FINDINGS BY AN OFFICIAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL ALREADY FOUND CHENEY GUILTY...

so what's all the recent uproar about?

International War Crimes Tribunal

United States War Crimes Against Iraq
Initial Complaint

Charging
George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named.

With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States
and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

Final Judgment:
International War Crimes Tribunal

Findings

The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal finds each of the named accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint, attached hereto, has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

The members believe that it is imperative if there is ever to be peace that power be accountable for its criminal acts and we condemn in the strongest possible terms those found guilty of the charges herein. We urge the Commission of Inquiry and all people to act on recommendations developed by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social justice on which lasting peace must be based.

Recommendations

The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Iraq because they constitute a continuing crime against humanity.

The Members urge public action to prevent new aggressions by the United States threatened against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Pakistan and other countries and the Palestine people; fullest condemnation of any threat or use of military technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the United States against the people of Iraq.

The Members urge that the power of the United Nations Security Council, which was blatantly manipulated by the U.S. to authorize illegal military action and sanctions, be vested in the General Assembly; that all permanent members be removed and that the right of veto be eliminated as undemocratic and contrary to the basic principles of the U.N. Charter.

The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent preservation of the reports, evidence, and materials gathered to make them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest possible distribution of the truth about the U.S. assault on Iraq.

We go to other countries to arrest criminals. We could send you his address.

Sounds like a group of people with no authority did this.

with universal jurisdiction would be official.

try that before commenting so quickly... there wasn't enough time for you to do any of those things before you posted. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Opinions of this court are posted. So are yours now. thanks for the comments, monkeyfunk.

I need to cry.

whenever anyone reaches his stature, their opinions will begin to count a bit more than those offered by ANY on-line poster using a pen-name.

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

by Ramsey Clark and Others

Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.


"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice."

~Ramsey Clark~



Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

is rather accomplished, but not terribly esteemed these days.

on who is "esteemed these days," I will once again sink into an allegorical cave of despair. After that, perhaps I too will begin to point at flickering shadows, which are only forms of finer truth, like those unknown individuals that decide who is or is not "esteemed these days."

Kim Jong Il, and Rwandan genocidalists.

Comparing Clark to Plato is repulsive and obscene.

the findings of the tribunal, and the list of participants.

Don't try to tell me how fast I can or can't read.

Now can you answer the question?

edit; there was 7 minutes between the time you posted, and the time I posted. I can read a lot in 7 minutes.

It's all about bush number one, nothing to do with bush two.

This is so sickening.

I read the whole thing. Now i'm more upset.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Those kind of crimes should sicken every member of the human race but sadly, they do not.

here is a non-legal opinion I wrote long before i knew of current Crimes Against Humanity.

Humanity arrives at a crossroads to completion on the current path of human ascendance. Will we persist in recreating Divinity in a human image? If humankind continues to envision a deity that even tolerates the death and destruction of war or indiscriminate rape of natural resources of this world, then we must realize both man and woman remain chained to darkness. We must break the chains of evil, which represent ignorance and fear. For humanity to ascend beyond this level, it must take responsibility for foolish choices instead of attributing them to a deity. If we worship a divine being that accepts intolerance, prejudice and hatred of those who believe differently, then we create Hell on the path humanity currently treads not Heaven. Whether we call it Nirvana, Heaven or a perfect mental state of Bliss matters little. This is the final path. Humankind demonstrates amazing diversity in cultural and religious beliefs. Is it not conceivable that Divinity manifests to each of us in His and Her own way? Perhaps religious fundamentalists are correct and the deity they worship is the one true God. Even if they are wrong, at least their deity blesses flags of wrath in battle, thus relieving them of any responsibility for actions. We have other choices as this path transitions. Now is the time to take a higher road and realize that if religion serves humanity, it serves the same true God and Goddess. Only then can we unshackle humanity from ignorance and fear, which chains us to pathetically foolish paths.

It is a group of private persons with no authority whatever, not too many cuts above Mickey and Judy putting on a show in the barn to save the town orphanage. It means no more than a college degree purchased off a match-book cover.

His opinions, however, take on stronger legal implications.

it really doesn't.

It's one man's opinion. It's not a real court, it has no jurisdiction, no authority.

My dog and I just convened and convicted G. Gordon Liddy of Aggravated Douchebaggery and Felony Scumitude.

