Could W*&Co. be charged with war crimes....

[renaissanceguy]

for a failure to follow the Geneva Conventions? I remember hearing that Bush** and the Pentagon think that somehow they are above the Geneva Conventions because it's a so-called war on terror.

I sure as hell hope so.

And what about impeachment of the chimp, on these grounds?

(With this logic of theirs, the govt will be able to shoot drug users in the name of the war on drugs)

[hiley]

1. They could

I got this email from




Momentum builds for January 20
counter-inaugural demonstration
in Washington DC

A war criminal will be inaugurated
on January 20 and the people will protest

Dear VoteNoWar member,

Learning a lesson from the trials and tribulations of the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was indicted for crimes against humanity when he traveled outside of Chile, George W. Bush arranged for his being granted "diplomatic immunity" by Chilean president Lagos as a precondition for Bush's trip to Chile for the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference.

The Los Angeles Times of Nov. 18 reports, "President Richard Lagos's government took the unusual step yesterday of announcing that Bush would have diplomatic immunity during his visit. The declaration was made after some activists filed a criminal complaint against Bush in court, claiming that he and other U.S. officials were guilty of war crimes in Iraq."

"Diplomatic immunity" didn't stop thousands of people taking to the streets in Chile in massive demonstrations against Bush. All around the world people are in the streets protesting the criminal conduct of the Bush administration. January 20 will be another big step in building this movement.

4,000+ endorsers for the counter-inaugural protest

Over 4,000 have already endorsed A.N.S.W.E.R.'s and VoteNoWar's call for a mass demonstration on January 20, 2005, at the site of the Bush inauguration. This is a legally permitted demonstration. The Bush administration, fully exposed for its destruction of Fallujah and fearing the embarrassment of a mass demonstration at the Inaugural route, is now following the usual script to intimidate the people: publicly announcing that there is an unprecedented security threat on January 20 and that the government is mobilizing 4,000 army combat soldiers to be in the streets of DC that today.

There has never been a more important time for the people of the United States to take a clear and powerful stand. The events of the past two weeks again unmasked the criminal nature of the administration. The government asserts that more than 1,200 "insurgents" have been killed in the last week alone. How many are really civilians? Donald Rumsfeld insists at his press conferences that civilians in Fallujah


I don't know if I am allowed to paste the whole thing or what...but it is from votenowar
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=1101&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&JServSessionIdr009=ahzag454x1.app13b

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Canadian Lawyers' group says yes.

LAW - Letter to PM Martin to declare President Bush persona non grata in Canada

Michael Mandel and Gail Davidson on behalf of Lawyers against the War (LAW) a Canada-based committee of jurists and others with members in thirteen countries.

Friday, November 19, 2004

The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
Langevin Block
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A2
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

URGENT


Dear Prime Minister Martin:

It was with absolute dismay that we learned of the planned visit of President Bush to Canada on November 30th 2004.

Surely you are aware of the many grave crimes against humanity and war crimes for which President Bush stands properly accused by the world, starting with the Nuremberg Tribunal's 'supreme international crime' of waging an aggressive war against Iraq in defiance of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and including systematic and massive violations of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As recently as November 16, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and former war crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour called for an investigation into crimes against the Geneva Conventions in the assault by US forces on the densely populated city of Fallujah.<1> The terrible toll in life and limb of these crimes was documented in a study carried out by the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore and published in the October 29, 2004 issue of the British Medical Journal The Lancet which conservatively estimated that the war had taken 100,000 Iraqi lives, mostly women and children.<2>

This was well within the range predicted before the war, for example by a British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War who, in November 2002, assessed the probable death toll at a minimum of 48,000 deaths, mostly civilians, and predicted that post-war conditions would cost an additional 200,000 lives.<3>

The President's responsibility for these offences derives not only from his 'command responsibility' as Commander in Chief of US forces, for crimes that he knew were being committed, or ignored through willful blindness, but did nothing to prevent; it also comes from his direct involvement in the formulation of policy. This includes his personalinvolvement not only in the devising and waging of an aggressive, illegal war, but also of the unlawful refusal to grant prisoner of war status to prisoners of war, contrary to specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions, an act repudiated in the US Courts.<4> It also includes the approval of techniques of interrogation by his direct subordinate, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, that legally and morally constitute torture and that led directly to the disgraceful violence against Iraqi prisoners, for example at the prison at Abu Ghraib.

As you know, not only are these acts criminal under international law, but many of them are also criminal under Canadian law, under laws enacted in pursuance of our international obligations, most importantly the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, put in place just four years ago under a Liberal government. They also violate the provisions on torture in the Canadian Criminal Code.

By these laws, Canadians and non-Canadians alike are liable to prosecution in Canada, no matter where in the world they have committed their crimes. Furthermore, as the Attorney General can advise, the fact that these crimes have been committed by Mr. Bush while President of the United States is absolutely irrelevant to his personal liability to prosecution in Canada, according to principles established at Nuremberg and universally recognized since then, including by the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case in 1999. And if President Bush were to visit Canada after leaving office, we would be seeking the Attorney General's permission under section 9 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and section 7 of the Criminal Code to commence proceedings against him.

However, as you also know, should President Bush come to Canada now, while still President, he would be clothed with both diplomatic and head of state immunity from our laws and we would be powerless to bring him to justice.

www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20041122143116725

[kdmorris]

3. Yes, they should

But like his father, it won't make a damn bit of difference:

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

[walldude]

4. I remember reading that most countries

signed a concession before the war saying they wouldn't bring any charges against the U.S. I also remember that one of the few countries that refused to sign was Belgium and that in the world court they could legally bring Bush up on charges. I wonder how far he'll have to go before some country has the courage to stand up to him.

[GetTheRightVote]

5. Hopefully they will not need too

because we take care of him first for all his crimes against humanity. We need to take the garage out.

[Laelth]

6. In all fairness, anyone can be charged ...

... with anything. Just remember back to the Clinton years and you'll see a lot of baseless "charges" leveled. The question is, could someone make a war crimes charge stick. That I doubt. Not unless a Democratic administration were to arrest him and hand him over to the World Criminal Court at The Hague, and I don't see that happening. For that matter, I don't see a Democratic administration in the near future, either.

-Laelth

[GetTheRightVote]

7. Sad but possibly true