The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes

Originally posted by tracehd1
I haven't read through all post so if this points been made...I apologize. Countries outside the U.S can if they choose to prosecute GWB and, fill in name here ___________________________ they may prosecute and carry out sentence according to the UN laws. GWB and friends should really watch their ass when they're traveling. It's just like when we prosecuted WAR Crimes concerning Hitler and his Men!!!

I hope GWB and friends travel soon....8yrs of hell...he doesn't deserve his cozy little lodgings in Dallas!

This would be poetic justice:
If they went to Iraq for a Holiday (as if) and the Indepent Democratically
Elected Government (ROLF) they were forced to have pulls them up for
Crimes against Humanity.

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

For the same reasons that they attacked our embassies in Africa and attacked the USS Cole.

They are fanatics and they consider the US to be the "Great Satan".

Trying to figure out the motivations of terrorists is kind of like trying to assess the sanity of someone who is insane.

I do believe, you belive all the bull-plop GWB has dishing out over
the years.

If you look at the history of Yousef, the truth will set you free.
His Resons could not be more explicit. But Americans just took
him as madman because all he wanted to do was blow blow stuff
up. And I reckon, half of America love to blow stuff up.

Psssst, the Cole, Embassy bombings, 1st WTC Bombing, etc... were all during Clinton's administration. The US has been dealing with Islamic militants since Carter and before. Don't let your hatred of GWB completely cloud your mind.

Originally posted by Keyhole

Originally posted by Lightworth
An overall more intelligent species than humans (overall) can discern the real solution: a compromise. Let truth without punishments be the real justice

And what is that going to say to the future leaders in the world?

That as long as they admit that they've broken international laws (not really international laws, because once a country signs a document like the Geneva Convention, it becomes THAT countries law!) or committed crimes against humanity, that, HEY, as long as you admit it, your off the hook?

IF crimes were committed, those who committed them should be held accountable!

I wish I could have worked out a solution with the courts like that the few times I ended up accused of something against the law!

I could have just have admitted it and not have had to worry about a thing!

Sorry, but in my opinion, it's time to start holding people, like Bush & company, and a lot of other leaders in other countries, accountable for their actions!

Violations of treaties are significantly different than violations of the law of one's country. When countries are in violation, there may be sanctions, and other penalites, but their's no enforcement agency to prosecute governments of other countries(nor should there be). Countries can withdraw from Treaties for that matter. Unless you happen to lose a war, and your country is occupied, you're simply not going to see foreign leaders prosecuted. Criminalizing foreign policy differences either domestically or internationally would be a terrible precedent. The whole notion of peaceful transfers of power is based upon the fact that each new government isn't going to prosecute the previous government. That would encourage military coups, etc...

[edit on 29-1-2009 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by sos37

 

Obligatory? Don't make me laugh!

You make me laugh a lot sos. I was saying it is most likely not obligatory.

I question your motives since you obviously don't realize what I was saying or took me out of context.

You seem to want to pin the blame on one man like all the other sheep on here who cry foul, yet you ignore the fact that the hands of Congress is just as dirtied on the same grounds

I don't ignore Congress; I think they are just as responsible for certain acts, when it comes to others though the facts lead back to the president and his cronies, not congress. We still live in a world where facts and evidence are important right?

Oh wait, why I am asking this of the guy who thought a pixilated face on the internet is a reliable source, long as it tells me what I want to hear. How’s that for bad motives?

[edit on 28-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

The fact that you even brought up the word "obligatory" makes me laugh even now.

So if you blame Congress as much as you blame Bush, why does that not show up in your posts?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
When courtries are in violation, there may be sanctions, and other penalites, but their's no enforcement agency to prosecute governments of other countries(nor should there be).

Are you sure?

Then what is the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for then?

United Nations - Wikipedia

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace.
******SKIP******
The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily:

* The General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly);
* The Security Council (decides certain resolutions for peace and security);
* The Economic and Social Council (assists in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development);
* The Secretariat (provides studies, information and facilities needed by the UN);
* The International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ)

And what these courts are for.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations.
******SKIP******
A related court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), began operating in 2002 through international discussions initiated by the General Assembly. It is the first permanent international court charged with trying those who commit the most serious crimes under international law, including war crimes and genocide.

There are international laws, so if one of those laws are broken, it would have to be an international court that tries them!

