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.

 

Could Bush be prosecuted for committing or istigating war crimes?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
So far there is no evidence of WMDs and evidence that the intelligence leading us to the Iraq war was faulty... Is it that US has invaded another country illegally? I was wondering what other people think about this. Could Bush be prosecuted for committing or istigating war crimes? and what could be the penalty for this crime if found guilty?

I am sure WMDs will pop-up before the elections...

Any thoughts on this?




posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
bush is 100% guilty. i hope he gets locked up in prison like American History X


bush is one bad dude...



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
It will never happen sorry to say, money talks and George Bush walks
I think he and his cohorts should be hung or shot no prison time at club fed



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
you're overlooking the fact that because saddam violated u.n. charter, war upon him was completely legal for any u.n. member.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
But we're not talking about what Saddam did.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I would love to see Bush and Co. go, however, the best we could do is get rid of him and his groupies at this next election. Will the elections be held? I think there's good possibility they wont be.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think the elections will NEVER take place. Something will be cooked up where the country can not get out and vote.
When this happens all hell will brake loose.
Unfortunate.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
It is illegal for any member nation to try and kill the leader of another member nation without UN approval. Remember the US did not get UN backing. So the US and more specifically Bush was in violation of UN regulations.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
apparently i have to reiterate...saddam violated 17 u.n. resolutions that were created for the sole purpose of keeping him from becoming a threat to all nations. allowed punishment for violation of those resolutions, according to the u.n. charter?:war. under u.n. charther the war on iraq was legal due to said violations by saddam. OH, BUT WHY DID WE HAVE TO GO IT ALONE, BASICALLY, THEN? simple, the other permanent, and most powerful, members of the u.n. (france, germany, etc.) didn't help us because they were getting backdoor money and/or oil from saddam due to their part in the oil for food scandal.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Ah yes, the "the other guys in Europe opposed us because they're corrupt" argument. As if that's the only reason they could ever oppose the righteous Bush administration.

Of course the U.S. went to Iraq for purely altruistic reasons...



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
astroblade... this wouldn't by any chance compare to how we keep protecting Israel when one vote after another comes up against them? If those 3 countries are protecting Iraq because of backdoor money then I must assume we have a similar dirty deal with Israel.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Otts, what's wrong with you. i'm just trying to express that the war on iraq was legal, that is after all what this thread is about, and in case someone tried to counter saying it wasn't and that's why we went unilateral i was just getting in the first word. if the truth seems overplayed to you then maybe you have a serious problem. you'll never see me praising the bush administration, but i can tell you france and germany most likely didn't back us up because they didn't want to hurt their relations with saddam. look it up anytime..."oil for food scandal". as for altruistic reasons...probably not. i'm sure there's more to it. but have you ever known any gov't to do something without complete selflessness.? as for you indy, maybe we do have a dirty deal, but i'm going to wait until proof of that shows up. until then i'm just going to stick with we stound on similiar ground, have a history of being decent countries, and have a connection no politician wants to screw up.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by astroblade]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   
If the UN actually got off their collective butts and actually did anything, they could "try" and take bushy down. The fact of the matter is the UN half stepped they entire way to the buildup to the war and the lack of cooperation helped cause the actual strike. I'm not back Bush or anthing I am just saying even IF they wanted to prosecute Bush, they would need to actually do something about it. Face it, the UN is useless.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
This veto power stuff is nonsense. What kind of system is that? Imagine if California, NY and Florida had veto power in congress. OMG. No new laws would ever get passed. Then again.. maybe thats not so bad.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
As I said I cant see Bu# or anyone from his clan being indited, Money talks and Bu# will walk,
This article below is interesting but will anything become of it? Who knows, I hope so but I wont be holding my breath
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsey Clark's Indictment of George W. Bush
Below is the indictment written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
Join us on Thursday, August, 26, 2004, to hear the reading of the indictment and presentation of evidence from expert witnesses, eyewitnesses, GI resisters, and representatives from international sessions of the World Tribunal on Iraq.
Thursday, August 26
3-9 pm
Marin Luther King Auditorium
65th & Amsterdam
For more information:
www.PeopleJudgeBush.org...
To Register:
www.PeopleJudgeBush.org...
To Donate:
www.PeopleJudgeBush.org...

Read the INDICTMENT of 19 charges
This Criminal Indictment Charges George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John D. Ashcroft, Tommy Franks, and his successors as Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, George J. Tenet, L. Paul Bremer, III, John Negroponte and others to be named with Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws Made in Pursuance Thereof.


[edit on 22-8-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
The Indictment link isn't working for me. Can you check it?

Edit:
Thanks for fixing it. Thats a pretty serious list of chargest especially from a former Attorney General.

[edit on 8/22/2004 by Indy]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
your welcome

Yes they are seems to cover it all, but 9/11,but thats another story,
I still have my doubts of anything happing though



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
you're overlooking the fact that because saddam violated u.n. charter, war upon him was completely legal for any u.n. member.


if that is the case why hasn't the US invaded israel?


p1

posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
-G.W.Bush


So you wonder if the war is legal? I'll throw some information your way and let you decide...

Theres this little Resolution called Resolution 1441 , In this resolution it states:


RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,


That means Iraq denied the UN inspections.

It also goes on to say:


DEPLORING the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,



DEPLORING FURTHER that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,



DEPLORING the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,



DEPLORING ALSO that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,


Do you understand what you just read? It basically says that Iraq again, denied the UN the right to do its job.

And then theres this:


RECALLING that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,


Did Iraq cease fire after the 1991 war?

You decide:

* February 2001 The US and UK make bombing raids on targets in and around Baghdad. The move is in response to increased instances of Iraqi SAMs targeting UK and US planes. Intermittent attacks designed to degrade Iraqs air defence capability in the no-fly zones continue. This, however, was the first attack on Baghdad since February 1999. Widespread international criticism of the raids ensues, led by Russia, China and France.

.. Theres a ton of incidents, but I dont feel like looking them all up.. google.

The resolution 1441 goes on to decide that iraq:


1. DECIDES that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);



2. DECIDES, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;


And last but not least:


RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


Here's a letter from Blix:


8 October 2002

Dear General Al-Saadi,

During our recent meeting in Vienna, we discussed practical arrangements that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. As you recall, at the end of our meeting in Vienna we agreed on a statement which listed some of the principal results achieved, particularly Iraqs acceptance of all the rights of inspection provided for in all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. This acceptance was stated to be without any conditions attached.

During our 3 October 2002 briefing to the Security Council, members of the Council suggested that we prepare a written document on all of the conclusions we reached in Vienna. This letter lists those conclusions and seeks your confirmation thereof. We shall report accordingly to the Security Council.

In the statement at the end of the meeting, it was clarified that UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed "sensitive sites" in the past. As we noted, however, eight presidential sites have been the subject of special procedures under a Memorandum of Understanding of 1998. Should these sites be subject, as all other sites, to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, UNMOVIC and the IAEA would conduct inspections there with the same professionalism.



Iraq's response:



H.E. General Amir H. Al-Saadi
Advisor
Presidential Office
Baghdad

Iraq

We confirm our understanding that UNMOVIC and the IAEA have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any particular site. This determination will be made on the basis of the size and complexity of the site being inspected. We also confirm that Iraq will be informed of the designation of additional sites, i.e. sites not declared by Iraq or previously inspected by either UNSCOM or the IAEA, through a Notification of Inspection (NIS) provided upon arrival of the inspectors at such sites.

Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of UNMOVIC and/or IAEA inspectors, as appropriate, and at their request.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews. It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location for interviews.

The National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) will, as in the past, serve as the Iraqi counterpart for the inspectors. The Baghdad Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Centre (BOMVIC) will be maintained on the same premises and under the same conditions as was the former Baghdad Monitoring and Verification Centre. The NMD will make available services as before, cost free, for the refurbishment of the premises.

The NMD will provide free of cost: (a) escorts to facilitate access to sites to be inspected and communication with personnel to be interviewed; (b) a hotline for BOMVIC which will be staffed by an English speaking person on a 24 hour a day/seven days a week basis; (c) support in terms of personnel and ground transportation within the country, as requested; and (d) assistance in the movement of materials and equipment at inspectors request (construction, excavation equipment, etc.). NMD will also ensure that escorts are available in the event of inspections outside normal working hours, including at night and on holidays.

