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 today (Friday) found guilty of war crimes.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.
At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
I wish it could happen closer to home
Careful to adhere to Nuremberg and International Criminal Courts
Thanks Tom………..
More from the link:
“We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany.”
Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan.”
The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was “almost certainly” being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials.
Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: “The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts”.
"Boyle"
“Boyle” refers to War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law who was part of the prosecution team.
After the case he said: “This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world.”
While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world.
Why only Bush?
Is George W. Bush the only war criminal among U.S. presidents and other world leaders?
Because liberal progressives
Because liberal progressives have trouble seeing the forest through the trees. There is so much to despise about the Obama administration’s management of this country and the multiple impeachable offenses that have occurred over the last 5½ years yet no one in this forum wants to talk about it. The liberal press keeps it suppressed and the unwanted transformation of America into Obama’s view of what America should be continues unrestrained. As I’ve said before, Obama is not one of us, and I completely reject his agenda and the notion that he knows best what’s best for America. Forget about Bush. Concentrate on stopping Obama’s War Against American Exceptionalism.
I received this email yesterday. It’s worth reading.
A Frightening Scenario for America
In 1887. Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal
policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the
following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
“The Obituary follows:
Born 1776, Died 2016
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won
by: Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory
Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler ‘s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years .
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. When good people do nothing – evil prevails.
Obama's War Against American Exceptionalism?
American exceptionalism (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism)
American exceptionalism is a traditional belief – or theory – that the United States is qualitatively different from other nation states. In this view, U.S. exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation” and developing a uniquely American ideology, “Americanism”, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.” (notice the absence of the word “democracy”)
Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the U.S. is like the biblical “City upon a Hill” — a phrase evoked by British colonists to North America as early as 1630 — and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.
Although the concept of American exceptionalism dates to the 1830s the term was first used in the 1920s. The phrase “American exceptionalism” originates from the American Communist Party. The term comes from an English translation of a condemnation made in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin criticizing Communist supporters of Jay Lovestone for the heretical belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history “thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions”. Early examples of the term’s usage include a declaration made at the 1930 American Communist convention proclaiming that “the storm of the economic crisis in the United States blew down the house of cards of American exceptionalism”. The phrase fell into obscurity for half a century, until it was popularized by American newspapers in the 1980s to describe America’s cultural and political uniqueness. The phrase became an issue of contention between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans attacking Obama for allegedly not believing in it.
…
In April 2009, Barack Obama responded to a journalist’s question in Strasbourg with the statement, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In the same response, Obama noted that “I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.” Mitt Romney attacked Obama’s statement, arguing it showed Obama did not believe in American exceptionalism. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said that Obama’s “worldview is dramatically different from any president, Republican or Democrat, we’ve had…He grew up more as a globalist than an American. To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.”
In a speech on the Syria crisis on Sept. 10, 2013, Barack Obama said, “But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act….That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional.” In a direct response the next day Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an op-ed for the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2013 articulated that “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.” He went on to say “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Ask the Syrians, the Libyans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Afghanis and others in the Middle East, the Viet-Namese, and the natives of numerous Latin American nations whose dictators we supported for years, what they think of American Exceptionalism.
If Obama is waging a war against “American Exceptionalism” may God support his efforts.
And, by the way…
Quote: “If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.”
Amnesty and citizenship? Please inform us, who in Congress, Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise is espousing such absurdity?
Reading between the lines, these “illegals” just happen to be Latinos who crossed our southern border on foot. There are a few million other “illegals” working in our cities who came by plane and overstayed their tourist visas to take jobs. Most of these are European. They “look like us” so nobody notices.
I supported the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for getting us into wars with lies about “weapons of mass destruction”, among other things.
I support the impeachment of Obama for extrajudicial assassinations using drones among other things(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188062/obamas-drone-war-kills-others.html) .
To Be Brief
To answer SKB’s question, “Is George W. Bush the only war criminal among U.S. presidents and other world leaders?” No, of course not.
Obviously, all world leaders who carry the mantle of commander-in-chief or hold reins of power of various degrees can be potential war criminals.
It has nothing to do with a leader’s or the citizen’s sociopolitical leanings.
It’s pretty difficult to prosecute a sitting president or other world leader.
A president out of office is lamed by his vacuum of power.
If there’s enough evidence or presumption of guilt or wrongdoing (high crimes or misdemeanors), go get the bastard, boys.
[I meant to tier this under skb’s thread)
with every fibre of my being
In repudiating international law and the rights of independent nations, the American president claims a divinity based on the might of his “indispensable nation”. It is a familiar message of imperial impunity, though always bracing to hear. Evoking the rise of fascism in the 1930s, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being.” John Pilger “The Return of George Orwell”
Don't Post Internet Junk
This comment is directed to AlanF’s post, will relocate it.
I'll try once more
Reposting
When People post Garbage as Fact, Something Stinks
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
Professor Joseph Olson stated to Snopes that he had NOTHING to do with this email, which by the way has been circulating long before the Obama / Romney contest. If you’re going to post something it’s best to make sure it’s not just internet “junk”
Also Snopes points out that this post whether attributed to the Bush/Gore campaign or Obama/Romney is based on a lot of faulty stats and misleading information.
If this mis-posts again, it is directed to AlanF’s post
The ACLU has FOIA requests in about some of these killings
I am glad that I am not President. The responsibility to protect US citizens would be an agonizing one.
But that does not free the president from moral responsibility, or the need for oversight. This is why the ACLU has filed this FOIA request.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-majalah-targeted-killing-foia-request
I previously read of a funeral that was targeted. Civilians were killed, people who were just attending the funeral. Besides being immoral, can there be a better way to help our enemies recruit people to their ranks? It all seems like madness.
It is hard, painful, to think that our tax dollars may be being used on war crimes. Maybe if I was a corporation, the supreme court could let me decline to pay for these actions?
Noncombatants not exempt from collateral loss of property-life
Inherent in presidential powers to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” is his supreme role as commander-in-chief.
No US president has ever been lawfully impeached for military operations. No president has ever been tried and convicted for military operations (in US Courts). All commander-in-chief actions are fundamentally military, not civilian.
Now and throughout all history all noncombatants in war or peacetime (including women and children) have never been exempt from collateral loss of property and life.
It is not the job of a sitting president to agonize over the “moral responsibility” of his decision-making. That is a question of conscience reserved for out-of-office.
Only Eisenhower demonstrated a high moral regard to rethink US military powers in his final public speech in January 1961 where he advocated “that the nation guard against the potential influence of the military–industrial complex, a term he is credited with coining…“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech