International Criminal Tribunal findings: George W. Bush guilty of war cri

[RedEarth]

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what to make of this story....I guess we'll find out......


International Criminal Tribunal findings: George W. Bush guilty of war crimes - 09/22/2004 01:47

In the final opinion of the court, Judge Niloufer Bhagwat, rules against Bush.

Citing: George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander -in-Chief of US military forces for serious crimes ; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war ; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction , against the people of Afghanistan ; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States ,UK and other forces deployed ; and on countries, in and around the region.

In a court action not seen since Nuremburg, 1946, the court issued its ruling in no uncertain terms that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, protracting an illegal military conflict, and crimes against humanity. Very serious allegations indeed.

The entire ruling can be found at: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm.

Bush has never acknowledged this ruling, nor was the American people ever informed of it. Is the concealment an effort by Bush to keep the American people in the dark about what is really happening in the world?

In the final findings, the court said: ?The Defendant is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government ; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration ;including military orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed¦.

http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14279

[fdr_hst_fan]

1. Right on, BROTHER!

[rainy]

2. How big is this? will the media report it?

What will be the outcome?

[fdr_hst_fan]

8. 1) BIG!

2) Are you referring to the AMEREICAN WHORE MEDIA? Don't hold your breath!

3) There won't be one; nothing will happen!

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Since it's dated 13th March 2004

I think we can safely say it won't be reported.

It's just a self-appointed court - mostly Japanese lawyers.

Their home page: http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/

[OneBlueSky]

13. the report was issued in March . . .

it may be big, but not big enough for US media to cover it . . . wonder why? . . .

and if they had all this to say about Afghanistan, wonder what they'd say about Iraq? . . . are they continuing their work and examining Iraq? . . . anyone know? . . .

[dweller]

3. so, what is the $$Bounty on this hombre?

I believe he'll be smoked out of his hole by Nov04.

dp

[jeff30997]

4. Too bad that Chimpy don't give a shit about that.

In a perfect world, that bastard would be in jail...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. In a perfect world, that bastard would be in jail...

Wouldn't it be cool... if it was wise, for Kerry to state in his addresses... that NO ONE will be pardoned from any decisions from any international warcrimes tribunal... lawyer group... etc. It would be so cool to see the look on the neocons' faces.... I mean... yeah... I'd love it.

[glitch]

31. in a perfect world we wouldn't even know he existed. and that goes for the

rest of the family too.

[Seabiscuit]

32. In a perfect world

*, his friggin' ugly, rotten parents, grandparents, Beavis & Butthead daughters, and the entire crypto-fascist neo-con junta would never have existed at all, so there'd be nothing to know about them at all.

Unfortunately, they're everywhere where money and power are concerned, and it's up to us across the nation to see them all in leg-irons, handcuffs, and behind bars for life.

[Dangerman]

56. Amen to that.

[MsTryska]

5. are they part of the UN?

why afghanistan and not iraq?

[robbedvoter]

6. Only Afghanistan?

[RedEarth]

11. Here's some more of the story

The court has also faulted the US for using weapons of mass destruction; something the US invaded Iraq for in an effort to halt the creation of WDMs. The UN inspectors have said that Iraq did not have WDMs, the US can show no evidence that Iraq even had WDMs.

The court has also introduced a new word into the vocabulary of court proceedings and that is: ?omnicide¦ - in relationship to the US-s use of depleted uranium that retains it-s radioactive threat for approximately 4.5 billion years. Not only are the present victims of American hostilities directly suffering the after effects of radioactive poisoning, but future generations will suffer equally.

[indepat]

20. Wonder what the dollar amount of equitable reparations would be: To

wit, is this nation forevermore mortgaging its economic future by using DU et al?

[Randers]

7. Can you imagine if this were broadcast on the 6:00 news

as something to be taken seriously?


I wish I could.

[Silverhair]

50. More people would vote for Bush if that were aired.

That kind of thing may thrill the ultra far left, but the moderates, swing voters (Yes, they do exist) and of course the RW would view this as outsiders telling the USA what to do.

And that court has zero enforcement ability. They are toothless.

[forgethell]

9. Who are these people?

What is their authority?

[ixion]

10. And rightfully so...

Good to see that there is at least a semblance of justice in the world.

It's amazing to me that he and his cadre will probably never do any real prison time over this. If these were the acts of an individual, rather than a head of state, that outcome would be much different.

