Barnett: The War And Occupation In Iraq Are Illegal

[understandinglife]

The War And Occupation In Iraq Are Illegal
By Courtenay Barnett

Much has been said and written about America’s war, and occupation of Iraq. Amongst the community of nations of the world, and within the minds of the citizens of the world, two statements might succinctly clarify the issues of war and occupation in Iraq. The war was illegal under international law. The occupation remains illegal under international law. The point is:

“ Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:

“ (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

“ (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force

“ … if an armed attack occurs…” (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the Security Council is the other.”

<snip>

The Charter of the United Nations has quite clear provisions aimed at the preservation of international peace. President Bush and Prime Minster Blair have set their own standards, rules, and pattern of conduct in response to Iraq. Their standards, rules, and conduct auger well for future wars and remain manifestly – illegal.

More at link:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00242.htm

Courtenay Barnett is a lawyer who has defended human rights cases. His web site is http://www.globaljusticeonline.com/. His new book is entitled, “ Learn the Law.”

I'd say that is quite clear.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm


WE THE PEOPLE .... WILL NEVER FORGET

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

1. Ray McGovern to Milbank: "Those minutes are, indeed, a smoking gun."

"It troubles me that you should find it "awkward" that I mentioned Israel and its interests as perceived by the "neocons" as a motivating factor in the Bush administration's decision to launch an unprovoked war on Iraq. That, Dana, is a no-brainer. Let me suggest you simply familiarize yourself with the documents of the "neocon" Project for a New American Century.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/showstory.php?pn_sid=295

Illegal start. Illegal occupation. Evidence available. Time to indict and prosecute.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[cthrumatrix]

54. GE and NBC assure us that "bush walks on water"

[understandinglife]

62. Mary Wright: "DSM....provide a strong written basis for my concerns...."

THE "WRIGHT STUFF" -- Downing Street Hearings
by Apian

Fri Jun 17th, 2005 at 13:28:42 PDT

WRITTEN TESTIMONY BY FORMER US DIPLOMAT AND US ARMY COLONEL MARY A. (ANN) WRIGHT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS, JUNE 16, 2005, WASHINGTON, DC

<clip>

Two years after I resigned, the Downing Street memos have surfaced and provide a strong written basis for my concerns about the Bush policies on the war in Iraq. The July 23, 2002 Downing Street memo records the steady legal advice from the UK's Attorney General and from the Foreign Office that a desire for regime change was not a legal base of military action. The UK Attorney General said there were three possible legal bases for military action: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or United Nations Security Council authorization. But in March, 2003, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, succumbed to political pressure and changed his legal opinion to agree with Tony Blair and the Bush administration that war could proceed without meeting any of the three criteria.

Just two days ago, I returned from a short visit in London. While I was there I met with Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former Deputy Legal Advisor of the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Ms. Wilmshurst also resigned from her senior position in March, 2003, also in opposition to going to war in Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. She too had served over thirty years for her government. As the Deputy Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office, she led the UK delegation to set up the International Criminal Court, had been the legal advisor for the UK mission to the UN and had been a specialist on sanctions.

She said in her letter of resignation: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. I can not in good conscience go along with the advice which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly when the unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to international order and the rule of law. My views accord with the views that have been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UNSC 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand were his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.) Therefore, I need to leave the Office; my views on the legitimacy of a war in Iraq would not make it possible to continue my role as the Deputy Legal Advisor or my work more generally. In context with the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year."

The Downing Street memos are very important as they provide evidence that solid, consistent legal judgments on the illegality of the war were overturned for political expediency. Additionally, the Downing Street memos provide information on actions the Bush administration took to provoke the Iraqi regime to respond in ways the administration would use to justify a war. According to the Downing Street memos, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called the provocations "spikes in activity." These "spikes" were the resumption in bombing of targets in Iraq. In March 2002 no bombs were dropped on the south of Iraq but in April ten tons were dropped and increased to 54.6 tons in September, 2002, alone. But the Iraqis did not respond to the dramatic increase in bombing. No one knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by the resumption in bombing-a resumption for the sole purpose of inciting retaliation that could be used to justify an otherwise unjustifiable war.(www.hansard.org is the UK website where answers to Parliamentary questions are found, including the information on tons of bombs dropped in 2002.)

<clip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/17/162842/918

Obviously, we all know why the US to support the International Criminal Court. It is time WE THE PEOPLE insist on the rule of law and demand that not only our elected officials and military be subject to that rule of law but that those who have clearly violated numerous laws in the illegal war on Iraq and the illegal occupation of Iraq be prosecuted.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

2. Bonifaz: "The Iraq war is in direct violation of the US Constitution"

A bit of historical context as these words were written long before any leaked British documents appeared:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_first_lie_012804.htm

The First Lie

by John C. Bonifaz

<clip>

Now more than ever, the Constitution and the rule of law must apply. And, now more than ever, the truth must be told. The first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.

In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. "We are handing this over to the President of the United States," Byrd said. "When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: 'Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.'" Byrd added: "I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body... when we would cede this kind of power to any president."

The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.

It is time to hold up the Constitution to the faces of those who dare to defy it. It is time to demand our country back.

Published on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 by TomPaine.com

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[hiley]

75. John C. Bonifaz

is always focused and on target. hiley
SPECIAL FREE SPEECH TV PROGRAMMING ANNOUNCEMENT
===========================================================================

Free Speech TV and Deep Dish TV present
The Final Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) - Istanbul,
Turkey
June 24-27, 2005 (broadcast times listed below)


World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI)
-----------------------------
The final session of the WTI in Istanbul is the culmination of two
years
of rigorous investigation documenting violations of international law
and human rights by the United States and its allies leading up to and
during the invasion of Iraq and in the continuing occupation. Previous
sessions of the WTI have been held in Barcelona, Stockholm, Copenhagen,
Rome, Genoa, Seoul, Osaka, Hiroshima, Mexico City, Mumbai and New York.
They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the
illegality of the invasion and occupation.

(for information on the WTI, visit http://www.worldtribunal.org)


Final Session of the WTI
-------------------------
The Istanbul session of the WTI will summarize and present further
testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S.
pretexts
for and conduct of this war.

Expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence will
address:

- The torture of prisoners
- The unlawful imprisonment of Iraqi civilians without charges or
legal defense;
- The use and health risks of depleted uranium weapons;
- The effects of the war on Iraq's infrastructure, including U.S.
mandated privatization and sale of Iraq's industries.
- The destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability
of
the invaders in international law for failing to protect these
treasures of humanity.


Historical Broadcasts
----------------------
Four hour-long programs from the final WTI session will broadcast on
Free Speech TV via a satellite uplink provided by longtime partner Deep
Dish TV. Don't miss this unique programming.

Program One:
Friday June 24, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday June 25, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Two:
Saturday June 25, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Sunday June 26, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Three:
Sunday June 26, 10 PM - 11 PM (ET)
Monday June 27, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Four:
Monday June 27, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Tuesday June 28, 2 AM - 3 AM (ET)


** Programs will also stream on the Internet @
http://www.worldtribunal.org and http://www.deepdishtv.org


"The World Tribunal on Iraq is collecting a definitive body of evidence
on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be
indispensable to the global anti-war movement, to conscientious
objectors, and to students of history for years to come. Americans who
oppose the war have a duty to support and participate in this crucial
international effort to stand up to U.S. government lawlessness and
impunity."

