What's new

George W Bush taken to US court for his war crimes in Iraq.

Kompromat

ADMINISTRATOR
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
40,366
Reaction score
416
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
slide.jpg


George W Bush taken to US court for his war crimes in Iraq

Inder Comar 22 April 2014. Posted in News
George W Bush and five of his co-conspirators in the illegal war against Iraq are being taken to court for their violation of international law.

bush_war_crimes_250.jpg


An Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan has filed a lawsuit against George W Bush, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in a federal court in California.


She alleges that these six defendants planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law by waging a “war of aggression,” as defined by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, more than sixty years ago.

At the Nuremberg Trials, American chief prosecutor and associate justice of the US Supreme Court Robert H. Jackson focused his prosecution on the planning and execution of the various wars committed by the Third Reich. Jackson aimed to show that German leaders committed “crimes against peace,” and specifically, that they “planned, prepared, initiated wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.”

For Jackson, the Nuremberg Trials were a high watermark of legalism. In his report regarding the negotiations of the treaty that would set up the Nuremberg Tribunal, Jackson wrote that the Tribunal “ushers international law into a new era where it is in accord with the common sense of mankind that a war of deliberate and unprovoked attack deserves universal condemnation and its authors condign penalties.” He concluded, “all who have shared in this work have been united and inspired in the belief that at long last the law is now unequivocal in classifying armed aggression as an international crime instead of a national right.”

The Nuremberg Tribunal agreed with Jackson. In its famous judgment in 1946, the Tribunal wrote,

“War is essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The case against Bush is based on the conduct of members of the administration prior to coming into office as well as conduct taking place on and after 9/11. Years before their appointment to the Bush Administration, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were vocal advocates of a militant neoconservative ideology that called for the United States to use its armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

They openly chronicled their desire for aggressive wars through a non-profit called The Project for the New American Century (or PNAC). In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would personally sign a letter to then-President Clinton, urging the president to implement a “strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power,” which included a “willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.”

On 9/11, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz openly pressed for the United States to invade Iraq, even though intelligence at the time confirmed that it was al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that was responsible. Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, famously told President Bush that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would be like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the Bush Administration began a concerted effort to scare and mislead the American public in order to obtain support for the Iraq War. As alleged in the complaint, this included the famous phrase that “the smoking gun could not be a mushroom cloud,” which was used repeatedly by Administration officials on news shows as a way of equating non-action with the vaporization of a United States city. The Administration used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for weapons of mass destruction, and also falsely linked al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence of any operational linkages between the two. These were not simple mistakes: this was an intentional campaign by Administration officials to use faulty data to garner support for a war.

The crime of aggression was completed when these officials failed to secure proper authorization for the war. So concerned with their invasion, the Administration dismissed any need for a formal Security Council mandate. Today, Kofi Annan, an official Dutch inquiry, the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a former law lord from the House of Lords (Lord Steyn) and a former chief prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials (Benjamin Ferencz) have all concluded the Iraq War was illegal under international law.

After months of briefing, the Northern District of California will issue its order any day as to whether it will recognize the crime of aggression, and whether my client may pursue a civil case against the Bush-era defendants based on that crime. In August of last year, the Obama Department of Justice requested that the district court immunize Bush and his high officials from civil charges on the basis that they were acting “within the scope of their authority.” This issue also remains pending before the court, but it should be noted that both Nuremberg, as well as the more recent Pinochet decision, reject the idea of immunity for leaders when they step outside the appropriate scope of their authority.

We need your support and attention to this case. We cannot let the crime of aggression disappear into history; indeed, even the International Criminal Court has now provided its own definition for aggression, with jurisdiction for this crime being enabled after 2017. We must affirm Jackson’s belief that, “law is not only to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, under God and the law.”