Doesn't mean I have the authority to go arrest him.

"The global economy has become like a malignant cancer, advancing the colonization of the planet's living spaces for the benefit of powerful corporations and financial institutions. It has turned these once useful institutions into instruments of a market tyranny that is destroying livelihoods, displacing people, and feeding on life in an insatiable quest for money. It forces us all to act in ways destructive of ourselves, our families, our communities, and nature. Human survival depends on a community-based, people-centered alternative beyond the failed extremist ideologies of communism and capitalism. This alternative is already being created through the initiatives of millions of people around the world who are taking back control of their lives and communities to create places where people can live and grow in balance with the living earth. When Corporations Rule the World provides an agenda of national and global reforms by which we may reclaim our power to localize our economies while globalizing our consciousness." —David C. Korten

Based on excerpts from When Corporations Rule the World by David C. Korten
Kumarian Press and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995

Here are a couple of legal opinions from both sides of the Isle:

"It's mind boggling. We tax Americans billions to fight drugs, and we're in bed with these guys." Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, R-New York

"Our covert agencies have converted themselves to channels for drugs. They have perverted our system of justice." Senator John Robert Kerrey, D-Nebraska

I don't know if this opinion matters to others but I find Plato illuminating.

"Oligarchy? A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it." —Plato, The Republic - Book VIII

they have no authority, no jurisdiction. They're not "official" in any way. They represent no body with any authority at all.

They "convicted" the Clinton administration, too.

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm#fj

Saddam Hussein also put forth similar sentiments. In fact, almost every War-Criminal ever put on trial claims repeatedly that his accusers have "no authority" and "no jurisdiction." In my opinion, those courts, like the one mentioned in my OP DO have "official" jurisdiction. I ask no one to share my opinion or even those offered by individuals more qualified and wise than me. Information in subsequent posts will hopefully allow others to form their own opinions. You are entitled to yours monkeyfunk and so are they.

because I recognize that your little committee has no authority or jurisdiction?

How silly. Have fun with your little kangaroo court - oh wait: kangaroo courts actually have power.

He si entitled to them, of course, but no one is under the slighhtest oblugation to take him seriously.

And it is a cold fact he has no official standing at all in this matter.

People have a respect for the genuine emotion behind name-calling, that they do not have for those who have been gulled by an artful immitation of official forms. That is all this amounts to.

Still some questions remain:

What is "official" in your opinion? Why is any "opinion" more "genuine" than another? Rest assured, I offer no condemnation of those that call Cheney names: I'll fall right in with the best of them when it comes to calling a tyrant that is selling out America names. Saddam Hussein, like Nazis on trial at Nuremberg put forth the "opinion" that they did not recognize courts trying them as "official." In fact, almost every War-Criminal ever put on trial claims repeatedly that his accusers have "no authority" and "no jurisdiction." In my opinion, those courts, like the one mentioned in my OP DO have "official" jurisdiction. I ask no one to share my opinion or even those offered by individuals more qualified and wise than me. Information in all these posts will hopefully allow others to form their own opinions. You are entitled to yours Magistrate and so are they. In these troubling times, I'll recognize ANY court as "official" after it puts war-criminals responsible for torture, looting the public trust and countless deaths on trial for their Crimes Against Humanity. If I wait for modern media to declare proceedings agaisnt their corporate whores as "official," I'll be waiting a very long time.

A court must be constituted by a government, or an international body that nations are bound by treaty to respect, and have accordingly the capability to enforce its decisions by government agencies obliged to act as the judges direct. Nothing short of this counts as a court, and speechigying before any body that does not meet this standard does not count as a trial, nor do the statements issued by a body that does not meet this standard count as verdicts.

The test of whether a court has jurisdiction is not the statement of the defendant, but the fact of the defendant being in custody before the court, and subject to execution of the court's verdict. If the defendant is in custody before the court, and subject to execution of the court's verdict, his statement that the court has no jurisdiction is quite irrelevant, unless the judges, either in the court or in a court of review examining their actions, should happen to agree. At Nurenburg, and in Baghdad, the judges did not agree, and so the defendants were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and its sentences executed upon them.

... name-calling, that is. :D

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm
:patriot:

International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo

Final Written Opinion of Judge Niloufer Bhagwat

THE PEOPLE

Versus

GEORGE WALKER BUSH
President of the United States of America



Present: Presiding Judge Professor Osamu Niikura ( Japan ) , Professor Dr. Asaho Mizushima ( Japan ), Professor Dr. R.I .Akroyd ( England ),Professor Peter Erlinder, (USA ) Professor Ms. Niloufer Bhagwat ( India ).

If you don't capitalize on this OP, I will! It is destined for top honors at DU! If you post it, please PM me, so that I can recommend your stellar find.

I am one of your fellow DUers who has been crying out here against the horrors of depleted uranium poisoning for the last year. I have used this very link often in my posts in the past. I understand that this document may have no legal clout here in America. My point with it is in pointing out how others perceive us, how we need to perceive ourselves. Those who have been victimized by bushco will see little in the way of any difference between WE THE PEOPLE and bushco. Those who have been victimized by bushco will care not one tiny bit over the arguments we here in the DU will have over this document. WHAT MATTERS IS THE MESSAGE WE SEND THOSE WE HAVE VICTIMIZED! Either WE THE PEOPLE grant bushco a pass and become complicit in their eyes or we do what we know down deep in our hearts what we should do: REMOVE THOSE FROM POWER THOSE WHO CONDONED THESE CRIMES! We are setting ourselves up for further 9-11s here! DEAR GOD I HOPE THAT I AM WRONG, I hope that I am just the "chicken little" that my name implies, but those we have victimized shall likely NOT see America and her people as anything less than complicit unless WE THE PEOPLE rise up and demand that our Democratic leadership start the procedures to remove the damned criminals from power. Anything less is at our peril! Please use this as you will, it is public information after alL, our goals here are the same.

Here are further thoughts by me:
WE THE PEOPLE would prefer to see those world leaders with whom America has serious issues with be removed from power by that country's own people. Isn't that what we wanted of Iraq while saddam was in power. Wouldn't that be nice if North Korea overthrew that Kim Il Sung dictator? What about the Iranian progressives rising up and overthrowing their religious fundamentalist leaders? SO HOW COME WHEN THE WORLD WANTS US TO DO THE SAME THING BECAUSE OF THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY OUR ROUGE LEADERS WE CHOOSE TO DRAG OUR FEET HERE?

Why do we cheer the removal of Saddam Hussein for his crimes and ignore the fact that OUR OWN LEADERS HAVE COMMITTED MANY OF THOSE SAME CRIMES? (invasion of a foreign country under false pretenses, used wmd against those we call our enemies as well as our own soldiers and on non combatant civilians, stole from the peoples of Iraq, created prisons which we populated with citizens of the Middle East and condoned the use of torture on many of those same citizens. Aided in destabilizing the Middle East and threaten many of the nations of that region). WE ARE HYPOCRITES IF WE DENY THESE CHARGES!

All of this and much more is not information that is accessible by only we cognoscenti here in DU! What message should America send those whom we have victimized this way, what message can we send that will counter those terrorist leaders who present these same things to those we have victimized!
"WE GAVE BUSH A PASS" must NOT be that message.

I swear, justice will be served in these matters. Can't happen soon enough for me.

Doing so only serves to confuse members of the community and possibly manipulate some to be convinced this was legitimate somehow. I think whenever things like this are done (fiction being put forth as fact) by either side, it is something to be condemned. Facts matter. Accuracy matters. Integrity matters. Honesty matters.

In this case, there is absolutely nothing official about that tribunal and it carried no weight in any sense of reality. I think putting it forward here as if it had is a great error of judgment on your part. I hope next time you will word things differently so that everyone here will know clearly that it is just an op-ed rather than something that is factual.

Thanks for your future consideration of this ideal,

OMC

Perhaps others WILL perceive you as the single member with the power to impose an "ideal." Perhaps they will not. If you are indeed the keeper of DU Ideals, keep this in mind:

If another member of this forum PERCEIVES an online page as looking "official" it is neither reasonable nor fair to bring "integrity" and "honesty" into the debate. The terms are redundant and as my initial comment on this post clearly illustrates, there are other criteria that you fail to mention that "matter." Who gets to decide what "matters?" Who's "opinion" counts more; yours, mine, DU readers, the US Congress, the Decider's? Does appointing yourself as a "decider" truly give you the power to question another's "integrity?" If PERCEPTION does ont matter, why do you address it in closing statements in the previous post: "so that everyone here will know?" If indeed you are the DU Decider take a long hard look at your own "honesty" and "integrity" before you question those values in another member.