-- Naomi Klein



== FREE SPEECH TV // www.freespeech.org
==
Using television to cultivate an informed and active citizenry in order
to advance progressive social change.

24/7 on DISH Network Channel 9415
Part-time on over 120 Public Access Cable Channels nationwide
Online at www.freespeech.org

[understandinglife]

79. Juan Cole on justice and law and having to make difficult choices

These people (i.e., the Neocons) should read less Jabotinsky and Strauss and more Isaiah Berlin. Berlin made the key point that most ethical and social philosophers had assumed that a person could simultaneously pursue two virtues. That is, let us say that both beauty and truth are goods and we want them both. Berlin is saying that in the real world, there are situations in which you can only have the one or the other. The truth is ugly, and the prettied up beautiful story is false. So then you have to decide, do you want the truth? Or do you want beauty?

<clip>

Up until early March of 2003, I was not forced to choose between Justice and the Rule of Law .... When the UNSC declined to do either, very late in the game, it became apparent that I could have either justice or the rule of law. At that point I chose the rule of law. I did not see the invasion, the war, or the subsequent occupation as legitimate.

Just because I chose the rule of law over justice, however, does not mean that justice as a consideration had evaporated. The US troops who gave their lives to depose Saddam and free Iraqis from his yoke were helping achieve justice, which any Kurd or Shiite in Iraq will tell you. I stand by that, and I assure every grieving parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war that it was a meaningful sacrifice, because the Baath system was monstrous. But this achievement was deeply flawed (and may yet be undone) because it was done illegally.

Bush's turn to illegal aggression contained the seeds of the failure of his Iraq policy. If he had remained within international law, he would have either had to give up the invasion or he would have gone in with the full support the international community, which would have given him the kind of troop strength and administrative expertise that might have made a success of it all.

<clip>

More at the link:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/cole-on-knowing-his-own-history-and.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - The only question Americans should now be asking: "Why is Bush not yet in jail?"

[understandinglife]

3. International Law Aspects of the Iraq War

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation

This sections examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq.

Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Occupation of Iraq illegal, Blair told

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Thursday May 22, 2003
The Guardian

Leaked advice from the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, reveals that he warned Tony Blair two months ago that attempts at postwar reconstruction of Iraq by US-British occupying authorities would be unlawful without a further UN resolution.

Lord Goldsmith, the government's chief law officer, told the prime minister that the longer the occupation went on and the more the actions of the occupying authorities departed from their main task of disarmament, the harder it would be to justify the occupation as lawful.

The advice, published in today's New Statesman, was written in a memo to Mr Blair and circulated to a small number of government departments on March 26 (2003).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,961146,00.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

83. Bush & Bolton: The Bully Twins

In this DU thread an outline of Bolton's efforts to marginalize the International Criminal Court and rationalize holding America free of the Statute of Rome are placed in the context of the World Tribunal on Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3941729&mesg_id=3941729

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, "Why is Bush not already in jail?"

[savannahana]

4. thanks for this thread, UL

great work as always, & much appreciated! :thumbsup:

nomination #2 landing in a snap :hi:

[understandinglife]

7. You are welcome!

I've been thinking about compiling some historical items and the events of yesterday and the publication, today, by Barnett inspired me to do so, now.

:hi:

Peace.

[understandinglife]

5. Annan: "Iraq war illegal" 16 Sept 2004

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

<snip>

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

6. "First these officials conspired to start an unlawful war of aggression"

An Open Letter to John Conyers
The War Crimes of Bush, Cheney and Co.

By TOM STEPHENS and JOHN PHILO

May 20, 2004

Dear Congressman Conyers:

We write to ask that you take the lead in efforts to appoint special counsel to investigate the top officials of the current US Government executive branch and their leading co-conspirators. The targets of this proposed investigation include, but are not limited to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Stephen Cambone, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libbey, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and John Ashcroft.

The subject matter of this proposed investigation is the conduct of the so-called "war on terrorism," and the illegal and catastrophic US war of aggression against Iraq. Specifically, we believe that these individuals and others conspired to commit war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and to cover up their wrongdoing in connection with these crimes. These crimes include systematic violations of fundamental human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on Torture, the Alien Tort Claims Act, lying to Congress and to other federal officials, and violations of other laws, treaties and obligations, including internal regulations of the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. The end result of this pattern of flagrant, wanton, systematic and intentional wrongdoing, by the highest executive and civilian military officials in the US Government, is the disastrous military, diplomatic and political situation facing the United States, and the men and women on active duty in US military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere today.

First these officials conspired to start an unlawful war of aggression, justified by lies. Then they carried out their illegal conspiracy. It included unlawful killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and use of weapons of mass destruction like cluster bombs and depleted uranium against the civilian population of Iraq. Throughout this conspiracy, they have implemented policies and practices for unlawful arrests, detention, interrogation, beatings, abuse, humiliation and torture, in violation of fundamental human rights protected by law. As a result of their misconduct, the dangers of international terrorism have been severely inflamed, international friends and allies turned away, and the security of our people imperiled. The true aims of the administration are revealed in its legally required policy statement to Congress of September 20, 2002, when it stated that the awful crimes against humanity of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, DC "opened vast, new opportunities." (The National Security Strategy of the United States," Section VIII, Development Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power) In seizing these "opportunities" to enrich their corporate supporters and increase their own power through aggression, the top officials of this administration have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that justify their removal from office and their criminal punishment under law.

Everywhere today we hear the question: "How will America regain its credibility?" In the wake of the Bush administration's reckless, dishonest, and profligate expenditures of blood and treasure, for the benefit of their multinational corporate patrons, the answer is clear: Investigate their crimes pursuant to law, indict them based on the massive record of facts supporting such an indictment, and put the top architects of this illegal and deadly policy of permanent, "pre-emptive" war on public trial. Accountability for the massive crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration should not be limited to a handful of low-level scapegoats who implemented their policies at Abu Ghraib prison. It should lie with those at the very top in Washington, who bear ultimate responsibility for the profound and multi-dimensional crisis to which they have brought our nation and our world. If we do this in full view of the world, then our fellow citizens, friends and allies may be able (after our great poet Langston Hughes) to say "Let America be America again." Only then can we get on with the serious business of repairing the severe, long-term damage done by these crimes, and restoring our security, freedom, and system of fairness and equal justice for all.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If there are any questions or concerns, if you require backup documentation from reliable sources for this analysis, or if there is anything else we may be able to do to assist your office in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

In struggle,

Tom Stephens
John Philo

National Lawyers Guild
Detroit Chapter

http://counterpunch.org/stephens05202004.html

Clearly, Congressman Conyers, against all odds is doing everything he can to respond. And, today, as opposed to May 20, 2004, he has ample evidence of the lies used by Bush, Blair and their fellow neoconsters to deceive the citizens of America, the UK, and their elected representatives.


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[MelissaB]

8. kick!

[BamaBecky]

9. kick for Impeachment!

[BamaBecky]

10. kick for Impeachment!

[xxqqqzme]

38. oh, U just reminded me

I haven't sent my daily email to my congrassman asking when impeachment proceedings against the president will begin. Send him the same email every day since the publication of DSM. Funny...he hasn't responded yet.

