"it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

"it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the

Postby trachys » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:14 pm

"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.<br><br>"You have to hand it to America.<br><br>"It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force of universal good.<br><br>"It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis." <br><br>-- Harold Pinter, from his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize for literature<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1526403.htm">www.abc.net.au/news/newsi...526403.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:14 pm

If you stop to think about it, the crimes that Saddam is actually being tried for, as far as I can see, are not ones that he committed personally, but would seem to be ones committed by his henchmen. I could be wrong on this. However if I'm not, then George W. Bush could be tired on the same basis for Abu Ghraib. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

War Crimes, USA

Postby sunny » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:30 am

There is a real movement out there to get these bastards. Read this article at Mother Jones, and then go Steal that Book! (just kidding)<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2005/12/war_crimes_usa.html">www.motherjones.com/inter...s_usa.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>____________________________________________________<br><br>Mother Jones: What specifically are the war crimes that you are identifying?<br><br>BS: We are talking about three categories. The first are crimes against peace. After Nuremberg an idea took hold that launching an aggressive war is the supreme international crime. There are only a few specific circumstances where a state can use force against another state. The U.N. charter says either you need a resolution from the Security Council or you need to be acting in self-defense from an imminent and immediate attack. In the current situation, the U.S. launched an aggressive war in Iraq that even Kofi Annan declared illegal. <br><br>The second category of crimes concern the conduct of the war and occupation. This would include the administration’s use of illegal weapons, such as napalm, white phosphorus, and cluster bombs. It includes a failure to protect civilians. It includes trying to break the Iraqi insurgency with collective punishment against the civilian population—with acts like cutting off water supplies. This is a practice we saw in Fallujah and elsewhere, and which the U.N. has condemned. <br><br>Fallujah actually summarizes several of these crimes. There we had eight weeks of bombing, we destroyed 36,000 houses, 60 schools, and 65 mosques. One of the military’s first acts was to storm the hospital. The U.S. cut off all food supplies, all power to the entire city. The Defense Department said that all the civilians were out at the time of the attack, but reports show that 30,000 to 50,000 civilians remained in the city. The U.S. blocked the Red Crescent from entering. All males between 15 and 55 weren’t allowed to leave. So in Iraq, Falljah has become iconic of American war crimes and brutality.<br><br>The third set of war crimes centers on torture. Here, the question is not whether it’s happening, it’s how often and who’s responsible. When we wrote the book there were 32 deaths of prisoners in U.S. custody reported. Now there are over 100. The FBI reports cases of strangulation, burning with cigarettes, routine beatings.<br><br>JC: Failure to count civilian deaths is also a war crime, a violation of the Geneva Conventions.<br><br>.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)


Postby smiths » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:02 am

the full text of the pinter speech is available at counterpunch for anyone interested <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby dbeach » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:45 am

Sadam works for poppy o<br><br>rummy sold him the weapons and the rest is bushstory<br>dressed up as a couple of wars so the texas oilymen can grab the wealth of the Arabs<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/">www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>"Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].<br><br>Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].<br><br>Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].<br><br>Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected [Document 61].<br><br>Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]"<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest