If Bush Used Nuclear Weapons On Iran Should He Be Tried As A War Criminal?

by frankiespeakin 119 Replies latest jw friends

frankiespeakin

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/treaties/2002-0510-MH-ICC.html
Miami Herald, 10 May 2002, 7B
Reconsider U.S. Stand
Bush is wrong on international court
by Andrew Reding
President Bush’s decision to withdraw the U.S. signature from the Statute of the International Criminal Court threatens to undermine the administration’s global campaign against terrorism.
The court’s purpose is to try individuals who commit crimes against humanity — acts of mass terror against civilian populations, such as the ones carried out against the United States last September. One would think that the White House would welcome such international cooperation in the war on terror. But it does not, and is making an emphatic point of saying that it will not recognize the new court.
In defense of its action, the administration claims that the statute would enable foreign countries to arrest U.S. citizens for political reasons and hand them over for trial before foreign judges in The Hague.
In fact, however, a pretrial review panel will be set up to dispose of frivolous or politically motivated charges. Most cases will be brought by a chief prosecutor, or by the Security Council, where the United States has a veto. Most of the judges will be from countries allied to the United States.
Were there merit to the U.S. claims, the ICC Statute would not have been ratified by 14 of 15 members of the European Union (the 15th, Greece, is in the process of ratifying) and by Canada. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, normally a staunch ally of the White House, vigorously disagrees with Bush on this matter.
In combating the court, the United States is lining up alongside Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Cuba and China — nations with good reasons to fear such a tribunal. Why?
SERVE U.S. OBJECTIVES
Could it be that the White House wishes to reserve the right to support the use of terror against foreign civilians when it serves U.S. objectives — just as it wishes to reserve the right to use land mines, even though foreign civilians are the prime victims? Consider the case of Emmanuel Constant.
Constant led a terrorist group called FRAPH that murdered hundreds of Haitian civilians in the early 1990s under the military junta that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. When U.S. troops invaded the island nation in 1994 and searched FRAPH headquarters, they seized documents and photographs that depicted the torture and murder of civilians.
Yet Constant was permitted to enter the United States and settle in Queens. A 1995 deportation order has remained unenforced for seven years. The Bush administration has so far declined to extradite Constant. The reason? Constant was on the CIA payroll and has threatened to expose the collaboration of U.S. security agencies with his organization.
The hypocrisy does not end there. Just because Bush does not want U.S. officials held accountable before an international tribunal does not mean he does not want leaders of other countries brought before such tribunals.
On the very day that the United States was boycotting the U.N. ceremony commemorating establishment of the ICC, it succeeded in pressuring the Serbian parliament to pass a law facilitating extradition of key deputies of former President Slobodan Milosevich to face trial before another U.N. tribunal in The Hague. The vote occurred after the United States cut $40 million in economic assistance to protest what it called inadequate cooperation with the U.N. tribunal.
A ONE-WAY STREET
In other words, international tribunals are fine, even mandatory for prosecuting U.S. enemies. But yet the United States is demanding an exemption for its citizens. International justice, in Washington’s view, is a one-way street.
The double standard is doing incalculable damage to U.S. interests worldwide. To have any chance of winning a global war on terrorism, the United States will need the support of its allies. To secure that support, it must demonstrate that it is waging a war for the benefit of humankind, not as a cover for U.S. hegemony.
Until the United States reverses its stand on the International Criminal Court, its war on terrorism will ring hollow and will only foster the anti-Americanism that led to Sept. 11 in the first place.
Andrew Reding is a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute and an associate editor of Pacific News Service.

frankiespeakin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6146058.stm

Rumsfeld faces German legal test

Rumsfeld quit after the US mid-term elections last week

A lawyers' group has asked Germany to sue former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

The complaint was filed by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a Saudi man held in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad.

German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.

State prosecutors have yet to decide whether to pursue the case. An earlier request for a case in 2004 was dropped.

Michael Ratner, the centre's president, said he felt the case had a better chance of success now because Mr Rumsfeld was no longer in office and could not exert the same degree of "political pressure".

He added that the centre had more evidence than it did in 2004, citing the case of a detained Saudi national, Mohamad al-Qahtani.

"Al-Qahtani was a man who the US alleged is al-Qaeda, who is in Guantanamo. The entire torture log of al-Qahtani over a period of two months was exposed," Mr Ratner told the BBC.

Resignation

The Center for Constitutional Rights argues that Mr Rumsfeld was instrumental in abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

The group of international lawyers alleges that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved the use of torture to extract information from the prisoners.

Wolfgang Kaleck, the lawyer leading the attempt to bring the case, said former US Army Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski would be the "star witness".

Ms Karpinski was commander of US prisons in Iraq when several prisoners were abused by US soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib facility.

Mr Rumsfeld resigned on Wednesday following Republican losses to the Democrats in the US mid-term elections.

The US denies any torture has taken place at Guantanamo Bay and has defended its interrogation techniques.

Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was brought to world attention after soldiers' photographs of the incidents were released and published.

Ten US soldiers have been found guilty of abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. The US says they were acting without official sanction.

frankiespeakin

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Shielding_US_Officials_ICC.html
On World Court, U.S. Focus Shifts to Shielding Officials
by Elizabeth Becker
New York Times, September 6, 2002

The Bush administration is shifting its emphasis in seeking exemptions for Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, telling European allies that a central reason is to protect the country's top leaders from being indicted, arrested or hauled before the court on war crimes charges, administration officials say.
In most of their public utterances, administration officials have argued that they feared American soldiers might be subject to politically motivated charges. But in private discussions with allies, officials say, they are now stressing deep concerns about the vulnerability of top civilian leaders to international legal action.
As an example of the fear, one senior official pointed to the legal actions brought against former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger in Chilean and American courts. The actions were brought by people who accused Mr. Kissinger of aiding in the 1973 coup in Chile and in the ensuing 17-year dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
"The soldiers are like the capillaries; the top public officials - President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell - they are at the heart of our concern," the senior official said. "Henry Kissinger, that's what they really care about."
"They don't really care about the Lieutenant Calleys of the future," added the official, referring to Lt. William Calley, who was given a life sentence for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, but was then paroled.
Officially, the White House today repeated what its spokesmen have said in public speeches and statements: that their primary concern is that American soldiers, and not public officials, would be brought before the court on politically motivated charges.
But they also said protecting top officials has always been part of their opposition to the court, which was established this year to prosecute those charged with genocide and crimes against humanity.
"We do not make the distinction between ranks here," said Sean McCormack, the spokesman for the National Security Council. "Our concern is politicized prosecutions of everyone - our servicemen and women and government officials."
State Department officials also acknowledged the concern about protecting top American officials and pointed to a speech in May by Mark Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs, who said the administration "must insure that our soldiers and government officials are not exposed to the prospect of politicized prosecution and investigations."
Using this new argument about the top leaders has been persuasive, the senior official said, and the government has won initial agreement from two key European allies to sign an exemption saying all American soldiers, officials and civilians are outside the reach of the court.
The administration is pressing hard to persuade all nations that are party to the court to sign accords to exempt Americans from its jurisdiction. The court is the first permanent international body to be able to try people charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Human rights groups that monitor the court debate say the administration has been reluctant to acknowledge its concern over anyone but the common soldier.
"They weren't explicit about this, but everyone knew they were nervous about Pinochet and Henry Kissinger," said Elisa Massimino, of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
Mr. Bush reiterated the previous public stance emphasizing soldiers in his opposition to the court during a July speech at Fort Drum, N.Y. He told the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division that "the United States cooperates with many other nations to keep the peace, but we will not submit American troops to prosecutors and judges whose jurisdiction we do not accept."
The new emphasis was previewed three years ago in an article by John R. Bolton, who was then at the American Enterprise Institute and is now under secretary of state for arms control and international security and the administration's point man for the court.
"The main concern should be for the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy," he wrote in the magazine National Interest.
"They are the potential targets of the politically unaccountable prosecutor created in Rome," he added, referring to the Rome treaty that created the court.
The European Union, which strongly supports the court, is trying to find a compromise with the United States that neither undermines the court nor disrupts the Atlantic alliance at a time when the administration is also pressing Europe to support its campaign against terrorism and any action against Iraq.
"We always figured that the Kissinger precedent was behind this outrageous position, but it has taken some time for the Americans to admit it," said a senior diplomat whose country is a strong supporter of the court.
Human rights groups argue that the administration's position is counterproductive. They say the international court, which has power to try actions occurring on or after July 1, 2002, has safeguards that would help protect American officials.
Under the current system of universal jurisdiction, a foreign country can prosecute an American accused of war crimes if he or she is caught in that country. But the new international court gives the country of the accused, not the country making the accusation, the right to hold the trial itself as a first preference. Accordingly, an American could be tried in an American court under the American system of justice.
"If an American is ever brought before the I.C.C., Washington has the right to take that suspect, investigate and try the case themselves," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "That right doesn't exist in foreign national courts today."
Mr. Roth said the greater fear was that the American opposition would undermine the court. "Justice isn't one set of rules for the world's only superpower and another set for the rest of the countries," he said.
In his article three years ago, Mr. Bolton wrote that "whether the I.C.C. survives and flourishes depends in large measure on the United States."
His prescription was to "ignore it in our off
Jourles