[understandinglife]

11. NOTICE: I will strive to expand this thread in conjunction with ...

.... another thread that will not cease until Bush and his fellow war criminal neoconsters stop killing Americans, Iraqis and others who happen to be located in the region they are attempting to convert into an oil source and logistical infrastructure for waging perpetual war in the Middle East and points North, South, and East, specifically:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3742495

Peace.



www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[Karenina]

12. Great work!

:kick:

[Imagevision]

34. Kick for impeachment

[understandinglife]

13. Bonifaz before Conyers: US Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4

STATEMENT BY JOHN C. BONIFAZ
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY AND CO-FOUNDER
AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG

BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL FORUM

ON THE DOWNING STREET MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005

Congressman Conyers and Members of the Committee: Thank you for hosting this congressional forum today and thank you for your leadership.

My name is John Bonifaz. I am a Boston-based attorney specializing in constitutional litigation and the co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. AfterDowningStreet.org is a national coalition of veterans groups, peace groups, public interest organizations and ordinary citizens across this country calling for a formal congressional investigation into whether the President of the United States has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. We launched this campaign on May 26 of this year in response to the revelations which have emerged from the release of the Downing Street Minutes.

The recent release of the Downing Street Minutes provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Downing Street Minutes

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Minutes. The document, marked "Secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration's plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD ." Dearlove continues: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Dearlove also states that "here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." "But," he continues, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran."

British officials do not dispute the document's authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that " former senior U.S. official called `an absolutely accurate description of what transpired' during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington." "Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy," The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the letter. "British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics," The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8. The letter has since been joined by other Members of Congress and by more than half a million people across the country.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia's ratification convention stated: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist, stated that impeachment is for "the misconduct of public men...from the abuse or violation of some public trust." James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina's ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. "The powers relating to impeachment," Jordan said, "are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive."

Impeachment, said Barbara Jordan, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to `bridle' the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Minutes, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on "preemptive" purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Minutes is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Minutes and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,700 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/6/17/162211/318

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[savannahana]

14. back to the top where this great thread belongs!

:kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick:

[DrDebug]

15. Kick and copied

I took the liberty of copying your post to http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Iraq_War_is_Illegal for easy future reference. I didn't think you'd mind, right?

[understandinglife]

16. Please, always feel free to make use of anything I post here at DU.

Happy to be of assistance to you.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[Zhade]

17. Ah! A chance to both kick this thread...

...and to pimp my own, related poll! :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3891418

EDIT: or not - the poll vanished (not locked, just vanished), so I replaced it with a more constructive question here.

[understandinglife]

18. AP's Wagner reports: "It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer

"TinyURL" of Yahoo link: http://tinyurl.com/by4um

(2 grafs from exactly the type of article Bush and the neoconsters do not want in the press or anywhere else)

<clip>

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

<clip>

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[Just Me]

19. Bookmarked and nominated!!!!

Hell of job there, understandinglife!!! :patriot:

THANK YOU!!!!

:kick:

[understandinglife]

20. Zeese: "The invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law ...

... so they tried to create legal justification through manipulation of the United Nations in order to trap Saddam into violating UN resolutions. This also provided the side benefit of making it look like they were seeking a peaceful resolution while at the same time putting in place the machinery for a massive US/UK invasion."

The above quote is derived from the following article, published by The Online Journal, entitled:

How much proof needed before the truth comes out?
Now seven leaked British documents raise Iraq war questions

By Kevin Zeese
Online Journal Contributing Writer

(.pdf download of the article available here):
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/061705Zeese/06-17-05_Zeese.pdf

June 17, 2005—The Downing Street Memo—minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors that said the US was "fixing" the intelligence to support the Iraq War—was not enough to get the mainstream US media or members of Congress to take the issue seriously. Now there is Downing II, III, IV, V, VI and VII!

As the evidence mounts (http://democracyrising.us/content/view/245/164/), the failure of the media to seriously investigate the issues is baffling. Why aren't they interviewing current and former US military intelligence officials about these reports from the highest levels of British government? Isn't the media supposed to investigate and get the truth for their readers and viewers?

And, how about Congress—shouldn't they be subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath about pre-war intelligence gathering, the influence Bush administration had on manipulating or misstating intelligence findings and whether intelligence was gathered to report the truth or designed to support a pre-ordained war? The chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, has promised to investigate whether intelligence was manipulated by the administration—but that promise remains unfulfilled and last week Knight-Ridder reporter Dick Polman was told it was "still on the back burner." Maybe it is time to make good on that promise.

Mr Zeese continues with a summary of each document)
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/061705Zeese/061705zeese.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

61. Michael Smith: "...plot to use the UN as a pretext..."; 21 June 2005

<clip>
When asked whether or not the efforts by the US and UK to seek UN support for the war, subsequent to the events of the DSM, are indeed a debunking of the information contained in the memo/minutes - Michael Smith pointed out twice that the key element of the minutes is the apparent plot to use the UN as a pretext to create a legal justification for the war when none currently existed. The expectation was the Saddam would resist the re-insertion of weapons inspectors - as he had prior to the passage of resolution #1205, But how after going to the UN and getting the passage of resolution #1441, the weapons inpectors were indeed allowed back into Iraq, and contrary to UK and US expectations - as outlined by the DSM's - Saddam submitted completely to their intrusion, and thereby completely abrogated the hoped for justification for military intervention.

Inspectors did not find WMD's, but they did find and destroy hundreds of Iraqi missles which were in violation of UN Resolutions. Saddam did not resist. At this point Saddam was in complete and total compliance with resolution #1205 and #1441 as well as all relevent resolutions.

What then, was the continued justification for War? The fact is, there wasn't one. Saddam and Iraq was in compliance and had provided thousands of pages of documentation to that effect. Weapon's inspectors were back in place and doing their job.

Yet we still went to war? Why? Apparently because President Bush decided he didn't trust Saddam, and decided to forgo further diplomacy in direct violation of the October 2002 Resolution (H.J. 141) authorizing War in Iraq as a last resort.

<clip>

From: MSNBC: Taking the DSM to the next level
by Vyan
Tue Jun 21st, 2005 at 00:29:28 PDT

Link to full report:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/21/32928/8471

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.usm - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

71. Michael Smith: 23 June 2005 - "The real news is the shady April 2002 deal

.... to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress."

June 23, 2005 latimes.com

The Real News in the Downing Street Memos

By Michael Smith, Michael Smith writes on defense issues for the Sunday Times of London.

It is now nine months since I obtained the first of the "Downing Street memos," thrust into my hand by someone who asked me to meet him in a quiet watering hole in London for what I imagined would just be a friendly drink.

At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this.

The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

They focused on the period leading up to the Crawford, Texas, summit between Blair and Bush in early April 2002, and were most striking for the way in which British officials warned the prime minister, with remarkable prescience, what a mess post-war Iraq would become. Even by the cynical standards of realpolitik, the decision to overrule this expert advice seemed to be criminal.

<clip>
LATimes Link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-smith23jun23,0,1838831.story

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID.

[understandinglife]

72. Nov 19 2003: Perle "...international law stood in the way...."

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

<clip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID.

[understandinglife]

73. "The greatest triumph of the Iraq war is the destruction of the evil ...

.... of international law. - Richard Perle


The Decadence Manifesto: Iraq (1)

March 17 2005

by Bryan Shultz (epinons ID: pyfr)

The Bottom Line - Much of this you know. And that's what makes it tragic.