Regional UNMOVIC/IAEA offices may be established, for example, in Basra and Mosul, for the use of their inspectors. For this purpose, Iraq will provide, without cost, adequate office buildings, staff accommodation, and appropriate escort personnel.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA may use any type of voice or data transmission, including satellite and/or inland networks, with or without encryption capability. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may also install equipment in the field with the capability for transmission of data directly to the BOMVIC, New York and Vienna (e.g. sensors, surveillance cameras). This will be facilitated by Iraq and there will be no interference by Iraq with UNMOVIC or IAEA communications.

Iraq will provide, without cost, physical protection of all surveillance equipment, and construct antennae for remote transmission of data, at the request of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Upon request by UNMOVIC through the NMD, Iraq will allocate frequencies for communications equipment.

Iraq will provide security for all UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel. Secure and suitable accommodations will be designated at normal rates by Iraq for these personnel. For their part, UNMOVIC and the IAEA will require that their staff not stay at any accommodation other than those identified in consultation with Iraq.

On the use of fixed-wing aircraft for transport of personnel and equipment and for inspection purposes, it was clarified that aircraft used by UNMOVIC and IAEA staff arriving in Baghdad may land at Saddam International Airport. The points of departure of incoming aircraft will be decided by UNMOVIC. The Rasheed airbase will continue to be used for UNMOVIC and IAEA helicopter operations. UNMOVIC and Iraq will establish air liaison offices at the airbase. At both Saddam International Airport and Rasheed airbase, Iraq will provide the necessary support premises and facilities. Aircraft fuel will be provided by Iraq, as before, free of charge.

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Helicopter flights may be used, as needed, during inspections and for technical activities, such as gamma detection, without limitation in all parts of Iraq and without any area excluded. Helicopters may also be used for medical evacuation.

On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past.

As before, visas for all arriving staff will be issued at the point of entry on the basis of the UN Laissez-Passer or UN Certificate; no other entry or exit formalities will be required. The aircraft passenger manifest will be provided one hour in advance of the arrival of the aircraft in Baghdad. There will be no searching of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or of official or personal baggage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will ensure that their personnel respect the laws of Iraq restricting the export of certain items, for example, those related to Iraqs national cultural heritage. UNMOVIC and the IAEA may bring into, and remove from, Iraq all of the items and materials they require, including satellite phones and other equipment. With respect to samples, UNMOVIC and IAEA will, where feasible, split samples so that Iraq may receive a portion while another portion is kept for reference purposes. Where appropriate, the organizations will send the samples to more than one laboratory for analysis.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the above as a correct reflection of our talks in Vienna.

Naturally, we may need other practical arrangements when proceeding with inspections. We would expect in such matters, as with the above, Iraqs co-operation in all respect.

Yours sincerely,


Did Iraq comply? Again, you decide:

news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Iraq was given 11 years to comply to UN inspections. 11 years it denied, barred, exported and lashed back at the UN. For 11 years the US could have gone to war with Iraq LEGALLY if it wanted. It took the castrophy of 9/11 to finally get America off its ass and start facing world problems again.

Iraq's Timeline of chances to avoid the war..



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Hello P1, I understand your point, however the US administration went to war ignoring other countries warnings and avoided getting the UN permission or veto. Why not consider an Israeli-like strike killing Saddam and his family instead? If it is legal for Israel to assassinate people, it would have been legal for the US administration too.

Or perhaps the war on Iraq was purposely done to gain full control over the new Iraqi puppet government, reconstruction contracts and mainly to establish new military bases in the most strategic spot in the Middle East?

In fact I suspect that the war was not about oil, but about controlling and re-directing the oil revenue to specific politically backed companies.

But wait how does OBL fit in this picture?



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Regardless of whether or not our invasion of Iraq was legal, what happened to the effort to get those responsible for 9/11? Why did we take this detour? Just because Saddam violated U.N. resolutions? That makes a lot of sense.

Bush's agenda from the day he took office was to get Saddam Hussein. No matter what else happened on his shift, Saddam was target number one. 9/11 took a backseat to Bush's personal agenda, and WE paid for it. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Bush should be drawn and quartered ...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join