[rawstory]

14. NOT LBN

this is dated march 04, guys.

[dweller]

15. bottom link @pravda

dated 9/22/04

it's new to us.

In the final findings, the court said: ?The Defendant is a convicted war criminal
consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be
constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government
; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration ;including military orders
threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal
orders of Superior must not be obeyed¦.

[Ohio rules]

23. Pravda ! popular fiction

These are the same people who will talk about alien autopsies being conducted in Nevada in a few weeks.

[dweller]

24. be sure to include that link

when it comes in 'a few weeks' comrade.



otherwise, Fauxnews to you too!

dp

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lutherj]

16. This appears to be symbolic trial, held in Tokyo. There is no

real authority or jurisdiction that I can see. Here's a link to their website:

http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/

"We have decided to establish the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan on in order to charge the Bush administration with its war crimes against Afghanistan. This tribunal was proposed by Mr. Akira Maeda, Prof. of international criminal law at Tokyo Zokei University, and its final trial will be held in December, 2003."

[Realityhack]

19. Bingo

They did the same thing for Bush senior but it means ZIP. They have no athority and there is no real defense. Its basicaly a protest. Kindof cool though but should be moved off LBN.

RH

[Seabiscuit]

33. It's nothing more than a Japanese university mock trial.

It has nothing to do with the Hague.

That's why it never made the news.

[krkaufman]

18. Crap decision!

No one can say that the war against Afghanistan was illegal, given that it was a necessary response to the 9/11 attacks.

However, the same cannot be said for Bush's War in Iraq, and our use of depleted uranium, prisoner torture, and indiscrimate targeting are all valid targets for criticism.

As far as losing focus in Afghanistan and leaving the country vulnerable, I'm not sure military incompetence is within scope for "war crimes."

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krkaufman]

38. An overreaction... and a reach

Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

A mistatement of reality. Afghanistan's government (aka the Taliban) supported Al Qaeda and Afghanistan *was* their headquarters. Afghanistan certainly had something to do with 9/11.

You actually believe it was appropriate to carpet bomb a country for 10 months, murdering tens of thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with 9-11

I'll let my original post answer your question:

No one can say that <blah> was illegal ... However, the same cannot be said for Bush's War in Iraq, and our use of depleted uranium, prisoner torture, and indiscrimate targeting are all valid targets for criticism.

Indeed, though I think a military response in Afghanistan *may* have been necessary (note the qualification), how the war has been carried-out is certainly suspect.

... on the word of proven liars Bush and Rumsfeld.

Bush saying the Earth is spherical does not make the Earth flat.

"Beware the teller of little truths" (for they likely are telling you little truth)

Afghanistan was where they wanted to A. Insert a pipeline to capitalize on the Asian energy market and B. Revitalize the Afghan opium trade that the Taliban had shut down.

Re: A: I don't disagree. But this ulterior motive doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan's cooperation with Al Qaeda was a fact. And since we're hypothesizing, Afghanistan became a target only because the Bush Administration was unable to immediately turn its guns on Iraq after 9/11. A pipeline through Afghanistan is trivial when compared to the oil resources awaiting the Oiligarcs in Iraq.

Re B: I doubt that a restart of the Afghan opium trade was a primary objective of the Bush Admin. Rather, it was yet another consequence that they simply failed to consider -- or give a shxx about.

Our economy is driven by drugs and oil money,

Oil? Yes. Drugs? No. Or at least I'm not aware of drugs being a significant contributor to the GDP. Bush's War in Iraq *is* about oil. Afghanistan was more an annoyance to them that had to be dealt with, in some way, before Iraq could be invaded.

None of the ALLEGED hijackers were even FROM Afghanistan,

So what? They may well have all been trained there, and the 9/11 plot masterminds *were* all in Afghanistan -- supported by the Taliban government.

Or am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia based on the proportion of hijackers being Saudi citizens?

You are simply a bigot...nitwit! Shame on you!!!

... no comment ...

[Massacure]

21. Wasn't the Taliban harboring Al Qaida though? I know Iraq is illegal.

No text

[Ohio rules]

22. 6. 11th September 2001 attacks in the United States had no connection with

Item from the article;

6. 11th September 2001 attacks in the United States had no connection with Afghanistan .