United Nations » Courts and Tribunals

Overview
The following courts and tribunals detailed on this page are either administered by or have an operational relationship with the United Nations:

International Court of Justice (ICJ) - "World Court"
International Criminal Court (ICC)
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Special Tribunal for Cambodia: Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

The International Court of Justice does only deal with states and not individuals.

• International Court of Justice (ICJ) - "World Court"
******SKIP******
Jurisdiction: Cases before the court involve UN member states, not individuals (Statute Article 34). States must provide their consent by agreement, declaration, or a clause in a treaty.

But the "International Criminal Court" DOES try individuals!

I believe the "International Criminal Court" will be the ones who might end up prosecuting Bush if it ever happens.

• International Criminal Court (ICC)
******SKIP******
Jurisdiction: Parties to the Rome Statute. The Court has jurisdiction over four types of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The Rome Statute does not currently define the term "aggression," leaving it open for definition at the first review conference of the Statute.
******SKIP******
Note: Cases before the court involve individuals, not states. The UN Security Council may refer a case to the ICC as was done with Darfur and Sudanese President Al-Bashir; however, the referral to prosecute individuals of non-party states for actions in non-party states remains controversial. The crimes of Darfur in western Sudan marked the first referral by the UN Security Council (Resolution 1593). In 2005, the ICC Prosecutor received a sealed list prepared by the Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. On 6 June 2005, the Prosecutor concluded that the case met statutory requirements for initiating an investigation.

And they aren't going to prosecute the government, just a couple of ex-politicians that may have broken some international laws pertaining to war crimes and crimes against humanity!

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Keyhole


Who enforces their judgements though? International Law is largely voluntary, due to the inability to effectively enforce policy, without occupying another country.

reply to post by sos37

The fact that you even brought up the word "obligatory" makes me laugh even now.

Okay... How about instead of focusing on that one word, and misunderstanding the use of it in the context, why don't you actually reply to what that post stated, it's point was simple and you ignored it (or didn't notice it) to focus on something that you created through your own comprehension.

So if you blame Congress as much as you blame Bush, why does that not show up in your posts?

Why would I post that? Just because someone like you might show up and make assumptions about everything I approve or do not? Hm, why don't you read the thread about people booing Bush. In my first post in that thread, somewhere after page three I believe, I mention congress as well. That's the most recent post I can think of. If that still has you whining well I don't know what to tell you, I've clarified my position and you still don't believe me, oh well, big deal. I'm not exactly thinking of you as a credible member at this point in time either, I can live with your doubt.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Who enforces their judgements though? International Law is largely voluntary, due to the inability to effectively enforce policy, without occupying another country.

Well, a number of countries have agreed to take people convicted by the UN in the international court system and will keep them incarcerated (enforce) the sentence handed down by these courts, it is called the "Enforcement of Sentences Agreement".

RADOMIR KOVAC AND ZORAN VUKOVIC TRANSFERRED TO NORWAY TO SERVE PRISON SENTENCES

Today, Thursday 28 November 2002, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic were transferred to Norway to serve their sentences as handed down by a Trial Chamber and affirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Norway became the third United Nations Member State to enter into an Enforcement of Sentences Agreement with the Tribunal on 24 April 1998. The other countries are Italy (signed on 6 February 1997), Finland (7 May 1997), Sweden (23 February 1999), Austria (23 July 1999), France (25 February 2000) Spain (28 March 2000) and Denmark (19 June 2002).

UN war crimes tribunal and Slovakia Sign Agreement to Enforce Prison Sentences

Slovakia today became the fifteenth European country to agree to enforce sentences imposed by the United Nations tribunal
******SKIP******
More than 37 people convicted by the tribunal have either served, or are currently serving, their sentence in one of the countries which have signed an agreement. Five others are awaiting transfer to one of the States.

So, apparently some countries have agreed to take the people sentenced by the UN court system and enforce the sentence that the UN court system has imposed on them!

Cooperation Agreements and Enforcement > Cooperation with States > Enforcement of Sentences - Coaition for the International Criminal Court

Sentences of imprisonment, in accordance with Chapter X of the Rome Statute, shall be enforced by States which have declared to the Court their willingness to accept sentenced persons. Pursuant to Rule 200 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Court may enter into bilateral arrangements with States with a view to regulate the acceptance of persons sentenced by the Court.