If you have no compassion for the people of Iraq, or if you're the kind of person who believes that everything W does is a manifestation of God's will, then please read no further. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, and I wish you the best of luck when the fallout of our government's ways descends upon you and your loved ones. And rest assured, my friend, retribution is on its way.

Richard Perle, one of Bush's war hawk advisors, stated at the beginning of the current conflict that "The greatest triumph of the Iraq war is the destruction of the evil of international law." What Perle meant, essentially, is that commencement of the Iraqi war signified that the U.S. would no longer adhere to the Geneva Conventions that armies are supposed to abide by, and that America would henceforth do whatever it damn well pleased, regardless of international opinion. We've gone from having a cowboy/lone ranger as our leader to BEING the cowboy. Yee-haw!

The people of Iraq, if you care to stop and listen to them, are a little bit confused as to why we're ripping their children apart AGAIN. After all, they haven't been able to follow the tide of world events over the last fifteen years or so, given the absence of anything resembling a free press. Saddam, like all good dictators, subordinated the media to his agenda, and made sure that the Iraqis were deprived of news, as well as everything else.

<clip>

This little game called the "War On Terror" is a facade, a bloody drama being carried out in the name of Americans by the businessmen who have taken control. They're making their bid for world domination, and the price we'll pay for not supporting it will be a rise in terrorist attacks and a further curtailment of our rights (which is what will happen anyway if we DO support it). They are using the American military to secure control of the planet's energy reserves (our tanks don't use windpower, you know), and pushing us toward a showdown with the Muslim world, as well as Russia and China. We may be the world's only "superpower", but Moscow and Beijing have the ability to pull us into the grave with them.

http://www.epinions.com/content_4288258180

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - IT'S THE LAW, EVERYONE.

[understandinglife]

82. Reference link to extended discussion of Perle's willful discounting ...

.... of international law:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3931759

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, "Why is Bush not already in jail?"

[understandinglife]

85. Bolton & Wolfowitz: Neocons against international law and institutions

U.S. Attacks UN To Undermine International Law, Not Reform International Institutions

June 24, 2005

By Phyllis Bennis

Bolton and Wolfowitz have many things in common: primarily their extremism and commitment to military solutions to solve the world's problems. Both have shown contempt for international law and international institutions. Their appointments have shocked people and governments around the world. But there are significant differences as well.

<clip>

It is breathtakingly hypocritical for the U.S. to impose its chosen candidate on the World Bank in this way, particularly since the U.S. has criticized precisely this kind of secretive, closed-door decision-making in developing countries all over the world. There is unease in the global South especially because of what appears to be European acquiescence to the U.S. selection of Wolfowitz, in return for Washington accepting Europe's candidate, the French former EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy, to head the World Trade Organization.

<clip>

Bolton's confirmation is being opposed by a wide range of policymakers and other Americans eager to avoid sending to the UN a representative known for his efforts to dismiss intelligence analysts with whom he disagreed, who publicly asserts false claims regarding other countries' alleged weapons, and who believes international law and treaties are not binding on the U.S. And certainly his appointment would send a stark message of contempt and arrogance to the UN and to the international community as a whole. "U.S. Ambassador John Bolton" would arrive at the U.S. Mission to the UN across the street from UN headquarters flush with a mandate from the White House to do whatever he could to destroy the organization.

But the United Nations is made up of 190 other member states. And it is certainly possible that Ambassador Bolton would find it much more difficult to win support for his president's anti-UN positions than would another, perhaps more diplomatic, diplomat. With Ambassador Bolton in New York, it might even be easier for European and other governments to return to stand firm against U.S. unilateralism - and to help the United Nations join the people of the world in doing what its Charter requires: saying no to war.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1362/1/102/

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

21. Frank Rich, NYTimes: "Bush administration has lost the public opinion ...

... war on Iraq..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3892388&mesg_id=3892388

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

65. "Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't."

Americans inching closer to a reckoning

ROBERT STEINBACK
DOWNING STREET MEMO
The Miami Herald

Do you want to know?

<clip>

You're in one camp or the other. Either you want to know if you've been lied to, or you don't.

The American public is inching tentatively toward a reckoning unlike any this nation has ever experienced. The oh-so-clever Bush administration strategists and their quasi-media acolytes, who have kept the reckoning at bay with a deft combination of we're-at-war patriotic fervor and fear-the-evil-liberals rhetoric, are running out of parlor tricks.

<clip>

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11952371.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

I agree. "The American public is inching tentatively toward a reckoning unlike any this nation has ever experienced." That reckoning is not about the 'symptom' - Bush's illegal war on Iraq - however. That reckoning has to do with what I described in a response to Will Pitt's post (link below) as "Greed and Domination: Flavor, 'American'":

Perpetual war is merely one mechanism used by a control system adapted to the pursuit of those arm-in-arm goals -- greed and domination.

All the fancy talk of PNAC; all the horrific actions of Bush and his fellow neoconsters are but another instance, in the brief history of humanity, of the ability of the few to motivate the many into servicing their lust for unrestrained consumption of resources and unrestricted domination and disregard for any one whom gets in the way.

The Bush plutocracy is but another boring instance of folk being fooled, once again, into being the fuel and infrastructure of another evil empire.

That is what no one wants to admit. It's just not what any one wants to discuss while driving the SUV to Wal-Mart.

Our choice is clear. Do we enforce the law - that human instrument created in the recognition that everything is finite and every action should be accounted. Or, not.

We don't need to impeach Bush, Cheney and all the other criminals. We just need to file charges against them and prosecute them.

A small number of folk, gathered in Philadelphia, made a few essential decisions in 1775 and stuck with them.

It's June 22, 2005. How many of us are committed to applying the law. Do we have what it takes to file charges in every conceivable national and international court? Do we have what it takes to halt consumption of those goods and services upon which the Bush plutocracy thrives? Do we have what it takes to convince other governments to sanction the Bush plutocracy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3918662&mesg_id=3918662

For a bit of added historical context on just how obvious the Bush plutocracy has been in it's brutal imitation of the 'greed and domination' scam:

http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2005/06/denial-and-deception.html

In Our Faces

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility ... it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

I suppose it's a waste of breath to try to convince the media and the rightwingers that Bush is the biggest bald faced liar in history, but still, the internet is such a nice repository of documentary proof of this that it seems a worthy exercise, nonetheless, if only for the history books.

<clip>

Link: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_digbysblog_archive.html#111931070175688214

Peace.


WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[me b zola]

22. Outstanding post, UL

May justice prevail!


:kick:

[understandinglife]

23. 19 June 2005, UK Times: British bombing raids illegal

June 19, 2005

British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office

Michael Smith

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

<clip>

Putting pressure on Iraq is not something that would be a lawful activity,” said Goodhart, who is also the Liberal Democrat shadow Lord Chancellor.

The Foreign Office advice noted that the Americans had “on occasion” claimed that the allied aircraft were there to enforce compliance with resolutions 688 and 687, which ordered Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

“This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement,” it said.

Link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300,00.html

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[Disturbed]

24. Impeachment the entire stinkin' Bush Regime!!!

Another lie by GW Bush is that Saddam refused UN Inspection. Hans Blix and his team were forced to leave because the invasion was at hand.

The reason for the hurry to invade was that had the inspections been allowed to continue, sanctions on Iraq would have had to be lifted and Saddam would have sold his oil to most countries, except the U.S. via
the Euro. The Bush Regime could not alllow that to occur.

