Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

International Criminal Court Could Indict Blair, Bush and Rumsfeld!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:23 AM
Original message
International Criminal Court Could Indict Blair, Bush and Rumsfeld!
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1394137.htm

Broadcast: 16/06/2005
PM may be targeted by criminal indictment: lawyer

Reporter: Tony Jones

snip

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, let's take the case of Donald Rumsfeld. In a sense, his is the clearest case because in December 2002 he signed a memorandum, one of the infamous torture memorandums, which I describe in the book Lawless World, in which he authorises various techniques of interrogation which in the views of basically every international lawyer around amounts to torture. Those techniques were used for several weeks before the order was rescinded. They were used, for example, in Afghanistan, which is a party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over torture and that means in principle that court has jurisdiction to investigate the involvement of Donald Rumsfeld for authorising activities which amount to torture. You mentioned Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prime Minister John Howard, the issue there is slightly more complex and turns really on the legality of the war in Iraq. No-one is suggesting that either the British or Australian prime ministers have been involved in torturing anybody, but most people now recognise that the war in Iraq was illegal and under international law, an illegal war amounts to a crime of aggression and in some countries around the world a crime of aggression is one where they exercise jurisdiction. So the possibility really can't be excluded if Messrs Blair and Howard at some point in the future travel after they've left office to a country which, for example, has an extradition agreement with another country where you have an independent prosecutor like the independent prosecutor in Spain who initiated the investigation of Senator Pinochet, a request for extradition or for investigation or questioning has happened in the case of Mr Kissinger could happen. There's precedent for it."

Interesting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Either Reps and Dems Ask for An Impeachment
or I'm afraid we could have WWIII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnywolf Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. WWIII
It already here. It began in March 2003. Impeachment would not happen, because people think it is unrealistic. Bush empire. Worst case scenario: Jeb elected in 08 and Laura in 16.....damn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. gee thanks, I think I will just slip slowly into an alcohol and drug
induced haze until I die!:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Impeachment Doesn't Happen Because ReThugs Control The Entire Government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Repugs might want to distance themselves from Bush for 2006, what better
way than to start proceedings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senior citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. WWIII? Bring it on.

I would rather see this country destroyed and me with it, than see it remain a fascist dictatorship.

Without checks and balances, without the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (I guess you can stand outside the gate and hand the petition through the bars, but I don't think that counts), without a fair and impartial judiciary, and with 1 in 4 U.S. males in our prison/gulag system, I don't really care how many people are doing well and enjoying life. Liberty or death is the slogan I was taught as a child. If we can't restore democracy, and if the ICC can't do it through legal proceedings, it still must be done.

We had freedom of the press until the fascists bought up the MSM.

We had free and fair elections until the right bought up the voting machine companies and insisted on using machines that had no way to verify votes.

We had representative government until the pukes decided that they would only permit representation of themselves and the corporations that funded them, including some tax-evading political corporations called churches.

We had a social safety net until the pukes cut taxes on the rich and let the corporations keep their money offshore.

We had a decent educational system until the military-industrial complex and their lobbyists convinced the pukes that bombs were more important than books.

We had freedom of religion until the chimp started his jihad/crusade.

We had an partially impartial judiciary until the pukes stacked the courts so that all compensation to victims and all convictions of corporations and their CEOs could be overturned by higher courts, and they passed mandatory minimums to ensure that a lot of nonviolent "criminals" would die in prison and judges had no say in the matter.

Okay, so you never miss the water 'til the well runs dry. Bad as this country was, supporting dictators, assassinating foreign heads of state who weren't fascist, condoning lynchings, witch hunts, COINTELPRO, etc., etc., it has never been this bad. When holocaust survivors start moving back to Germany because they've seen it before and don't want to go through it all again, it is all over.

Some guy on Coast to Coast AM radio said he wouldn't be surprised if BFEE was planning to nuke several U.S. cities so that we would all be put back into the same state of shock we were in on 9/11, which would enable them to continue doing whatever they want. Like the people who buy up companies, run them into bankruptcy milking them for whatever they can, and then go buy up some more and do it again. Halliburton won't leave Iraq willingly if there is any money or oil still left there to steal. The pukes won't stop until they've destroyed this country completely. So why should I care if it is them or somebody else who does it? Either we find a way to restore democracy, or that is what has to happen no matter who does it.

WWIII? You don't have to put me in a camp for me to start praying that somebody bombs the camps. The fact that they exist is enough. And they do exist. Durbin was wrong. We're not just running a gulag in Guantanamo. We're running a gulag here, but so far most of the people in it are poor or minorities. They're being beaten and raped, given the "opportunity" to work for slave wages, vulnerable to rampant AIDS and drug-resistant TB, living in "privatized" prisons run by gangs where violence and death are constants, and often all they did was smoke some pot or crack or talk about selling it. Torture? If they don't survive it, it is called "suicide," and if they do they can spend years in court only to have the wingnut judges rule that they didn't sufficiently prove it was torture. Here. In the U.S. Now. And didn't the FBI just put all the peace and environmental and human rights group on their terrorist watch list?

Only 14% of Americans think Congress represents their interests. How can that be called representative government?

If Parliamentary enquiries find sufficient evidence for the Tony Blair gang to be indicted by the World Court for having abetted Bush in war crimes, and the polls show that more than 80% of Americans are opposed to the puke agenda, maybe, just maybe, the pukes will crack and give us back our country. More likely those greedy bastards will declare war on the rest of the world (you're either with us or against us) because they can make money selling arms to both sides, as they did in WWII. Don't forget that a lot of them are Armageddonists and Rapturites. They don't care if they destroy the planet or the human race, so long as they can accumulate as many billions of dollars as they can before they die.

They used to say, "love it or leave it." Well, if I could afford to and had someplace to go, I'd be long gone. Even if it would only be my first Holocaust, I have no desire to experience it.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gee, I wonder if the fact that this administration does not recognize the
authority of the ICC will stop them from being charged. It would be nice to see these evil neo-con troglodytes punished by the world as a whole!!:rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngGale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. If I remember correctly, most all of our guys have...
been indicted for war crimes by various groups. The UK is under the ICC, we are not. This is why the UK was worried about an illegal war.
Dare we hope any of this bunch will be tried and convicted. If so, air it on International Court TV and let us eat popcorn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. The US never signed on to the ICC and is not under its jurisdiction
I doubt any American will be tried by the ICC, though if the Shrub administration gets really desperate, they always could toss Lindy England over to the ICC so she could take the fall for them again.

Now, Blair is another story. Britain is under ICC rules. That may be part of the reason the DSM is being scuttled by the M$M.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-18-05 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
9. Federal law says any agent of the federal government
must be taken by force, if necessary from the ICC.

Even if we had a Democratic president, we would need the "American Serviceman Protection Act of 2003" to be repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 14th 2025, 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC