Tribunal finds Bush, seven others guilty of war crimes

Tribunal finds Bush, seven others guilty of war crimes

www.theborneopost.com

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world,
the former US President and seven key members of his administration were
yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now that they have been convicted of war crimes, what will happen to them? Are we going to see them in prison? Personally, I would like to see them in prison. I agree these bastards ruined the nation, destroyed our good name and trust throughout the world, lied us into war and in fact did commit war crimes.

www.theborneopost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

And in other news ... Bush and Gang don't give a damn

reply to post by Needalight


i will be both blunt , rude and also contemptuous - and say :

"so bloody what ?" , followed by - "who cares?" , ending with "what diference will it make?"

the ` Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal " is an unelected , unratified , non-government organisation , whoes ` legal ` mandate was created by itself - and is recognised by no bona-fide agency , court or soverign govt

to put it bluntly a gang of self appoined walts with no powers or authority outside thier own fantasies

who cares what they think ? i certainly dont

Originally posted by Needalight


Now that they have been convicted of war crimes, what will happen to them? ....

Honestly, nothing will happen to them.. nothing at all.

This finding was by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission - not the internationally recognized one at the Hague.

From the article in the OP there were only 3 witnesses and the defendants representation was a "friend of the court"..

The hearing took place over a four-day period, beginning May 7, whereby, three witnesses testified in the proceedings, while others gave their testimony, by way of statutory declarations. Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar led the prosecution team while Jason Kay Kit Leon who was appointed ‘amicus curae’ (friend of the court), represented the accused.

As for the court itself..
Mahathir's war crimes tribunal under fire

A war crimes tribunal set up by Malaysian ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad has been criticised by a former United Nations senior official and activists, who say the body lacks legitimacy.

The former United Nations Special Rappporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, said there was no legal basis for the tribunal which would become a "circus".

He also told the local Sun newspaper Tuesday that Mahathir during his tenure as premier had not signed Malaysia onto a statute establishing the International Criminal Court in 1998.

"If he was genuinely concerned about justice to victims of war and bringing war criminals to trial, he should have got the government to sign the statute then. He never bothered," Param was quoted as saying.

"The government to date is not a signatory to the statute," he added.

Mahathir last week launched a war crimes tribunal which he said will focus on victims of abuse in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, saying the existing International Criminal Court in The Hague was biased.

His tribunal carries no legal authority, is not backed by any government and has limited ability to gather evidence or compel accused persons to appear.

The commission holds no international weight or recognition. The ruling will have no impact.

reply to post by Needalight

Now that they have been convicted of war crimes, what will happen to them?

They will cancel all scheduled speaking engagements in, or other trips to Kuala Lumpur. Other than that, they will probably travel with increased number of gunmen in countries friendly to Malaysia.

If Americans want these people in prison, then the Americans are going to have to do it themselves.

reply to post by pthena


utter twaddle - instead of spewing your ignorance on the internet - try looking up what actual powers and authority the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal actually has

hint - none whatso-ever

no boa-fide law-enforcement agency will take any action based on the dictates of these self apointed blow-hards

so who cares ?

PS - reading the thread would have informed you of all this - why didnt you read it - and if you did - why dint you understand it - or offer rebutal to my post or others instead of gracing use with your opinion [ which is utterly incorect ]

PPS - if you are offended , insulted or upset by this reply - tough - you deserve it

reply to post by faryjay


why should they ???????/

Put it this way, Rudolph Hess flew and parachuted into enemy land to sue for peace (regardless of your political leanings, this was bravery on a level none of our modern western leaders could comprehend)- he got banged up in solitary confinement for LIFE!, before having a rather strange "suicide"..........


Using that as a template then all manner of extreme punishments could be argued for modern day war criminals such as Bush, Obama and Blair

Originally posted by Needalight

Tribunal finds Bush, seven others guilty of war crimes

www.theborneopost.com

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world,
the former US President and seven key members of his administration were
yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh how I hope this is real. Awesome find OP S+F
Now if the corrupt UN will take this ruling and do something with it.

Good luck with that..

Nothing will ever come of this..

Never get their hands on bush..