Speaking of opinions, Tyrone had this to say back on the first page:
The Iranians are still moving ahead with nuclear arms production despite worldwide sanctions.
I don't suppose you have the facts to back this claim up, do you? Nevermind. I already know how you will respond to this. You will say that you meant "nuclear enrichment," not "arms." Even so, no one has ever addressed the issue of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Regardless of what Iran's intentions are(as "determined" by the US), any signatory nation can develop nuclear technology. The only caveat is that they cannot develop nuclear weapons. As such, the IAEA to date has determined that Iran does not possess the material or capability to make nuclear weapons. Now, if in a couple of years down the road the IAEA finds that Iran has enriched the uranium hexaflouride gas to near 90% levels, the world can impose whatever restrictions it pleases - I would be all for that. For one, it would show them as liars. They say they are not interested in nuclear weapons. I say let's see who's right. On a separate notion, I feel that Israel should also come clean as to its arsenal.
Someone also mentioned that Iran was denying the IAEA from entering their facilites. I wonder how that could be since Iran, as of a day or two ago, agreed to surprise inspections by the IAEA. Iran is doing just enough to appease the IAEA, while at the same time trying to piss off a few of the UNSC members. Political stalling is all. They probably have their reasons for doing so.
The term, "nuclear deterrent," means just what it says. If a nuclear nation wishes to use nukes(i.e. Iran to Israel), a deterrent exists in that nukes would likely be used back on them. Mutually assured destruction is the phrase I believe I've heard. So in other words, if you launch a nuke on another country, you've just killed yourself and your countrymen. Real smart.
As I have used several times in the past, the analogy of the schoolyard bully being bullied himself is happening in the world right now as we type. Iran is standing up for their rights - the same rights the US wants to strip away.
frankiespeakin

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/Bush_ICC_signers_aid.html
U.S. law assailed as risk to terror fight
Freezes aid to some nations [over ICC]
by Letta Tayler - Latin America Correspondent
http://www.newsday.com/ - December 10, 2004

Global efforts to combat terrorism and drug trafficking will be curtailed under a new U.S. law that suspends foreign aid to nations that won't back Washington's stance on an international court, legal and human rights groups said yesterday.
Under a provision in a sweeping spending law signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush, Washington will freeze aid to nations that don't sign pacts with Washington exempting U.S. nationals from prosecution before the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.
Between eight and 50 nations will be disqualified from receiving money under the U.S. government's Economic Support Fund, which helps U.S. allies promote democracy and combat terrorism, drug trafficking and internal conflicts.
Court supporters slammed the new measure as a bullying tactic that would curtail programs that help Washington's interests while alienating valuable allies. Human Rights Watch also called U.S. opposition to the court hypocritical in light of reported U.S. abuse of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
"This latest sanction shows that the president would rather allow drug trafficking and terrorism than support the prosecution of war crimes and atrocities," said Brian Thompson of Citizens for Global Solutions in Washington.
The International Criminal Court, which opened two years ago and boasts 100 member nations, is the first permanent world tribunal to judge genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bush opposes the court on grounds that U.S. citizens could be subjected to politically motivated charges. Supporters including the European Union counter that the tribunal has numerous safeguards against frivolous prosecution.
Officials from Peru and Trinidad and Tobago, two countries targeted for aid freezes, said their governments would continue refusing to sign agreements shielding U.S. nationals from the court but declined to comment immediately on the cuts.
The measure would withhold $250 million for economic and social development in Jordan, but Bush can waive the freeze for that key U.S. ally.
Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela stand to lose $32.5 million for promoting democracy and free trade, and fighting drug trafficking and corruption. Caribbean nations could lose all or some of $9 million for fighting the flow of illegal drugs and undocumented immigrants - including potential terrorists - to the United States.
Legal experts fear Ireland could lose $12 million for a visa program and Northern Ireland peace initiatives.
The Humper

