International Criminal Court complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzale

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by impressme
that these criminals are going to walk.

I love how you do not need a court to be found a criminal by some people, they just declare someone guilty and that is it!

President of the United States and his administration are allowed to commit war crimes against the American people, and people of foreign countries? Because, if is doesn’t why aren’t they being held accountable?

Because they never committed war crimes! - which court convicted them? Oh, you do not need a court, you just want a lynching party!

[edit on 5/2/10 by dereks]

You're funny dereks! How selective you are in making that observation!! In case you don't get the point, which apparently has already gone way over your head, none of the Guantanomo detainees, the Abu Graib detainees, the tens of thousands and more who have been killed and written off as mere "collateral damage" whose deaths are deemed hardly worth mentioning, all the "suspected" terrorists who have been murdered abroad, all those who have been extraordinarily renditioned, those who have been raped, maimed, and murdered just becasue they happened to be within reach of a bullet or some jackass's penis, . . . none of these have a had a trial, but they were killed, murdered, executed none-the-less. But, then, they were mostly members of the powerless classes so their deaths don't matter, eh?

[edit on 2/6/2010 by dubiousone]

reply to post by GreenBicMan

Originally posted by GreenBicMan

 

….. hahahaha

reply to post by nerbot

Originally posted by nerbot

 

Professor Francis A. Boyle
I wonder if he's accident prone?

“Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.” Adolf Hitler.

Anybody having fun?


[edit on 6-2-2010 by CoolBlackHole]

reply to post by impressme


Never ceases to amaze me of the stupidity and ignorance of people. War crimes, acts against humanity. I am willing to bet you have never spent a day in the military. Also, it is apparent your family was not killing in the World Trade Towers, or randomly blown away by a suicide bomber. If you really want to see criminal acts against humanity go to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, or Somalia. Terrorist are not following any world court rules of war, they are not abiding by the Geneva Convention. They are nothing but a bunch of thugs that go out and kill because they do not want to try and to change the laws, or run for office, or vote. When a law or rule or action is something they do not agree with they just go blow something up like a baby throwing a temper tantrum.
Basically, that is exactly how I view your comments. A big baby that cannot have his way. Arm chair quarterback that thinks he can play the game better than everyone around him. The truth is you do not even know the rules of the game, the law of the land but have the arrogates to act as though you do.

This is the dumbest idea ever...Not understanding the Iraq war in its proper context of what was going on in the world is more insane than going into the war in the first place.If they keep pushing to put these men on trial we surely are losing all common sense on this planet.The same problem is going to come with Iran.Israel in no way whatsoever is going to put up with threats of being wiped off the planet from Iran.No other country or nation would put up with insane threats.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Jobeycool]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people praise the bush administration for their "accomplishments" in the middle east. Truth is, if OJ Simpson can walk, so can bush and all his friends. I think that this is a good step toward the real truth, and I'm all for a fair trial. If they present the real facts in court and bush and his friends are found innocent, then great - this can all be put to rest. However, if he and his friends are truly guilty, then they should have to pay just like everyone else. Problem is, if there was any real evidence, bush and his friends have destroyed it or paid hush money to people already and I doubt anything will happen. We just have to put up with our corrupt leaders until we are so angry that we actually do something about it. Half of Americans have an I.Q. below 100 and that average seems to be dropping. I don't think things will get better in this country any time soon.

This professor still hasn't left Gilligan's Island.

reply to post by impressme


I do not agree with Brainwrek about the ICC, but there is a question as to whether or not the ICC has jurisdiction. It doesn't have any jurisdiction in the US, because the US is not a party to the treaty.

There are a few exceptions, I think, or possible ways around that, depending on where the alleged crime was committed and by whom. As I recall it, it gets very complicated.

So there might be a situation where the alleged crime might have been committed in a country that is a party to the treaty, or something like that.

The ICC isn't a joke. I for one hope they do find a way to establish jurisdiction to prosecute the Bushes. How else can such criminals be dealt with?

Originally posted by impressme

You all just do not know how delighted I was when I stumbled on this.