What if this was iran that did this
to you. should we just give you guys
up because they say sooo naaaahh.

nilch news

Interesting that Obama isn't on that list, seeing as he took Bush's techniques of killing and torture and improved upon them.

/TOA

Big deal!
So he and others are guilty, whatcha gonna do?
That's right, continue to get mad just like they want.
Eventually one of the little guys will harm another of the little guys and the ones pulling strings will giggle once again.

Old news and one of the four judges was Alfred Lambremont Webre.

[eom]

Interesting group they chose. I wonder why wolfowitz didn't make that list, or Rice and Powel. Oh well, at least we're halfway, they got the obvious ones, beavis and butthead, bush and cheney.

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


Old news? This just happened like two days ago?


But anyway, It is a shame that they will do nothing to the old administration. I heard in some states in the USA, people had a "bounty" sort of thing for George Bush at one point. I don't see what Obama has anything to do with this though. Obama did a couple more good things that Bush ever did, and he was just left with Bush's mess to deal with.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
Interesting group they chose. I wonder why wolfowitz didn't make that list, or Rice and Powel. Oh well, at least we're halfway, they got the obvious ones, beavis and butthead, bush and cheney.

Powell? Didn't Powell leave during the Bush administration? I believe he wanted to have nothing to do with him.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

PS - reading the thread would have informed you of all this - why didnt you read it - and if you did - why dint you understand it - or offer rebutal to my post or others instead of gracing use with your opinion [ which is utterly incorect ]

Then can you list the scheduled itineraries to Malasia of the named "convicts"? Are any of them still going to Malasia?

Can you point out exactly what was "incorrect" about my post?

I don't recall offering any opinion regarding "official recognition of the tribunal". I do recall reading stories of some of these named individuals cancelling trips and increasing the number of body guards they travel with.

One example:

Dick Cheney cancels trip to Canada, saying it's too dangerous March 13, 2012
Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was making headlines Tuesday after canceling an appearance in Toronto, reportedly citing safety concerns.

More:

Who's Afraid of War Crimes Prosecution?
In early 2011 former President George W. Bush was forced to cancel a trip to Switzerland to speak at a fundraiser for the United Israel Appeal after it was revealed that a number of human rights groups were planning to prosecute Bush for war crimes, including contravention of the Convention Against Torture to which the United States is a signatory.

The first such attempt to prosecute Bush occurred in 2009 during the former president’s first trip abroad since leaving office, when he spoke at the Telus Convention Centre in downtown Calgary, Canada. At the time, Lawyers Against the War and other groups lobbied Canadian prosecutors to fulfill their duties under the Canadian War Crimes Act to arrest and try Bush for his documented participation in the commission of torture techniques during his reign as president.

Despite widespread protest, prosecutors declined to bring charges against Bush at the time, and police defended Bush from Splitting The Sky, a Mohawk activist who attempted a citizen’s arrest.

Originally posted by Needalight
reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

 

Old news? This just happened like two days ago?

They "tried" Bush along with Blair last year.

Bush, Blair guilty in Malaysia 'war crimes trial'

So this is kind of the second time though this for W.

The guy that started the tribunal had this to day before he founded the commission...

Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power, unveiled plans for the tribunal in 2007 just before he condemned Bush and Blair as "child killers" and "war criminals" at the launch of an annual anti-war conference.

So "trying" Bush and crew is pretty much what these guys do even thou it means nothing.

It would be like me going on a rant against canned tuna and then putting together a panel (chaired by me) of other canned tuna haters called "The Commission for Quality Seafood" and in our first meeting declaring Starkist guilty of putting out bad canned tuna. It would mean nothing.

reply to post by Needalight

I don't see what Obama has anything to do with this though. Obama did a couple more good things that Bush ever did, and he was just left with Bush's mess to deal with.

It's called "accessory after the fact" and "obstruction of justice". Instead of dealing with it, he did the whole, "We must look forward, and not back" routine. I'd like to see that used in a normal court trying a suspected bank robber.

Lawyer gets up, "Well yes, it's obvious that my client suddenly had much more cash immediately after the robbery, but hey! Let's not look back at how he got the cash, let's look forward to how it should be spent."