According to the Statute, the Court, in deciding in which of the consenting States a person should serve its sentence, shall take into consideration circumstances such as the application of standards governing the treatment of prisoners, and the views and nationality of the sentenced person. After the Court has made a decision it shall notify the State with information regarding the prisoner's nationality, his or her medical status, the sentence and the final judgment. The person is then to be delivered to the territory of the State.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Keyhole]

OK guys you bicker about Bush and Company if they are guilty of crimes in
Iraq invasion and try to relate it to 9/11 and WTC towers knock-down.
It's not difficult to realize that 9/11-WTC was some kind of internal job
within the government circles. You don't have to be genius to connect the
dots on those towers massive beams where they placed thermate charges
plus explosives to melt the sections of the beams and create controlled
knock-down of the towers. Another issue is to prove that Bush and Company
were involved directly with the matters and take them to ICC in Hague, NL._javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('')

reply to post by Keyhole


As I have pointed out, several times now, the US is not a member of the ICC and is therefore, not bound by its decisions.

Originally posted by Absum!

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
reply to post by pieman

 

Maybe those that want to ignore these inhumane and illegal actions can answer this.

What is the punishment for Al-Qaida solders that water board US soldiers?

The reason we don't torture is because we don't want our boys tortured.

I hear you but our noble position on torture has never helped us much, never has been a guarantee that our boys would be well treated. In fact our policy seems in light of the historical treatment of our boys more like something we did for our own conscience sake. Not really saying thats a good reason to start a torture policy.

These guys were are dealing with now days cant even be recognized as real soldiers. They are like rouge citizens of other nations and they recognize no rules nor do they make any effort to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Many of their own home nations don't even recognize their actions officially.

Originally posted by Lightworth
An overall more intelligent species than humans (overall) can discern the real solution: a compromise. Let truth without punishments be the real justice and start over again with a very new system or Matrix... you astronomically unforgiving and egotistical little creepazoids (to whom it applies).



[edit on 28-1-2009 by Lightworth]

Real justice without punishment is not truth.

I have feelings but in the main I see these guys like I would a rattlesnake. They just is and cant help themselves so one has to respond accordingly.

Originally posted by lunarminer
As I have pointed out, several times now, the US is not a member of the ICC and is therefore, not bound by its decisions.

It appears that you are correct, we WERE members of the ICC, that is until, of all people, BUSH "NULLIFIED" our membership.

USA and the ICC

United States President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Rome Statute’) on December 31 December 2000, the last day that the Rome Statute was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush “nullified” the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002. Since 2002, the United States has launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.

HUH!

Imagine that!

The exact person who the ICC would like to bring before their court, is the same person who decided that the USA didn't want to cooperate with the ICC!

Some coincidence, wouldn't you say?

I think what Bush REALLY wanted to see was that the ICC would be able to try anybody in the world EXCEPT US citizens and military personnel, and especially government officials like himself!

In other words, if Bush himself didn't get immunity from being prosecuted by the ICC, the US wouldn't participate!

Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)

As part of its efforts, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, purportedly based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, excluding its citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the Court. These agreements prohibit the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and US employees (including contractors) and nationals.

Looks to me like Bush might have known long before allegations were ever brought up, or the acts committed, that he might end up breaking laws and be pursued by an entity like the ICC.

Move along, move along, no conspiracy to see here!

Well, except Bush saving his own ass!

I guess we can always hope that Obama will change Bush's policy with the ICC and the US becomes a member of the organization again.

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Keyhole


Any treaty signed by a US President, MUST be ratified by Congress. This did not happen, despite the Senate being controlled by the Democrats in 2002.

So, although you have expended much energy and time to the topic. The US was never a member of the ICC, because Congress never ratified Bill Clinton's signature.

Since the US failed to ratify by the May 2002 deadline, it did not become a member.

As I have said a dozen times, if you are unhappy with the US and its actions, then write your Congressman.

reply to post by Keyhole


Are they going to send someone to the USA to extradite Bush, etc..., in order to try them? I don't really see the USA sending anyone to the Hague to be tried, so it's really a moot point. Name one US politician/citizen that's ever been sent to be tried by an international court.

reply to post by Keyhole


I can't imagine how one would think it would be a good idea to sign away National Sovereignty. There's no conspiracy there. The President's job is to protect American citizens. If they're accused of a crime, and there's enough evidence to indict, then they can be tried here in the USA. Anyone willing to give up that right, has no business being the President.
His loyalty is solely to the USA, and not some UN tribunal.

reply to post by pieman


McCainAttacks.blogspot.comThe government are attempting our MURDER over the false war on terror
as we speak- there have been kidnapping attempts and threats upon family friends and associates.