The prosecution has questioned the factual and legal basis of this defense , submitting at page 17 of its Indictment that -

"….. it is not etablished that the 9.11 incidents were the acts of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda ……..the letter to the Chairman of the UN Security Council which the United States sent on October 7 ,2001 and another letter which the United Kingdom sent of October 4, 2001 and the videotape released on December 13 are inadequate as defences .Therefore the criminal activities of Osama bin Laden and the members of the al Qaeda have never been established enough to prosecute them for 9.11 incidents".


lOL
Kangaroo court.LMAO!

[Almost_there]

25. Totally symbollic, and even that's questionable

I'd like to know if they actually went through with a court room hearing, or seriously, if they just sort of drafted this up as a formal "legalese" protest to Bush. I can't really agree with Afghanistan being the focus of this though, if they wanted to garner support, go after Iraq. This is months old, and the media isn't being narrow minded in not picking this up, it would be seriously like getting the headlines from the Weekly World News, Star, and Enquirer all at once.

~Almost

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Damn, this story sure draws out the trolls

You know when you hit a sore spot, they start popping up with their snide remarks like stink on shit.

[darknesstolight]

27. celsius 41.11 response to michael moore

I can't post a thread I am new but breaking news the republicans have come out with the response to fareinhight 91-11 right before the election. Thats the breaking news.

[dweller]

30. Welcome to DU darknesstolight!

if you have a link for that response to C41.11/F911 please post it here.

i'll post it for you.

peace
dp

[newyawker99]

39. Hi darknesstolight!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mom cat]

28. An absolute must read. Nominated for home page. How did this stay

buried for so long?

[ms.smiler]

36. Finally... I should have started a thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1657570

The Tribunal held hearings in different locations, they took testimony from many individuals. Their findings have been reported in Canada, the UK, and Japan. I wondered if this was why 135 leading attorneys in Ireland petitioned their government to arrest Bush on his recent visit.

I've wondered about the impact on Bush when Senator Kerry wins and we again become part of the World Court.

There is another Tribunal scheduled to try Bush for war crimes in Iraq.

The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.
http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/japanese/pdf/statute.pdf

The Judgement
http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/japanese/pdf/judgement.pdf

I agree with, support and honor the findings of the Tribunal.

[AntiFascist]

41. Dumb question....

How could such a group bring this case before the International Court of Justice?

[Zorra]

29. By any reasonable standard, Bu$h is most certainly a war criminal.

Hopefully, we can make an example of him put him and the rest of the PNAC in prison after Kerry is elected so that no one ever again uses the citizens, finances, and resources of the USA as a vehicle for aggressive global domination through unwarranted and unjustifiable military action.

[forgethell]

37. Never, ever happen

NO American president will ever haul another up on war crimes charges. Sets a bad precedent.

[ms.smiler]

40. It's a bad precedent, but I think it's necessary.

I can not name a person or group that has done greater harm to my beloved country and our reputation than Bush and his administration. The world citizenry knows what they have done and why. This is a war to secure natural resources disguised as a war on terror, and this administration has ignored every rule in the book to achieve their goals.

We are actually past the worst - the discovery of their many crimes. If we are to earn respect again in the world community, do we not have to hold this administration accountable? How could we possibly be taken seriously if we ignore his war crimes and permit Bush to crawl off to Crawford in search of a bottle? There is honor in standing up and demanding that those responsible for wrongdoing face justice. A Kerry administration will need the world community to assist in repairing the damage caused by Bush. Might the world community demand accountability to ensure their assistance? Shouldn't we demand accountability simply to dissuade the next little dictator who attempts to hijack our government?

[geek tragedy]

42. Zzzzzzzzzz.

This isn't even a court--just some far-left activists masturbating.

[ms.smiler]

43. Five Judges, Professors of Law, Prosecutors & Journalists

Publically collected evidence and testimony and measured George W. Bush against International Criminal Law, the Hague Convention, and the Geneva Convention. Bush lost.

What can be done now or in the near future with the evidence and testimony they've collected?

[geek tragedy]

44. Nothing.

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Not evidence. Not real testimony. Just a publicity stunt.

[ms.smiler]

45. What you view as a "publicity stunt" I view as documentation and

Global awareness raising.

The testimony of Leuren Moret: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-ICT13dec03.htm

The videos and photographs, the mass graves, the contamination by depleted uranium, are no less real having been documented by these experts.

Women in Afghanistan risked their lives to offer their testimony and were known publically only by alphabetical identification as in "Witness C." Independent journalists risked their lives to report and document the events in Afghanistan.

I'm impressed with the efforts of those involved with this Tribunal who were unwilling to ignore or depreciate the horror we unleashed on Afghanistan and our own military. Now how do we ensure justice and make amends to those we've wronged? The Tribunal has worthwhile recommendations. As an example, I certainly support revoking the Charter of the Unocal Corporation.

Bush's course of action was the absolutely worst approach to terrorism. It promotes instability and ongoing war, which is after all their profitable intention. We have to demand justice for all involved. Terrorism thrives on injustice and needless when justice is served.

I certainly welcome your ideas concerning how we take this to a court you consider more suitable.

[geek tragedy]

46. This is the handiwork of the Stalinoid creeps at the International Action

Center. I reject anything those pigs or their chief stooge, Ramsey Clark, have their hands in.

I'm part of the 90% of Americans who supported the overthrow of the Taliban following 9/11, and who continue to see that as the proper move.

Anyone who says Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 is peddling crap.

No court of law will hear this stuff. It remains propaganda, and nothing more. It is of no legal importance.

Again, a play court run by some far left professors in Japan is of no relevance. They can pat themselves on the back, but this was like the Swiftvets convicting Kerry in their own kangaroo court.

So, I do not believe this junk belongs in any court anywhere.

[ms.smiler]

47. At what point did you wish to overthrow the Taliban?

Was it when Reagan trained, financed and supplied them? Did you want to overthrow them when Unocal was hoping the Taliban would provide a stable enough government in Afghanistan that they could then attract international financing for their energy pipeline? Did you want them overthrown when Unocal entertained representatives of the Taliban in Sugarland Texas? Did you oppose them when the Bush administration gave them 43 million dollars, bringing the total aid to Afghanistan to $124 million for that year, as reported in the Washington Post, May 2001. Our government and US corporations have certainly had a peculiar relationship with the Taliban.

Just months later, the Bush administration told us that bin Laden was responsible for the events of 9/11 and promised a "white paper" containing their proof. Where is their proof? The Taliban actually offered to turn bin Laden over to a neutral country if the Bush administration presented evidence of his guilt. None was forthcoming. Personally, I've not had any cause to accept anything from the Bush administration as anywhere near truthful.

With the benefit of hindsight after our invasion of Afghanistan, Bush lost all interest in finding bin Laden. In fact he did not speak his name publically for over a year and stated in March of 2002, "I don't know where (Osama bin Laden) is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." What did concern Bush?

Bush installed a puppet government headed by a former Unocal employee and placed military bases along the proposed route of the energy pipeline. Perhaps you consider that a coincidence.

It's fine if you have no respect for Ramsey Clark or if you blame the Taliban for every terrorist act ever committed. The larger point to me is what was done in my name. Your lack of regard for the Criminal Tribunal does nothing to negate the crimes committed by the Bush administration.

[geek tragedy]

48. The Taliban did not exist during the Reagan administration.

There were jihadis, to be sure, but the Taliban as a movement existed only within the past decade.

The US government never gave $43 Million to the Taliban--that is a myth that has been debunked many, many times. Try googling that amount with snopes or spinsanity.

I wanted them blasted out of existence when their record against women became known. The destruction of the Buddhas only solidified that.

The pipeline conspiracy business is crap, imo. If Bush were really so damn concerned about the pipeline, he wouldn't have let Afghanistan revert back to warlordism. There is no pipeline being built as we speak, and there is really no evidence that the reason for going into Afghanistan was anything but a response to 9/11.

I'm not going to get into a debate about who did 9/11--there is an entire forum for that. I personally have no doubt that it was AQ.

Bush's big sin in Afghanistan was not finishing the job--he diverted needed resources and troops to fight his phony war in Iraq.

[ms.smiler]

49. Yes, jihadist with the same leader Osama bin Laden

I'm wondering how 43 of the 124 million in aid, as you point out, was inaccurately reported by the mainstream media.

I like the diversity of many cultures and traditions but I agree that the sexist, harmful attitudes and practices toward women within the Arab world is unpalatable.