For most of the post-war period, this notion — that leaders must be held accountable for their decisions to go to war — has gathered dust. This must change, or else the legacy of Nuremberg, and its foundation for the post-war international legal regime, will be tossed aside in favor of the state of anarchic international relations that led to the Second World War itself. It is time to fulfill Jackson’s dream of a global order governed by law, not war. And it is time for accountability over the Iraq War and for the millions of people who lost their lives or who were affected by it.

George W Bush taken to US court for his war crimes in Iraq - Stop the War Coalition
 
Don't expect much of western principles. I have seen drug criminals being supported by local and even federal government in Holland. They cheat, lie and even threaten to kill you. There is no ethics when it comes to reality. Surely the lady has the truth on her side but I have seen in 4 decades that western morale is a lot more rotten then I even had predicted in the past.
 
Don't expect much of western principles. I have seen drug criminals being supported by local and even federal government in Holland. They cheat, lie and even threaten to kill you. There is no ethics when it comes to reality. Surely the lady has the truth on her side but I have seen in 4 decades that western morale is a lot more rotten then I even had predicted in the past.


Whatever your personal views, the US judicial system will work strictly according to the law in judging the merit of the case. After all, where else in the world could a foreign national even dream of filing such a case?
 
View attachment 25539

George W Bush taken to US court for his war crimes in Iraq

Inder Comar 22 April 2014. Posted in News
George W Bush and five of his co-conspirators in the illegal war against Iraq are being taken to court for their violation of international law.

bush_war_crimes_250.jpg


An Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan has filed a lawsuit against George W Bush, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in a federal court in California.


She alleges that these six defendants planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law by waging a “war of aggression,” as defined by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, more than sixty years ago.

At the Nuremberg Trials, American chief prosecutor and associate justice of the US Supreme Court Robert H. Jackson focused his prosecution on the planning and execution of the various wars committed by the Third Reich. Jackson aimed to show that German leaders committed “crimes against peace,” and specifically, that they “planned, prepared, initiated wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.”

For Jackson, the Nuremberg Trials were a high watermark of legalism. In his report regarding the negotiations of the treaty that would set up the Nuremberg Tribunal, Jackson wrote that the Tribunal “ushers international law into a new era where it is in accord with the common sense of mankind that a war of deliberate and unprovoked attack deserves universal condemnation and its authors condign penalties.” He concluded, “all who have shared in this work have been united and inspired in the belief that at long last the law is now unequivocal in classifying armed aggression as an international crime instead of a national right.”

The Nuremberg Tribunal agreed with Jackson. In its famous judgment in 1946, the Tribunal wrote,

“War is essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The case against Bush is based on the conduct of members of the administration prior to coming into office as well as conduct taking place on and after 9/11. Years before their appointment to the Bush Administration, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were vocal advocates of a militant neoconservative ideology that called for the United States to use its armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

They openly chronicled their desire for aggressive wars through a non-profit called The Project for the New American Century (or PNAC). In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would personally sign a letter to then-President Clinton, urging the president to implement a “strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power,” which included a “willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.”

On 9/11, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz openly pressed for the United States to invade Iraq, even though intelligence at the time confirmed that it was al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that was responsible. Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, famously told President Bush that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would be like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the Bush Administration began a concerted effort to scare and mislead the American public in order to obtain support for the Iraq War. As alleged in the complaint, this included the famous phrase that “the smoking gun could not be a mushroom cloud,” which was used repeatedly by Administration officials on news shows as a way of equating non-action with the vaporization of a United States city. The Administration used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for weapons of mass destruction, and also falsely linked al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence of any operational linkages between the two. These were not simple mistakes: this was an intentional campaign by Administration officials to use faulty data to garner support for a war.

The crime of aggression was completed when these officials failed to secure proper authorization for the war. So concerned with their invasion, the Administration dismissed any need for a formal Security Council mandate. Today, Kofi Annan, an official Dutch inquiry, the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a former law lord from the House of Lords (Lord Steyn) and a former chief prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials (Benjamin Ferencz) have all concluded the Iraq War was illegal under international law.