[understandinglife]

25. "Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress ...

... that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, ..."

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[Independent_Liberal]

26. I'm kicking for impeachment!

Impeach and remove the entire executive branch! Cut the branch off! Send them all to the International Criminal Court! Tell Congress to hold special emergency elections!

[understandinglife]

27. Sydney Morning Hearld: "PM could be prosecuted over Iraq war: lawyer"

PM could be prosecuted over Iraq war: lawyer
June 17, 2005 - 1:20AM

Prime Minister John Howard could face criminal prosecution overseas for Australia's role in the Iraq war, an international lawyer says.

Philippe Sands, QC, director of the Centre for International Courts and Tribunals at University College London, says Mr Howard along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair could face charges amid claims the Iraq war was illegal.

United States President George Bush and US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld could also find themselves in similar predicaments, Professor Sands says.

"Under international law an illegal war amounts to the crime of aggression and in some countries around the world a crime of aggression is one in which they exercise jurisdiction," ..... "A whole new range of international criminal laws has emerged and when you break the rules of international law you pay a price for that and one of the prices that you pay if you are a leader is that you travel with greater care and caution." Prof Sands told ABC TV.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/PM-could-be-prosecuted-over-Iraq-war-lawyer/2005/06/17/1118869052416.html?oneclick=true

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

28. Guradian Unlimited: "UK had advance alert of jail abuse"

UK had advance alert of jail abuse

A report on torture on Iraqis at Abu Ghraib was circulated within the army, writes Jamie Doward

Sunday June 19, 2005
The Observer

The British army's senior military lawyer in Iraq was aware of allegations that human rights abuses were being committed at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison months before they were exposed by the American media.

The lawyer, who compiled regular written and oral briefings for his seniors within the British army's high command, was responsible for summarising a litany of abuses identified by the Red Cross after the charity visited the prison in October 2003.

<clip>

The report was read by the British military lawyer, whose identity is not known, and circulated within Command Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), the division in charge of Abu Ghraib.

Under the Geneva Convention, officers have a duty to report allegations of human rights abuses to their seniors.

More at the link:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1510003,00.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[killbotfactory]

29. W stands for WAR CRIMINAL

George W. Bush: unpopular president, lame duck, moron, war criminal

[understandinglife]

30. Scott Ritter: The US war with Iran has already begun

The US war with Iran has already begun

By Scott Ritter
Sunday 19 June 2005, 15:06 Makka Time, 12:06 GMT

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war. On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

<clip>

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

(Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.)

A must read! Here's the link:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - how ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[understandinglife]

31. March 7 2003: "War would be illegal"

War would be illegal

Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian

We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.

The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions:

individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.

Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.

A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.

Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford

Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe
University of Cambridge

Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics

Dr Matthew Craven
School of Oriental and African Studies

Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde
University College London

Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy
University of Paris

Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

86. June 25 2005: Ritter on Guy James show discussing aggression on Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3949774

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

32. Hunter@dKos: "barriers to the acceptance of the "fixed" Bush admin ...."

But perhaps the largest open question re: Bolton, given the evidence provided by what at this point is becoming a steady stream of Downing Street documentation through one or more British Deep Throats, is to what extent his administration position was explicitly tasked with counterintelligence operations against barriers to the acceptance of the "fixed" Bush administration intelligence position -- and to what extent he assumed that role himself, as in attempts to punish lower-level intelligence analysts, or was explicitly tasked with that role, as against ElBaradei. How many John Boltons were there, guarding the pipe between intelligence sources and requested Bush Administration interpretations?

It is unlikely, though perhaps possible, that Valerie Plame was one of the blacked-out names to cross John Bolton's desk, in the period before or after the start of the Iraq War. And it is certainly probable that her blacked-out or coded name appeared on a variety of materials used by the White House in investigating foreign WMD capabilities. The question remains how her classified position became suddenly unclassified, and in fact broadcast to multiple journalistic outlets in the days after her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson contradicted Bush Administration intelligence claims.

But both cases present a picture of an administration willing to take exceptional actions against American intelligence agencies, government officials, and international agencies that presented factual information or analysis harmful to Bush Administration assertions of Iraq weapons of mass destruction claims -- claims which we now know, based on exhaustive on-the-ground searches within Iraq and based on reports by an ever-increasing number of United States and British officials, were roundly exaggerated or provably false. The Downing Street Memos paint a picture of a manipulated intelligence effort that was seen as transparent even by United States allies; the Bolton and Plame cases represent concrete Bush Administration examples of the manner in which those intelligence efforts were shored up as necessary to preserve the desired results.

The intercepts being requested by the Senate in relation to the Bolton conformation may simply paint a picture of a blustering, vain officer seeking to consolidate a position of power within the administration, even if that meant subtle or direct circumventions of top administration figures such as Colin Powell. On the other hand, when combined with strengthening threads of evidence being provided by the Downing Street Memos, by ex-administration officials, and by the tying together of previously known snippets and smaller stories, the names and contents of those intercepts could prove explosive.

Read the entire, exceptional analysis by Hunter at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/19/204617/845
Sun Jun 19th, 2005 at 17:46:17 PDT

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT AND PROSECUTE BU$H AND ALL HIS FELLOW WAR CRIMINALS, NOW

[understandinglife]

33. "Nuremburg Trials. A precedent"

03/03/04

Launching an aggressive war is a violation of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, to which both the UK and US are bound as signatories and whose principles were adopted by the UN General assembly in 1950.

The four power agreement creating the Military Tribunal for Germany, included

"a) Crimes against peace – planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of the foregoing"

It is little wonder then that Ms Wilmshurst, the Treasury brief with 26 years experience was unwilling to accept that any such planned invasion of Iraq had no legal basis and resigned rather than supportsuch national illegal action.

What is an Aggressive war?

Should Mr Bush and Mr Blair and their friendly and obedient lawyer, Mr Goldsmith (although evidently a somewhat frightened man) require a definition of what an aggressive war is, they need look no further than the 1974 UN General Assembly definition –

"Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations "… which includes," the invasion or attack by armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation,” which gave legitimacy to Resolution 678 which gave the US authority to remove Saddam and his army from Kuwait.

Resolution 678, to which Mr Fleischer's neo-cons, and other apologists on both sides of the Atlantic and their Antipodean side-kicks cling to, to fraudulently justify their unleashing Armageddon.

Warren Austin the Chief Delegate of the US to the UN told the UN General Assembly on October 30th, 1946, that the US was bound by the principles of law encompassed by the Nuremberg Charter, as well as by the UN Charter. He said, "The Charter…makes planning or waging a war of aggression a crime against humanity for which individuals as well as nations can be brought before the bar of international justice, tried, and punished."

Douglas J Feith / The Life and Times and quotable quotes
From March 1984 until September 1986, Mr. Feith served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy to Defense Secretary Perle.

Strategy and the Idea of Freedom / by Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Heritage Lecture #OL1 November 24th 2003. "My association with The Heritage Foundation goes back a ways, twenty-six years, to 1977, when you were still located on Stanton Park at 5th and C, Northeast. That was a time when we neo-cons, of which I was a junior member, and the folks we called the paleo-cons, made common cause:"

November 26, 2003 US Embassy Press release Sofia, Bulgaria
President Bush on November 21, The provision of military assistance projects in Bulgaria. He approved similar assistance to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all NATO invitees.