To be quite honest with you, I have no idea what you're ranting about above or how it carries any legitimacy or relevance to my initial post.

The fact is, you posted a thread with a screaming title declaring something as fact that wasn't. You also put it forth as if it carried some form of legitimacy, when in fact it doesn't. In the end, what you posted is really nothing more than a kind of Op-Ed. There is nothing official about it and nothing that means anything more than if any DU poster felt like writing up the same thing. It is merely someone's opinion on something.

Now sure, you can choose to enjoy or respect that person's opinion if you choose and even give it more consideration than another's opinion. But that isn't the point at all. The point is that people come here for facts and information. When a thread is posted with something completely illegitimate and unofficial, but put forth as fact and carrying legitimacy, then it can possibly do this community a disservice by creating the wrong perception to certain readers that it was something factual. It is willfully and intentionally spreading of misinformation. I always condemn such spread of misinformation, and hold steadfastly in my ideals that facts matter. I think it is important to be clear when making threads whether something is fact or opinion. When one is put forth as the other, it then carries the risk of deceiving and misleading DU'ers, thereby having some of them walking away with the potential to continue to spread the misinformation. That is never a good thing.

So yes, perception matters. It matters greatly. And in this case, you were attempting to give readers the perception that this was official, binding, legitimate or otherwise. Since that is completely false, the perception intended to be received was in fact misleading and inappropriate in context. I hope you can recognize that and will choose more wisely in the future as to what you declare as fact and how you clarify when something is merely opinion.

And that's just a request. It is up to you whether or not you choose to heed it next time. But if not, please understand when I or others will continue to call it out as misleading and reckless.

given the involvement of the loathsome Ramsey Clark, a political ally of Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic.

To Operation Mindcrime: (let me apologize for not "screaming," it; OPERATIONMINDCRIME) In media, headlines all in caps is perfectly acceptable. This forum is an example of modern media, not a chat-room. Also in this particular forum, opinion and editorial comment are a mainstay for current "facts" DU furnishes an excellent news forum. Indeed, on one point, there is agreement -- factual errors are not a reasonable approach to presenting ideas. At no point did anyone consider or mention that the website indeed looked "official" to me. Instead, certain members decided to put forth blatant lies like this: "willfully and intentionally spreading of misinformation." Visit the web-page: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

It looks quite "official" to me. The initial comments I responded to were, "Accuracy matters. Integrity matters. Honesty matters," OperationMindcrime oops for the sake of accuracy (OPERATIONMINDCRIME) follows by opening a subsequent post with, "To be quite honest with you, I have no idea what you're ranting about above or how it carries any legitimacy or relevance to my initial post." While others might not bear me the same latitude, I intend to take that individuals word for it. Perhaps OPERATIONMINDCRIME really has "no idea what (I'm) ranting about." To rush to an assumption that a person is lying is not a reflection on their character: ANYONE that levels those type accusations without irrefutable proof speaks more about their OWN character.

now for a few final comments:

As for truth, it really is about perception. For example:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In my perception, all men are NOT created equal but all men and WOMEN should be allowed EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Unequal justice -- as we see in courtrooms across America these days -- is equal to no justice at all. If a court offers an unfair advantage to wealthy defendants, is that court "official?" Still, if those words are good enough to serve America for over 200 years, then they are good enough for me. Most likely, a "perception" error prevents a clear understanding of the context.

All ideas, like posts at DU are not created equal either. Some present mistakes other present obvious misrepresentations or malice. On th topic of ideas, I did not declare a "WAR OF IDEAS." Declaring war on a concept -- like terrorism or even poverty -- is ludicrous. What I suspect is that all who are online and political are fighting against a War ON Ideas. Once again, it all boils down to perception.

As I leave this very moment to attend the Peace Rally in DC, I want to leave all of you with this idea. If there is some great irrefutable truth, I have yet to find it but still I will offer each of you the gift of some lesser truths, which may only be true in my perception.

Many truths are simply truisms masking great lies. Most things people perceive as weaknesses are, in fact, strengths and visa-versa. Peace is worth working toward! bye my friends... and thanks to everyone who commented, especially MindCrime. You are entitled to believe whatever you like: "All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear." Simon & Garfunkel