After months of briefing, the Northern District of California will issue its order any day as to whether it will recognize the crime of aggression, and whether my client may pursue a civil case against the Bush-era defendants based on that crime. In August of last year, the Obama Department of Justice requested that the district court immunize Bush and his high officials from civil charges on the basis that they were acting “within the scope of their authority.” This issue also remains pending before the court, but it should be noted that both Nuremberg, as well as the more recent Pinochet decision, reject the idea of immunity for leaders when they step outside the appropriate scope of their authority.

We need your support and attention to this case. We cannot let the crime of aggression disappear into history; indeed, even the International Criminal Court has now provided its own definition for aggression, with jurisdiction for this crime being enabled after 2017. We must affirm Jackson’s belief that, “law is not only to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, under God and the law.”

For most of the post-war period, this notion — that leaders must be held accountable for their decisions to go to war — has gathered dust. This must change, or else the legacy of Nuremberg, and its foundation for the post-war international legal regime, will be tossed aside in favor of the state of anarchic international relations that led to the Second World War itself. It is time to fulfill Jackson’s dream of a global order governed by law, not war. And it is time for accountability over the Iraq War and for the millions of people who lost their lives or who were affected by it.

George W Bush taken to US court for his war crimes in Iraq - Stop the War Coalition

On 18 October 2003 the United Nations Security Council’s unanimously voted to support Resolution 1511 drafted by the United States which Resolution endorsed taking final action(s) plural after years of Iraqi violations of around 17 or 18 UN Resolutions which Iraq under Saddam merely ignored.

With the UN Security Council on record, this lawsuit is not founded in International Law and is a waste of the poor lady's time and resources.
 
On 18 October 2003 the United Nations Security Council’s unanimously voted to support Resolution 1511 drafted by the United States which Resolution endorsed taking final action(s) plural after years of Iraqi violations of around 17 or 18 UN Resolutions which Iraq under Saddam merely ignored.

With the UN Security Council on record, this lawsuit is not founded in International Law and is a waste of the poor lady's time and resources.

Nonetheless, her petition deserves to heard fairly, according to due process, which she will get, surely.
 
Nonetheless, her petition deserves to heard fairly, according to due process, which she will get, surely.

List of United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


UN Security Council Resolutions


38px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Portal:United Nations Security Council Resolutions
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. While other organs of the United Nations only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments are obliged to carry out under the United Nations Charter. The decisions of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

There have been three major events in Iraq's history for which the UN has passed numerous resolutions: the Iran–Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq disarmament crisis leading up to and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Iraq related resolutions[edit]
ResolutionDateVoteConcerns
47928 September 1980UnanimousNoted the beginning of the Iran–Iraq War.
51412 July 1982UnanimousCalled for an end to the Iran–Iraq War.
5224 October 1982UnanimousCalled for an end to the Iran–Iraq War.
54031 October 198312-0-3Condemned violations of international law in the Iran–Iraq War.
58224 February 1986Unanimous"Deplores" the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
5888 October 1986UnanimousCalled for the implementation of resolution 582.
59820 July 1987UnanimousDemanded an immediate cease-fire between Iran and Iraq; requested that the UN Secretary-General start an investigation to determine how the conflict started.
6129 May 1988Condemned the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War, but did not single out Iraq as the only side to use them. Instead, the resolution said that the Security Council, "Expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons."
6199 August 1988Created UNIIMOG to observe the implementation of a cease-fire for the Iran–Iraq War. Extended by resolutions 631, 642, 651, 671,676 and 685. Terminated 28 February 1991.
62026 August 1988Condemned the use of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.
6602 August 199014-0-1,YemenabstainingCondemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. Supported by resolutions 662, 664, 665, 666,667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.
6616 August 199013-0-2;Cuba, YemenPlaced economic sanctions on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait.
67829 November 199012-2-1Authorized use of force against Iraq to "uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
6862 March 199111-1-3Demanded Iraq's acceptance of all previous resolutions concerning the war with Kuwait.
6873 April 199112-1-2Formal ceasefire ending the Persian Gulf War, with the conditions that Iraq:
6885 April 1991Condemned the repression of Iraqi Kurds.
70715 August 1991Demands immediate, complete, full compliance with UNSCR 687.
71511 October 1991Approves United Nations Special Commission on Iraq and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection provisions.
83327 May 1993Acknowledges clarifications of Iraq-Kuwait border and United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
8994 March 1994Compensation payments to Iraqi private citizens whose assets remained on Kuwaiti territory following the demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait border.
94915 October 1994Condemned the Iraqi military buildup on Kuwaiti border.
98614 April 1995Created the Oil-for-Food Programme. Supported by resolution 1111.
105127 March 1996UnanimousCreated a mechanism to monitor Iraqi "dual use" import and exports.
106012 June 1996UnanimousDemands Iraq allow access to sites, weapons, transport and equipment by United Nations Special Commission weapons inspectors.
128417 December 199911-0-4Changed the Iraqi inspection program from UNSCOM to UNMOVIC.
14418 November 2002UnanimousGave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". After Hans Blix of UNMOVIC reported to the UN on 7 March 2003, the US, UK, and other members of the "coalition of the willing" declared that Iraq remained in material breach of resolution 687. Efforts aimed at a new Council resolution authorizing the invasion were aborted owing to resistance from other members of the Council including veto-wielding members. Iraq was invaded anyway, on 20 March.
148322 May 200314-0-1,SyriaabstainingRecognized the US and the UK as occupying powers under international law, with legitimate authority in Iraq. Removed economic sanctions imposed during the Gulf War.
150014 August 200314-0-1, Syria abstainingCreated the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq as a special representative of the UN Secretary General. Extended by resolutions 1557, 1619, and 1700.
15468 June 2004UnanimousEndorsed the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority in favor of the Iraqi Interim Government as a step toward democracy.
172318 November 2006UnanimousExtended the mandate for Multinational Force Iraq until 31 December 2007.
179018 December 2007Extended the mandate for Multinational Force Iraq until 31 December 2008.

Nonetheless, her petition deserves to heard fairly, according to due process, which she will get, surely.

Every person has a right to be heard unless the court pre-determines that this is a frivilous case based on established international law at this point in time for that era's event(s).

Folks just don't come in out of the sun and file cases because they are unhappy with the way the world turns vs. the way they wish for self reasons it should turn.
 
Every person has a right to be heard unless the court pre-determines that this is a frivilous case based on established international law at this point in time for that era's event(s).
Folks just don't come in out of the sun and file cases because they are unhappy with the way the world turns vs. the way they wish for self reasons it should turn.

I am sure that the Court will hear the petition and judge its merit correctly based on law.
 
I am sure that the Court will hear the petition and judge its merit correctly based on law.
A person first and foremost has to be pre-determined by the court that he/she has standing to try to bring any action. This is the law of due process. Tks.
 
On 18 October 2003 the United Nations Security Council’s unanimously voted to support Resolution 1511 drafted by the United States which Resolution endorsed taking final action(s) plural after years of Iraqi violations of around 17 or 18 UN Resolutions which Iraq under Saddam merely ignored.

With the UN Security Council on record, this lawsuit is not founded in International Law and is a waste of the poor lady's time and resources.
Of course...if drafted by the US who the heck can take them (US) to court :whistle:
 
Your opinion has no logic.

What you must mean is you dislike decisions duly made by the US Congress in support of requests to authorize and fund military actions of the US Government, after due processing for outside evaluation with and through the UN General Assembly.

You might also want to know that the US failed to get the same Resolution passed first thru and by the UN Security Council because Russia vetoed it there.

In turn, we or at least I do not like the criminal tolerance past and current governments of Pakistan show toward the Taliban and al Qaida, who murder the innocent people of both Pakistan and Afghanistan with abandon. If your government consistently, not on again, off again, cracked down on and wiped out those/these terrorists we would all have a better world to share and live in.
 

Back
Top Bottom