The false war on terror in the United States is far from over.
and you are quite correct - people have cared more about the bailout then they do about the torture of others.

This is why our case is also being ignored herein as well although it should be receiving coverage.

McCainAttacks.blogspot.com...

We were profiled and attacked in Minneapolis- my mother accused of harboring a suspicious bag as a retaliatory measure for having complained about our baggage having been seized searched and locks cut on our way down from Canada due to profiling.

I was left bloodied on the aircraft and thereafter we were placed through a covert tribunal with members and affiliates of FBI NSA and CIA on the jury pool and criminally charged X-U.S. Marine Judge David S. Doty presiding as "judge"

We have been on countless media stations including Alex Jones,
COOP Radio Vancouver, KBOO Portland Oregon, Canadian Dimension magazine; FreedomfighterRadio.com; Freedomsphoenix.com

and yet Government agencies including Foreign affairs, External Affairs, ACLU, Amnesty International, The United Nations, have ALL ignored and refused assistance- because government are working towards our murder in order to silence our online voice.

The airline in question- Northwest Air- is a McCain affiliated aircraft- Northwest air and the U.S. chamber of Commerce are the top two clientele for the McCain executive legal council and Northwest was the official airline carrier for the McCain campaign- they are attempting to silence our online voice against the airline via our kidnapping from Canada and murder and local "police" have been contracted out to see about this effect.

(see winnipegpoliceexposed.blogspot.com...)

We are living daily in terror.

Maybe those that want to ignore these inhumane and illegal actions can answer this.

What is the punishment for Al-Qaida solders that water board US soldiers?

The reason we don't torture is because we don't want our boys tortured.


I hear you but our noble position on torture has never helped us much, never has been a guarantee that our boys would be well treated. In fact our policy seems in light of the historical treatment of our boys more like something we did for our own conscience sake. Not really saying thats a good reason to start a torture policy.

These guys were are dealing with now days cant even be recognized as real soldiers. They are like rouge citizens of other nations and they recognize no rules nor do they make any effort to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Many of their own home nations don't even recognize their actions officially.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our noble position on torture has helped us more than you can imagine. It is this position that made America the nation above all. This shameful erosion of our moral standing that recent leaders instilled is a cancerous blight on our proud country’s history.

To actually think that America has sunk so low as to torture human beings and be OK with it, well it tears at my soul. We shall judge our society by the manner in which we treat our prisoners.

We are Americans, we are better than that aren’t we? Or is that America gone?

They're guilty as hell, and every American knows it.

I don't know by what means so much of our population has been lulled into an apathetic stupor. I do know that it isn't all of us... and some of us are mad as hell.

These men are some of the most murderous, injurious, and criminal the world has ever seen. It disgusts me that there is a person yet alive that thinks either one of them is a hero.

All I've ever known for sure is that killing is wrong... and when the powers of the government are telling you that you must kill others to be safe, something is rotten in Denmark.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
America pays 1/4 of the UN bills. The UN is in New York - an American City.

You all can stop drooling. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Couple of points here, FF. The obvious one is that the U.S. is way in arrears to the UN.

Secondly, also pretty obvious, really, is with your statement "You can all stop drooling"

Does it occur to you that there is a serious disconnect going on when one part of the population is that disenchanted with their erstwhile government that it wishes them to be charged as War Criminals? Think Nazi Germany, think Serbia, think Rwanda....

This is a very grave accusation, and I don't think it is being suggested lightly.

On the other hand, for these concerns to be dismissed by saying "You can all stop drooling"...well it questions the collective integrityand intelligence of that ample section of your population that feels America's ideals were criminally compromised by the Bush Administration. They deserve to be heard.

Now I don't think the Constitutionality of many of those measures is in question...the concern is whether or not events of the day (911) justified such deviation from the law. So isn't that where the next step should lie? That rather than having a bipartisan slapfest, that a Panel of Public Inquiry or something of that nature be called within the United States.

The results of such a process could be the basis for responding to any international commentary.

So...it takes into account, Flyers Fan, the concerns of your fellow citizens who chose not to vote the same way you did, but who also deserve a voice, right? Being a democracy and all? And it puts the onus on the system in which you take so much pride, to seek out the truth of the matter. And it gives that administration a forum to explain themselves to America, the world, and the history books.

And if you are that certain of the results, in the end you'd not have to bitterly diss-up those who disagree with you...you could let the facts speak for themselves.

Just a modest proposal...