In Bulgaria, the President's approval will permit a number of U.S. military assistance programs (with a total value of $11.3 million) to go forward: These approvals override a prohibition that had been placed on U.S. military assistance to Bulgaria, among other countries, as a result of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002. This act required the administration to freeze U.S. military assistance to non-NATO countries that would not enter into bilateral agreements under Article 98 of the statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). The agreements seek a pledge from co-signing governments that U.S. persons would not be surrendered to the ICC for prosecution or turned over to third countries that intend to do so. The U.S. continues to have major reservations about the ICC, especially regarding the ICC's power to disregard national court decisions.

December 9th, 2003 US Embassy Press release Sofia, Bulgaria
“The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith will lead a delegation of Defense and State Department officials on an official visit to Sofia for consultations with senior Bulgarian government officials.”

So when the Bush / Blair gang invaded Iraq, it was not simply “by-passing” the Security Council, it was flagrantly ignoring it.

That's what criminals do.

Read more at the link:
http://www.williambowles.info/guests/criminal_intent.html

It's not like we don't have sufficient documentation of premeditated and accomplished deceit, along with actual war crimes, by which to indict and prosecute Bush, Blair and all their fellow neoconster war criminals.


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; PROSECUTE BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS

[understandinglife]

45. March 10 2004: Kwiatkowski; "The new Pentagon papers"

The new Pentagon papers: A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

March 10 2004

By Karen Kwiatkowski

In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I had served as a communications officer in the field and in acquisition programs, as a speechwriter for the National Security Agency director, and on the Headquarters Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense staffs covering African affairs. I had completed Air Command and Staff College and Navy War College seminar programs, two master's degrees, and everything but my Ph.D. dissertation in world politics at Catholic University. I regarded my military vocation as interesting, rewarding and apolitical. My career started in 1978 with the smooth seduction of a full four-year ROTC scholarship. It ended with 10 months of duty in a strange new country, observing up close and personal a process of decision making for war not sanctioned by the Constitution we had all sworn to uphold. Ben Franklin's comment that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia had delivered "a republic, madam, if you can keep it" would come to have special meaning.

In the spring of 2002, I was a cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia directorate (NESA). None materialized. By May, the call transmogrified into a posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity.

<clip>

Proving that the truth is indeed the first casualty in war, neoconservative member of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle called this February for "heads to roll." Perle, agenda setter par excellence, named George Tenet and Defense Intelligence Agency head Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby as guilty of failing to properly inform the president on Iraq and WMD. No doubt, the intelligence community, susceptible to politicization and outdated paradigms, needs reform. The swiftness of the neoconservative casting of blame on the intelligence community and away from themselves should have been fully expected. Perhaps Perle and others sense the grave and growing danger of political storms unleashed by the exposure of neoconservative lies. Meanwhile, Ahmad Chalabi, extravagantly funded by the neocons in the Pentagon to the tune of millions to provide the disinformation, has boasted with remarkable frankness, "We are heroes in error," and, "What was said before is not important."

Now we are told by our president and neoconservative mouthpieces that our sons and daughters, husbands and wives are in Iraq fighting for freedom, for liberty, for justice and American values. This cost is not borne by the children of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Bush's daughters do not pay this price. We are told that intelligence has failed America, and that President Bush is determined to get to the bottom of it. Yet not a single neoconservative appointee has lost his job, and no high official of principle in the administration has formally resigned because of this ill-planned and ill-conceived war and poorly implemented occupation of Iraq.

Will Americans hold U.S. policymakers accountable? Will we return to our roots as a republic, constrained and deliberate, respectful of others? My experience in the Pentagon leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq tells me, as Ben Franklin warned, we may have already failed. But if Americans at home are willing to fight -- tenaciously and courageously -- to preserve our republic, we might be able to keep it.

Link to one of the most remarkable documents published in the past five years:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index4.html

One must ask, with all the information and all the evidence of illegal actions, how anything but the facts that Bush launched a premeditated, illegal war on Iraq and persisted with an illegal occupation of that country, were not the sole focus in the 2004 National Election.

Col Kwiatkowski and Sibel Edmonds would have been more than adequate spokespersons in mobilizing the Nation to not just reject candidate Bush, but indict him.

Isn't it time for every citizen who has any interest in the Republic to stand with Col Kwiatkowski and Sibel Edmonds and file charges against Bush, Cheney, Rice, Perle, et al?

Isn't it time for Congressman Conyers to begin receiving massive support from the super-stars like Roberts and Aniston and Stone and ..., thereby mobilizing a national recall and a nation-wide legal action against these bona fide war criminals.

We don't need to wait for impeachment.

We should just charge them in a court of law for murdering our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers, our brothers and sisters in what the entire world recognizes as an premeditated, war of aggression and illegal occupation of another nation.

Isn't it time?

Let us turn to the words of Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. for crystal clear perspective:

"There is a right side and a wrong side in this conflict (civil rights) and the government does not belong in the middle." - Why We Can't Wait 1963

"For years now I have heard the word, 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never'. . . justice too long delayed is justice denied." -Letter from a Birmingham Jail 1963

"The ultimate tragedy of Birmingham was not the brutality of the bad people, but the silence of the good people." Why We Can't Wait -1963

There is a right side and a wrong side to the destruction of America and the illegal war and atrocities being conducted in its name by Bush and the neoconsters.

WE THE PEOPLE do not belong in the middle.

Let us go to our courts and file charges against the anti-American, international war criminals. Let us prosecute them and let us bring justice to all those who have suffered as a result of their heinous crimes against humanity.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - "Why We Can't Wait"

[understandinglife]

47. March 2003: "...the immense and unbearable cost to the rule of law..."

TEARING UP THE RULES:
The Illegality of Invading Iraq

March 2003

Preface

The thrust of this report is to demonstrate the immense and unbearable cost to the rule of law which will result from a decision a handful of powerful western nations to take the law into their own hands. The theme is an old one, but it cuts to the heart of efforts championed by a majority of states—including a succession of American administrations, be they Democratic or Republican — to establish a world order which insists that war can only be a last resort and that the decision to unleash its horrors on innocent populations can only be taken according to the duly established law itself.

The point has probably best been made in a speech by Sir Thomas More, written by playwright Robert Bolt, in A Man for All Seasons. More turns to his former confidant Will Roper who has become a vigilante in the name of justice and asks:

And when the last law was cut down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

The moral is clear. If the world allows the laws protecting our collective security to be cut down just to get at Saddam, what protection will remain when China seeks to invade Taiwan, or the EU or Spain to invade Morocco, or the United States to invade other nations—the laws all being flat? Enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s weapons of mass destructions must surely be undertaken in accordance with the law, and not in blatant disregard of it.

Philip Alston, President of the Board, Center for Economic and Social Rights, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University

What follows is a reasoned and expert analysis of the law and a definition of actions that would have been truly just. However, Bush, Blair and the neoconsters decided to violate multiple laws and began a series of actions that words like atrocity, inhuman, barbaric, sadistic, ...., only barely begin to describe.

It is worthwhile to reflect on what was recommended as it still provides guidance as to what must be restored:

The overwhelming global support for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis presents an opportunity to strengthen rather than undermine fundamental principles of law. There remains a small window of opportunity for public officials at all levels—from governments to the U.N.—to act in defense of the foundation laid by U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The promise of peace and human rights expressed in these laws represents a far more hopeful future than the path of endless war.

Such action could take many forms:

• public statements opposing war and defending international law from the world’s leading political and religious figures;

• a public statement by the Secretary-General, acting under Article 99 of the Charter, insisting that only the Council as a whole, and not its individual members, is entitled to authorize the use of force;

• a Security Council resolution asserting its exclusive responsibility under Chapter VII to authorize force if necessary to maintain international peace and security;

• an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of force by individual states acting outside of the authority of the Security Council; and

• a Uniting for Peace resolution by the General Assembly proposing concrete legal measures to resolve the Iraq crisis and demanding compliance by all U.N. member states, including the
U.S. and U.K.

Any of these measures would help restore faith that the rule of law applies to the powerful and weak alike. By defending its founding principles and refusing to sanction an unlawful war, the United Nations would prove its “relevance” in the eyes of most of the world and plant the seeds for its eventual rejuvenation.

Link to .pdf file:
http://cesr.org/filestore2/download/523

It is obvious why war criminal Bush wants Bolton at the UN, as he needs a fellow heathen to destroy any chance that the UN could act to exert the rule of law.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES

[understandinglife]

48. August 7, 2003: Blix; US-led invasion of Iraq violated UN charter

US-led invasion of Iraq violated UN charter, says Blix

STOCKHOLM, Sweden: With unusual candor, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix denounced on Wednesday the US-led war on Iraq as a violation of international law, and questioned Washington's motives for the invasion.

"I cannot see that the action, in the way it was justified, was compatible with the UN Charter," Blix said, adding that it had undermined the Security Council's authority. The former Swedish foreign minister spoke on a popular Swedish Radio programme features leading personalities, who chat and choose music. Blix questioned whether Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to his neighbours and to the United States. He said the administration of US President George W Bush must have had other reasons to invade besides "the officially pronounced purpose to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction."

"An important element surely was the need to show striking power after the terror attack on the United States on Sept 11, 2001," Blix said in the 90-minute show. Neither the Security Council nor the American public would have seen "Saddam's terror" as grounds for military action, he said, before playing "Send the Marines," by Tom Lehrer, a sarcastic song from the 1960s about US military intervention.

<clip>

He said he was disappointed because the United States didn't show more faith in the UN weapons inspectors, who failed to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "Personally, I found it peculiar that those who wanted to take military action could, with 100 per cent certainty, know that the weapons existed, and at the same time turn out to have zero per cent knowledge of where they were," he said.

Link:
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2003-daily/07-08-2003/main/main22.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

88. July 13 2003: "20 Lies About the War"

20 Lies About the War: Falsehoods Ranging from Exaggeration to Plain Untruth Were Used to Make the Case for War. More Lies are Being Used in the Aftermath

by Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker

1. Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2. Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defense Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3. Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4. Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.


5 through 20, here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0713-01.htm

Not like the info hasn't been available for awhile.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

63. Kwiatkowski & Ellsberg: "The Fix is In: Why the DSM Matters"

"The Fix is In: Why the Downing Street Memo Matters -- Pentagon whistleblower Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski and Daniel Ellsberg on the deceptions of the Bush administration (Video - 4 minutes)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9131.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[Karenina]

35. Kick!

:kick:

[DemReadingDU]

36. Thanks for posting, n/t

[understandinglife]

37. Krieger: "The Iraq War has been a step backward for international law"

Final two paragraphs from the paper entitled: "The War on Iraq as Illegal and Illegitimate"

<clip>

]A Step Backward for International Law

The Iraq War has been a step backward for international law, has harmed the authority of the UN Security Council and has undermined the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the world. The United Nations is faced with the dilemma of reasserting the post-World War II emphasis on ending the “scourge of war” in the face of a disturbing pattern of unilateralism, exceptionalism and disregard for international law displayed by the United States. The international community, acting through the United Nations, needs to establish effective limitations on unilateral action by all states and censure and apply sanctions to any country, including the most powerful, that defies the dictates of international law. At a minimum, the UN General Assembly should conduct a thorough review of the circumstances leading to the initiation of war against Iraq, and determine authoritatively whether that war was conducted legally with reference to international law.

This matter cannot be left in the hands of the UN Security Council since the US, as a permanent member, would exercise its veto power to prevent such a review from going forward. If the General Assembly deems it appropriate, it can turn to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the matter. The UN report or advisory opinion of the Court should be made public and widely disseminated. Proposals should be made by the General Assembly on preventing aggressive wars in the future and on the circumstances under which humanitarian interventions are appropriate. Were the United Nations to thoroughly review the matter and issue a strong report, it is possible that the international community could learn from what has happened and attempt to more effectively control such unauthorized and costly interventions in the future.

David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons and is the author of many studies of peace in the Nuclear Age, including Nuclear Weapons and the World Court.

*This paper has been submitted for inclusion in the book The Iraq Crisis and World Order: Structural and Normative Challenges, Ramesh Thakur and Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, editors, to be published by United Nations University Press, Tokyo (www.unu.edu/unupress).

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/03/00_krieger_war-illegal-illegitimate.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT AND PROSECUTE BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS

[anarch]

67. backward to Pre-1648, and the Treaty of Westphalia....

Well, in spirit anyway.

Hell, this ass-backwards administration has also pretty much done away with the concept of habeas corpus (along with the 4th amendment, etc.), recognized in common law since the freakin' Magna Carta, so that takes us several steps backwards to, what, pre-1215 or so? What with the assault on all rationality and science, and the sort of "rule by divine right" flavor the whole bunch has, they seem to be doing their damndest to take us all the way back to the deepest, darkest middle ages.

If they also manage to totally destroy the economy, I guess they might just get there....

[understandinglife]

39. Sanders: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Published on Saturday, June 18, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

High Crimes and Misdemeanors
by Ken Sanders

Under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's impeachment clause, and the historical application thereof, leads to the inescapable conclusion that articles of impeachment should be brought against President Bush for his commission of high crimes against the United States.
It is the consensus among legal and constitutional scholars that the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to "political crimes." While not necessarily indictable crimes, "political crimes" are great offenses against the federal government. They are abuses of power or the kinds of misconduct which can only be committed by a public official by virtue of the unique power and trust which he holds. Thus, high crimes and misdemeanors refer to major offenses against our very system of representative democracy. Likewise, high crimes and misdemeanors can be serious abuses of the governmental power with which the President has been trusted.

In the case of Iraq, it is becoming harder and harder to deny that Bush engaged in official misconduct that caused serious and likely irreparable injury to the United States.

<clip>

There is precedent for impeaching President Bush for the high crimes and misdemeanors of involving the country in armed conflict through fraudulent means. Take the case of William Blount, the first federal impeachment in U.S. history. Blount, an original U.S. senator from Tennessee, attempted to incite the Cherokee and the Creek to displace the Spanish from what is now Florida and Louisiana. Blount intended to then sell the land to the British. When the plot was exposed, the House of Representatives leveled articles of impeachment against Blount, asserting that Blount committed high crimes and misdemeanors by undertaking a course of conduct that threatened American neutrality and peace, and potentially violated international treaties.

<clip>

In the case of the Iraq war, Bush similarly abused his position as President by lying to the public and to Congress, as well as the United Nations, about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Bush "fixed" and falsified intelligence in order to obtain the Congressional authority he needed to invade Iraq, thereby undermining the democratic process and injuring the constitutional system of government. Bush engaged in these acts of wrongdoing to enhance his political influence and to enrich corporate entities with which he and his cronies had financial ties.

