.

This scandal involved important people from around the world that were getting rich, meanwhile Iraqis were not recieving the aid they were supposed to get, and were dying because of this. Not to mention the banned military equipment being send to Iraq, when UN sanctions prohibited this.

The whole argument that the war was illegal, is only a red herring being used as a political tool by people who simply don't like Republicans, and decided to turn their hatred towards one man, and one administration.

The Iraqi war was a "military engagement authorized by Congress", and was perfectly legal.

Throughout the history of the U.S. several times have "military engagements authorized by Congress" been done, without making a formal declaration of war.

...

As for the charges of torturing insurgents? American lives were saved by this, and it is ironic that several countries which are part of the UN are dictatorships in which worse things happen, yet nothing is done against these nations.

...

BTW, if ex-president Bush was to be prosecuted for torture, then the same should be done in every country where this has been happening...

...

Fighting a war against an enemy that is willing to kill himself/herself to kill infidels, and which resort to behead people and record the beheadings, when we know these people are not going to give information that could save lives on their own free will, leaves only one choice whether you like it or not.

War is always, and will always be savage, whether it conflicts with the sensitivities of those who have no idea of what war is, and even if it is used as a political tool by certain groups.



Well put. Thanks.

The Sudan's Bashir has been perpetrating an outright genocide of blacks in Darfur for years by having Arab janjaweed mercenaries murder and destroy villages. Hundreds of thousands already dead, the final toll will exceed a million.

The UN does nothing.

Middle Class Westerners sit at their computers and compare Bush to Bashir to demonstrate how rebellious they are. The other side laughs at the Western neurotic self-loathing that just furthers their efforts.

A hard pill to swallow folks. A war has been declared on YOU.

Whose side do you want to be on?


Mike F



posted on May, 1 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The so called "International Criminal Court" in the hague should be more appropriately renamed, as the "Euro-imperialist tirade show for the conviction and barbaric demonization of people with black skin, christians and serbians".

The Netherlands is the highest responsible in international terms for the Srebrenica massacre, not Ratko Mladic. The area was supervised and under full control of dutch blue helmet peacekeepers at the moment when the massacre happened.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join