wow politics and religion. two topics that people will always see only what they want to see and always think they are right. no matter what eveidence points to the fact that they may be wrong about something. sound familar? think JW's.
anyway all this bashing comes down to one thing, people will see what they want to see to support thier own opinions! period!
as for the general public of this country, and i hate to say it, but they are stupid. even more stupid then most people consider bush to be. they believe and eat up anything that is said in newspapers and tv and other news/media outlets. all of which the stories have some minor fact in it but are then blown out of porportion to support thier own agenda. they then bring in some person who claims to know all sorts of stuff, but even then what he states is just a well educated guess that he came up with because he read some material that he wanted to find and see because it supports his own opinions.
my point- whether you agree with the admistration, bush, or the war, the fact is that it is going on, something needs to be done and its not a withdrawl of troops. if that happens things will only get worse. the iraqi government will have collapsed and the people felt abandoned by the u.s. and that will only make more enemies. that will also prove al quida as being right about the u.s. and then empower them to take over as the iraqi government. then before you know it we will have radical islamists in our own country and they will destroy all they can. if some poor, uneducated mexicans can hop the border, then why couldnt a semi-educated, not-so-poor fundamintalist group such as al quida get into our country across the same border. dont forget that mexico is not friends with the u.s. they supported hitler and many of our enemies in times of war, and what do you know?! were at war again, so what makes you think that mexico wont support the terroists groups of this war?
the only solution is to support what is going on over there. whether you like it or not its the only right thing to do! there is plenty of good things and progression being made in that country. but the media wont report it because the american public doesnt want to hear it. besides that it wouldnt surprise me if the groups that help fund the stories the media puts out is the next group waiting in line to take over the office in teh white house. they think they can do better so they want the public to hate whats going on so that the public will vote for them. man do i hate poloticians!
neverendingjourney

Wow, you lost me there, Humper.
people will always see only what they want to see and always think they are right. no matter what eveidence points to the fact that they may be wrong about something.
Okay, I'm following you up to that point, but...
dont forget that mexico is not friends with the u.s. they supported hitler and many of our enemies in times of war, and what do you know?! were at war again, so what makes you think that mexico wont support the terroists groups of this war?
Come again. Don't you think you should follow your own adivce? Mexico supported Hitler? Really, when? Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman Telegram? Germany tried to get Mexico on their side in WWI, but they refused. See, I can use my own self-serving facts to prove a point as well. I think your argument that Mexico is somehow an adversary of the United States is absurd. Illegal immigration is a different topic altogether. Never has a suspected terrorist been caught trying to sneak into America through the Mexican border. The same cannot be said for the Canadian border. Plus, the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks came into the country legally.
You're just wrong about your Mexico comments, and I mean that as respectfully as possible. That's not to say that terrorists can't or won't sneak in the country via Mexico, but that has never happened. Don't confuse the issues, however.
frankiespeakin

Hump,
How do you feel about US Army Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski would be the "star witness" in the case against Rumsfeld, do you feel that is all made up?
SuzieQ

History shows that "nuking" Japan had no repercussions on USA. Bush would be a hero in the History Books; his tenacity to spread human rights & freedoms in a place that is far behind the modern world. SuzieQ Calif.
neverendingjourney

Boy, I'm not the type to usually get involved on political discussions boards, but I just can't resist today.
Bush would be a hero in the History Books; his tenacity to spread human rights & freedoms in a place that is far behind the modern world
And you spread human rights and freedoms by nuking Iran? Interesting.