You mentioned the "pipeline conspiracy." There is no conspiracy involved, just the plans of the Unocal corporation over the course of many years as discussed in this Congressional hearing, http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/0298congress.htm

The proof of motive to me does not lie in someone's words but their actions. If bin Laden and/or the Taliban were responsible for the events of 9/11 it would have been an honorable thing for Bush to pursue them. The problem is that I am unaware of Bush doing anything at all for honorable reasons at any point in his life. He does however, pursue goals for monetary gain - a long standing tradition in the Bush family who's business partners include the bin Laden family.

I doubt Bush has any concern for Afghanistan other than the route of the proposed pipeline. Perhaps he has an arrangement with the local war lords because after all, someone has to manage the territory and oversee the poppy fields. You recognize the "phony" dishonorable war Bush waged on Iraq, yet believe he pursued a just war on Afghanistan.

So a dishonorable man, without any proof of wrongdoing, wages a supposedly honorable war, using illegal and inhumane means. Try replacing Bush with President Clinton in your mind. Would President Clinton have waged war against the whole of Afghanistan or would he have pursued just his target?

[geek tragedy]

51. Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown the Taliban.

So would have Al Gore. And John Kerry.

All Congressional Democrats and all of our allies supported the action in Afghanistan.

Lots of people make a big distinction between the two--just as we disinguish between Saddam and bin Laden.

[ms.smiler]

52. Democrats voted for the Patriot Act too at that given time

I am displeased whenever a Democrat acts like a Republican. Hopefully, we can agree that if President Clinton, or Gore, or Kerry, were faced with this situation, they would have acted only on solid intelligence and evidence - which Bush lacked.

I do not believe that any of them would have ordered strikes on civilian targets such as we saw in Afghanistan and later, in Iraq. I also do not believe that they would have authorized the bombing of Afghanistan with 600 to 1000 tons of depleted uranium. DU does great harm to the population for generations as well as our own military personnel.

There were thousands of Taliban members who surrendered their weapons. Some were handcuffed and shot and lie in mass graves. The balance, including other innocent persons who were taken into custody, were transported for days in sealed metal containers. Nearly all suffocated and the survivors were sent to Guantanamo Bay. I can not imagine for a moment that such horror, such a Hitler like atrocity would ever have happened with President Clinton as Commander in Chief; nor would he have any need of a concentration camp located on foreign soil.

Shortly after Bush attacked Afghanistan, I saw an interview with a woman who's home was bombed and she lost her husband and three young sons. Through her tears she swore that she would remarry. She also swore that she would bear more sons and raise them to hate and kill Americans. Her pain and her newfound objective still haunt me and it's a good example of why it's in our best interest to follow the Geneva Conventions.

Even if I could develop some reason to justify the war on Afghanistan, I hope you are unable to divine a reason to justify the actions of the Bush administration in the execution of that war.

[TrustingDog]

53. bush is a dishonorable lieing theiving dispicable murdering thief...

and I suspect any and every slimey move he makes and agree that Aghanistan is NOT what it is portrayed to be - i.e. - fair or honorable - how can it possibly be when the ChimpShit and TonyDildo team are involved?

[forgethell]

54. We can't.

US courts will never prosecute for what has been done, so far. No American president will turn over a former president to an international tribunal. Sets a real bad precedent. No international court has the authority or the power to arrest an American president.

[ms.smiler]

55. As Americans, we have a self destructive penchant for arrogance

I expect a Kerry win following a problematic election and President Kerry will need the assistance of other nations to clean up the mess created by the Bush administration. We are hated around the world because of their actions.

Presently, the war crimes and other wrongdoing is the fault of the Bush administration. If we as a people permit them to walk and not hold them accountable, then we as a people will also wear their stench and we could then be rightfully blamed. I would like to draw a very clear distinction between what this administration has done, and what we approve of as a people. How could we begin to regain any measure of respect or cooperation in the world if we coddle our very own war criminals?

Issues concerning the crime of treason could be addressed in our courts but these issues would be addressed in an international court. It's strange what you view as a "bad precedent" I view as a positive. I want my government to be held accountable for its actions. We are in this mess because of men that believe the law does not apply to them, and I want the next madman who steals the presidency to realize that the laws will apply and he will be held accountable!

The rest of the world realizes that we have our very own Saddam, it's just a matter of our realizing it, accepting it, and taking appropriate action in response. Scheduling an appointment for Bush at the Hague would go a long way toward restoring our standing in the world, regaining respectability, and ensuring ourselves better government.