WHY Do We Continue To Shield George W. Bush/WAR CRIMINAL?

[kpete]

Why Do We Continue to Shield george w. bush
Submitted by jimstaro on Sat, 2011-05-14 13:48



The quaint and obsolete Nuremberg principles



May 13, 2011 - Benjamin Ferencz is a 92-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, American combat soldier during World War II, and a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, where he prosecuted numerous Nazi war criminals, including some responsible for the deaths of upward of 100,000 innocent people. He gave a fascinating (and shockingly articulate) 13-minute interview yesterday to the CBC in Canada about the bin Laden killing, the Nuremberg principles, and the U.S. role in the world. Without endorsing everything he said, I hope as many people as possible will listen to it.



All of Ferencz's answers are thought-provoking -- including his discussion of how the Nuremberg Principles apply to bin Laden -- but there's one answer he gave which I particularly want to highlight; it was in response to this question: "so what should we have learned from Nuremberg that we still haven't learned"? His answer: http://warisacrime.org/content/why-do-we-continue-shield-george-w-bush


I'm afraid most of the lessons of Nuremberg have passed, unfortunately. The world has accepted them, but the U.S. seems reluctant to do so. The principal lesson we learned from Nuremberg is that a war of aggression -- that means, a war in violation of international law, in violation of the UN charter, and not in self-defense -- is the supreme international crime, because all the other crimes happen in war. And every leader who is responsible for planning and perpetrating that crime should be held to account in a court of law, and the law applies equally to everyone.

These lessons were hailed throughout the world -- I hailed them, I was involved in them -- and it saddens me to no end when Americans are asked: why don't you support the Nuremberg principles on aggression? And the response is: Nuremberg? That was then, this is now. Forget it.

MORE:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/05/13/nuremberg&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Don't blame me!

[pipoman]

2. It might be a little more convincing if we weren't still there 3 years into O's term..

[dionysus]

3. the truth is, most americans wouldn't be down with execution or life imprisonment for bush or cheney

you couldn't even get a majority of dems to back it.

[msongs]

4. because our current "administration" is doing the same things? nt

[dionysus]

5. is "obama" a war criminal?

[GSLevel9]

12. brave and true +1

[Bluebear]

6. Because the President said it's time to "move forward" from these war crimes. nt

[Orsino]

7. Can you imagine how many people in government (and out) were and are complicit?

There aren't courts enough.

[Lint Head]

8. One who has forgotten history has learned nothing.

"Notable Quotations from George Santayana
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284"

Torture will be privatized and administered by corporate fascists unless the people stop it by electing politicians that are willing to investigate the war criminals that infested our country for 8 years.

[Hugh Everett]

9. "The Lessons of Nuremberg"

The lesson of Nuremberg was that the winner is allowed to convict and execute the loser on charges of "war crimes". You might recall that Jon Stewart had a sudden epiphany when he realized that America was guilty of war crimes for targeting Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, even though it was well known at the time that the Japanese military was concentrated on the home island of Kyushu, awaiting invasion.

Obama instructed the SEALs to murder an unarmed, surrendered Osama Bin Laden, rather than bring him back to Gitmo for trial. That's almost worse than subjecting him to mild discomfort under interrogation.

And somebody ask Slobodan Milošević what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a "war of aggression".

I guess we should surrender Clinton and Obama to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

[Distant Observer]

10. When the LESSON does not serve us, We rewrite the LESSON BOOK: Iraq, Libya, etc

[snot]

11. K&R'd!

[inwiththenew]

13. Vietnam was a much bigger debacle/crime

And nothing ever came out of that. I mean how many people did we kill in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? Plus we sprayed chemicals all over the place.

[indepat]

15. And dropped a greater tonnage of bombs than was dropped on Europe in WWII?

:patriot:

[GeorgeGist]

14. It ain't "WE", it's this arrogant clown ...

[zappaman]

18. "arrogant clown"?

:rofl:

[azul]

20. Your words are ignorant and disrespectful.

Congress has the responsibility to impeach, not the president.

Speech is free still, thanks to the US constitution and its legitimately elected leader sworn to defend it.

Unlike the previous impeachment-bait, dangerouly arrogant idiot that was illegally installed as president, that heaped shame and debt upon this country, President Obama is not a professional clown.

[zappaman]

16. I'm not. n/t

[Overseas]

17. Sad K&R.

Our abandonment of the Nurenberg principles has been so depressing.

I understand being afraid of the great power the Bush gang still has, but really regret our apparent interference in the efforts of other countries to hold them accountable.

[Hannah Bell]

19. kr

[Solly Mack]

21. K&R

[whatchamacallit]

22. The why is written all over Obama's foreign policy. (nt)