Why we must prosecute Bush and his administration for war crimes

[babylonsister]

Why we must prosecute Bush and his administration for war crimes
by Mike Ferner | December 16, 2008


During the rush to get the Nuremberg Tribunals underway, the Soviet delegation wanted the tribunal's historic decisions to have legitimacy only for the Nazis. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, serving as the chief prosecutor for the Allies, strong-armed the Soviets until the very beginning of the tribunal before changing their mind.

In his opening statement Jackson very purposely stipulated, "...Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment."

Can there be a better reason for prosecuting George Bush and his administration for war crimes than those words from the chief prosecutor of the Nazis, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, with the full support of the U.S. government? Robert Jackson's words and the values this nation claims to stand for provide sufficient moral basis for putting Bush and Cheney, their underlings who implemented their policies and the perverted legal minds who justified them all in the dock. If those are not sufficient reasons, there is a long list of binding law and treaties -- written in black and white in surprisingly plain English.

Bush imagined, and his attorneys advised, that he could simply wave aside these laws with "they don't apply." Imagine how a judge would treat even a simple traffic court defendant who brazenly stated the law was only a quaint notion, just "words on paper?"

Masses of people and an embarrassingly small number of their elected representatives in this country read the law for themselves and demanded otherwise, only to be silenced by the Guardians of Reality in the corporate news media.

But it's all there, where it has been for 220 years, the Constitution's "supremacy clause," Article II, section 4, and in the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18USC §2441). They provide the authority to make additional treaties legally binding -- no matter how much former White House lawyers David Addington and John Yoo may object.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/19235

[tama]

1. How?

The legal system is broken and corrupt and won't go after the criminals.

How about spreading WANTED posters of the crooks everywhere and create a mass campaign ready to start making Citizen's Arrests? Any takers?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

2. David Fucking Addington. I wish to God the Congress would go after this clown.

mother fuken piece of shit.

[damntexdem]

3. Actually, we don't have to -- we could instead turn them over the the International Court of Justice

I'd have more faith in that approach than trust a largely GOP-appointed U.S. judiciary.

[Zorra]

4. He's a guilty as sin criminal, even worse than Charles Manson.

And he should be punished accordingly.