If Bush Used Nuclear Weapons On Iran Should He Be Tried As A War Criminal?

Miami Herald, 10 May 2002, 7B

Reconsider U.S. Stand

Bush is wrong on international court

by Andrew Reding

On World Court, U.S. Focus Shifts to Shielding Officials

by Elizabeth Becker

New York Times, September 6, 2002

"The soldiers are like the capillaries; the top public officials - President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell - they are at the heart of our concern," the senior official said. "Henry Kissinger, that's what they really care about."

"They don't really care about the Lieutenant Calleys of the future," added the official, referring to Lt. William Calley, who was given a life sentence for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, but was then paroled.

Officially, the White House today repeated what its spokesmen have said in public speeches and statements: that their primary concern is that American soldiers, and not public officials, would be brought before the court on politically motivated charges.

But they also said protecting top officials has always been part of their opposition to the court, which was established this year to prosecute those charged with genocide and crimes against humanity.

"We do not make the distinction between ranks here," said Sean McCormack, the spokesman for the National Security Council. "Our concern is politicized prosecutions of everyone - our servicemen and women and government officials."

Using this new argument about the top leaders has been persuasive, the senior official said, and the government has won initial agreement from two key European allies to sign an exemption saying all American soldiers, officials and civilians are outside the reach of the court.

The administration is pressing hard to persuade all nations that are party to the court to sign accords to exempt Americans from its jurisdiction. The court is the first permanent international body to be able to try people charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Human rights groups that monitor the court debate say the administration has been reluctant to acknowledge its concern over anyone but the common soldier.

"They weren't explicit about this, but everyone knew they were nervous about Pinochet and Henry Kissinger," said Elisa Massimino, of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

The new emphasis was previewed three years ago in an article by John R. Bolton, who was then at the American Enterprise Institute and is now under secretary of state for arms control and international security and the administration's point man for the court.

"The main concern should be for the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy," he wrote in the magazine National Interest.

"They are the potential targets of the politically unaccountable prosecutor created in Rome," he added, referring to the Rome treaty that created the court.

"We always figured that the Kissinger precedent was behind this outrageous position, but it has taken some time for the Americans to admit it," said a senior diplomat whose country is a strong supporter of the court.

Human rights groups argue that the administration's position is counterproductive. They say the international court, which has power to try actions occurring on or after July 1, 2002, has safeguards that would help protect American officials.

"If an American is ever brought before the I.C.C., Washington has the right to take that suspect, investigate and try the case themselves," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "That right doesn't exist in foreign national courts today."

Mr. Roth said the greater fear was that the American opposition would undermine the court. "Justice isn't one set of rules for the world's only superpower and another set for the rest of the countries," he said.

In his article three years ago, Mr. Bolton wrote that "whether the I.C.C. survives and flourishes depends in large measure on the United States."

His prescription was to "ignore it in our off

U.S. law assailed as risk to terror fight

Freezes aid to some nations [over ICC]

by Letta Tayler - Latin America Correspondent

http://www.newsday.com/ - December 10, 2004

Global efforts to combat terrorism and drug trafficking will be curtailed under a new U.S. law that suspends foreign aid to nations that won't back Washington's stance on an international court, legal and human rights groups said yesterday.

Under a provision in a sweeping spending law signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush, Washington will freeze aid to nations that don't sign pacts with Washington exempting U.S. nationals from prosecution before the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

Between eight and 50 nations will be disqualified from receiving money under the U.S. government's Economic Support Fund, which helps U.S. allies promote democracy and combat terrorism, drug trafficking and internal conflicts.

"This latest sanction shows that the president would rather allow drug trafficking and terrorism than support the prosecution of war crimes and atrocities," said Brian Thompson of Citizens for Global Solutions in Washington.

Officials from Peru and Trinidad and Tobago, two countries targeted for aid freezes, said their governments would continue refusing to sign agreements shielding U.S. nationals from the court but declined to comment immediately on the cuts.

The measure would withhold $250 million for economic and social development in Jordan, but Bush can waive the freeze for that key U.S. ally.

Legal experts fear Ireland could lose $12 million for a visa program and Northern Ireland peace initiatives.

Share this