You are delighted by the concept of some global power thinking they have the right to arrest an American? Blank You!


[edit on 6-2-2010 by factbeforefiction]

The fact this is Boyle should not escape everyone here. Boyle would have been a contemporary of Obama and I believe they were in Harvard at the same time.

Boyle is the guy who tried to separate Hawaii from the US in the nineties and now represents the Palestinians.

I doubt he gives a damn about this. He is a publicity hound who is likely doing the biding of the Obama Administration, which is doing anything they can to divert attention. You can't pass legislation a super-majority of the population is opposed to, unless you can divert their attention.

We are likely to see lots of stories like this over the next few weeks. Even the Health Care issue is a diversion I believe personally. This is all about finding a way to slip Cap and Trade by us while people are not looking. I honestly believe that Cap and Trade is the single highest priority of the Obama Administration. That was the first thing on their agenda, it failed miserably up front, now they have to find a way to divert attention.

Just look at all the painfully obvious mistakes made with the Health Care Bill. Does anyone think Obama is that stupid? Smoke and Mirrors.

He will be calling on all his old Harvard buddies to help divert attention. Get ready for a fun year on ATS We will see a trainload of people in the news helping to divert the news stories away from White House and Congress. They will all be Obama contemporaries.

reply to post by rgzing

Terrorist are not following any world court rules of war, they are not abiding by the Geneva Convention.

George Bush deliberately ignored the Geneva Convention but you have no problem with his arrogance

Should George W. Bush be Tried for War Crimes?


The War Crimes Act of 1996, promoted by Republicans and passed by both houses of Congress without a dissenting vote, made it a federal crime to commit a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions, meaning the deliberate “killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of detainees. It includes “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and they do not have a statute of limitations. Although it was initiated to prosecute foreigners who mistreat American prisoners, Congress, in an admirable display of bipartisan support for human rights, applied the law as well to American treatment of foreign prisoners of war, reasoning that we should hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others.

www.allgov.com...

2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
(B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
(C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
(i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
(5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of

www2.law.cornell.edu...


Now, what is it that “I don’t understand?”




[edit on 6-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by factbeforefiction

Originally posted by impressme

You all just do not know how delighted I was when I stumbled on this.

You are delighted by the concept of some global power thinking they have the right to arrest an American? Blank You!


[edit on 6-2-2010 by factbeforefiction]

Hmmm. I'm in a foreign country right now. So I should be able to go torture and kill people, and then just split back to the US and thumb my nose at them? How about Mexicans in the US that commit crimes and then split back home without punishment? You like that too?

So I can just hire hit men to go to foreign countries and kill people and they can't complain? As long as I call my hit men soldiers it's OK then, right? Even if they are Blackwater employees from Chile or wherever? Cause that's who is in Iraq right now...

reply to post by impressme


the only thing worse then the right wing nut jobs is the left wing nut jobs. im sure this is just a i wanna right a book stunt, schemes like this really kick off once unemployment spikes and people dont have actual productive things to do

reply to post by CaptChaos

Originally posted by CaptChaos
So I can just hire hit men to go to foreign countries and kill people and they can't complain? As long as I call my hit men soldiers it's OK then, right? Even if they are Blackwater employees from Chile or wherever? Cause that's who is in Iraq right now...

Hersh: 'Executive assassination ring' reported directly to Cheney

rawstory.com...

Yes, that what Dick Cheney was doing with his assassination squad.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by CaptChaos
So I can just hire hit men to go to foreign countries and kill people and they can't complain? As long as I call my hit men soldiers it's OK then, right? Even if they are Blackwater employees from Chile or wherever? Cause that's who is in Iraq right now...

That's right, we're the big dog and the big dog bites and don't pretend for a second that whatever country you're from isn't enjoying it's liberty as a direct result of that fact.

The writ to The Hague does not look like an official letter, but rather like a
draft, as there is no address of the recipient or sender. It would be a ridiculous
way of addressing such an international court.

The ICC has issued the first international arrest warrant against Sudan´s
president Omar al-Bashir for the proven genocide of some 300,000 people
in Darfur. He indeed, as one of you stated further up, is now limited in travel,
because any member country to the ICC is obliged to turn him over to The
Hague for imprisonment.

See: www.un.org...

International law, like that of the ICC, prevails over national law.

Although al-Bashir has ridiculed openly the ICC, I am convinced that he
will wind up in jail like Karadzic, Milosevic, and others, for whom the UN
installed an international special court for the crimes in former Yugoslavia.

It is true that the USA is not signatory of the ICC, although they pushed the
idea at first, but later withdrew, because they saw trouble ahead with their
military engaged in many wars.

Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan have not signed. There is no danger from Iraq
or Afghanistan for a prosecution of anything that happened there.

I wondered why the two countries did not immediately after the beginning
of the war sign the ICC convention to pull eventual atrocities committed
on their soil under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

If IRAN were wise, they would be doing it in case of war. They shied this
move in the past because of their own terror regimes to be held
accountable.

The US, accepting the prevalence of the ICC and fearing mischief for their
soldiers in future wars, concluded arrangements with ICC members to
turn over convicted criminals not to The Hague, but to the US, where under
your own laws governing war crimes those convicts would have to stand
trial. This was part of the agreement. My country of residence, Luxembourg,
signed, Germany, for instance, did not. Some members were bullied into
signing.

Now, if a former president of the US, no longer immune, convicted of war
crimes, were to come to Germany, he would be arrested and turned over
to the ICC prison. Germany would probably tell him to stay at home.

The 100 crimes, allegedly committed on ICC members´soil, in my opinion,
are too negligible for an acceptance of the complaint in comparison to the
Darfur figures.

Try reading the statute before commenting on it:

www.icc-cpi.int...

It seems the jurisdictional "problem" isn't: the statute clearly pins jurisdiction on WHERE the crimes took place, not where the perp is. And just as clearly the crimes occurred within the jurisdictional space of the statute. Bush and Cheney, et al, have already confessed to the crimes on national television, even bragged about them. CIA agents have been convivted of thee same crimes in absentia in Italy. And yes, Obama is also guilty: extraordinary rendition is a crime. Actually it is several crimes: kidnapping, torture, murder, false imprisonment, criminal conspirancy, deprivation of legal rights to name those that spring to mind.

For those who are playing the "innocent til proven guilty" fiddle, how about the presumed innocence of their victims? The entire "extraordinary rendition" program is extralegal; criminal activity on its face.

I say, more power to the court, I hope they nail all of them.

It might just succeed. If warrants are issued, at least it will restrict their travel, although I'm pretty sure they're arrogant enough to think themselves untouchable and ignore them.

reply to post by impressme


Why did it take so long? I still don't get it..

I'm glad the process has started, Toni is already in a #ed up position, but the things is nothing will happen because America hasn't collapsed yet. We all know leaders of nations will never be punished, especially world powers until those powers collapse. Who got punished from USSR? No one, cause they took the smart root and went back to their own borders. They didn't push it too far like the Germans.

reply to post by apacheman

For those who are playing the "innocent til proven guilty" fiddle, how about the presumed innocence of their victims? The entire "extraordinary rendition" program is extralegal; criminal activity on its face.

Absolutely the truth couldn’t have said it better myself. If we are to be the pioneers to push democracy worldwide, then we should not become terrorist ourselves.
That is what Bush and Cheney did; they became terrorists and passed draconian laws that benefitted this criminal cartel. These people violated the laws of the constitution, and should be held accountable.

It might just succeed. If warrants are issued, at least it will restrict their travel, although I'm pretty sure they're arrogant enough to think themselves untouchable and ignore them.

Bush and Cheney do think of themselves untouchable, I think they are cowards who hid behind their draconian laws that they fooled congress into passing.





[edit on 6-2-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


I predict nothing.

GWB is one of the Blue Blood, True Bloods. (Stewart Swedlow).

"They" have ruled Planet Earth for millieniums and will continue to do so until the majority of sheeple wake the frak up and revolt.