(Ken Sanders (tkensand (at) yahoo.com) is an attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Additional samples of his writing can be found on the blog: www.politicsofdissent.blogspot.com)

Link to full article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0618-28.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

40. 20 June 2005: ”Therefore we must reject the occupation’s legitimacy and ..

... RENEW our demand for these forces to withdraw,” the letter added.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=925971&C=america

Posted 06/20/05 10:22

Iraqi Lawmakers Call For Foreign Troops to Withdraw
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, BAGHDAD


Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from their country in a letter released to the media June 19.

<clip>

Eighty-two Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist deputies made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest group in parliament, to speaker Hajem al-Hassani.

<clip>

In the letter, Shanshal said the 275-member parliament was the Iraqi people’s legitimate representative and guardian of their interests. ”We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw,” the letter said. “Our request was ignored.”

”It is dangerous that the Iraqi government has asked the U.N. Security Council to prolong the stay of occupation forces without consulting representatives of the people who have the mandate for such a decision.

Every moment that Bush requires US nationals to occupy Iraq only compounds the illegal occupation of a soveriegn Nation.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[understandinglife]

41. 20 June 2005: Russ Baker; "Why George Went To War"

Why George Went To War

Russ Baker
June 20, 2005

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

<clip>

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

<clip>

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

<clip>

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Very important to read every word of this report:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

Peace


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WAR CRIMINAL-in-CHIEF BU$H FULLY EXPOSED

[understandinglife]

42. 27 October 2004: Baker; "Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected In 2000"

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000

By Russ Baker

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

<clip>

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye. “I know would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. “He said, ‘No I haven’t, and I won’t, but Brent has.’ Brent would not have talked to him without the old man’s okaying it.” Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush’s administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.

Herskowitz’s revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush’s pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker.”

<clip>

“He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake,” Herskowitz said. “That was one of the keys to being a leader.”

More at the link:
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - THE WAR CRIMINAL BU$H WAS ALREADY FULLY EXPOSED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2, 2004; A NON-TRIVIAL MOTIVATION FOR STEALING ANOTHER ELECTION

[cthrumatrix]

43. kick for truth

[understandinglife]

44. 20 June 2005: Carne Ross; WMD claims were "totally implausible"

WMD claims were 'totally implausible'

Richard Norton-Taylor

Monday June 20, 2005
The Guardian

A key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors says today that claims the government made about Iraq's weapons programme were "totally implausible".

He tells the Guardian: "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too".

Carne Ross, who was a member of the British mission to the UN in New York during the run-up to the invasion, resigned from the FO last year, after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry.

<clip>

"There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue", he says.

Link:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WAR CRIMINAL BU$H FULLY EXPOSED

[understandinglife]

46. June 20 2005: Paul R Loeb; More Damning Than Downing Street

I received the following in an email message from Paul and he gave me permission to reproduce it, in full, at DU.

MORE DAMNING THAN DOWNING STREET

By Paul Rogat Loeb

20 June 2005

It’s bad enough that the Bush administration had so little international support for the Iraqi war that their “coalition of the willing” meant the U.S., Britain, and the equivalent of a child’s imaginary friends. It’s even worse that, as the British Downing Street memo confirms, they had so little evidence of real threats that they knew from the start that they were going to have manufacture excuses to go to war. What’s more damning still is that they effectively began this war even before the congressional vote.

With Congressman John Conyers holding hearings, the media are finally starting to cover the Downing Street memo. This transcript of a July 23, 2002 British Prime Minister's meeting, whose legitimacy the British government confirms, details their response to the Bush administration’s intention to go to war against Iraq, no matter how Saddam Hussein responded, and even while claiming they were still seeking peaceful solutions. “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided,” states the document. “But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” As the document states, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The document is damning, particularly coupled with the testimony of former Bush ghost-writer Mickey Herskowitz that Bush was talking about invading Iraq as early as 1999. But it’s even more disturbing as we start learning that this administration began actively fighting the Iraq war well in advance of the March 2003 official attack--before both the October 2002 US Congressional authorization and the November United Nations resolution requiring that Saddam Hussein open the country up to inspectors.

I follow Iraq pretty closely, but was taken aback when Charlie Clements, now head of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, described driving in Iraq months before the war “and a building would just explode, hit by a missile from 30,000 feet –‘What is that building?’” Clements would ask. “’Oh, that's a telephone exchange.’” Later, at a conference at Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base, Clements heard a U.S. General boast “that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared.”

Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on the website of The Nation, describing a huge air assault in September 2002. “Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace,” Scahill writes. “At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist.”

Why aren’t we talking about this? As Scahill points out, this was a month before the Congressional vote, and two before the UN resolution. Supposedly part of enforcing “no fly zones,” the bombings were actually systematic assaults on Iraq’s capacity to defend itself. The US had never declared war. Bush had no authorization, not even a fig leaf. He was simply attacking another nation because he’d decided to do so. This preemptive war preempted our own Congress, as well as international law.

Most Americans don’t know these prewar attacks ever happened. There was little coverage at the time, and there’s been little since. The bombings that destroyed Iraq’s air defenses were under the radar for both the American media and American citizens.

If coverage of the Downing St memo continues to increase, I suspect the administration will try to dismiss it as mere diplomatic talk, just inside baseball. But they weren’t just manipulating intelligence so they could attack no matter how Saddam Hussein responded. They weren’t only bribing would-be allies into participation. They were fighting a war they’d planned long before. They just didn’t bother to tell the American public.


Paul Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen’s Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear (Basic Books), named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and American Book Association. See http://www.theimpossible.org/ You can read more about the Downing St memo at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; PROSECUTE BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS

[understandinglife]

49. Published today, 21 June 2005, in the Boston Globe, entitled:

Deception's damning documents
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/21/deceptions_damning_documents/


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

50. Hartmann: "So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and

... occupying Iraq?

It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles. The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple.

The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.

When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and his Republican co-conspirators.

They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-22.htm

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

51. January 28 2004: "Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings"

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings.

2001: WH Admits Iraq Contained; Creates Agency to Circumvent Intel Agencies In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.

2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.

2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

Numerous supporting documents available in this .pdf file:
http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/intel.pdf

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE....MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE WAR CRIMINALS; IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[LightningFlash]

52. Violation to our Bill of Rights on top of that. n/t

[understandinglife]

53. Swanson: "Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"? Neither do I."

Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"?
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2005-06-20 23:10.

Neither do I.

By David Swanson, www.AfterDowningStreet.org

The most repeated excuse by U.S. media outlets for not covering the Downing Street Minutes and related documents is that they tell us nothing new, that they're old news. This conflicts, of course, with the second most common excuse, which is that they are false. If they're false, they can't be news at all, much less old news.

So, the question arises, when was this new news? At what point did it become old news to report that Bush had decided by the summer of 2002 to go to war and to use false justifications related to weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism? Of course, in one sense anything we discover now about secret goings on three years ago is old news – but that sense of being old news doesn't seem to spare us details of, for example, the Michael Jackson trial or the steroids in sports scandals. In those and many other cases, we're treated to news that's about old events. By that definition of old news we could have skipped Whitewater altogether.

<clip>

But what interests me is what the Post's editorial board believes was publicly known in July 2002. The Downing Street Minutes, if accurate, make clear that in July 2002 the Bush administration had secretly decided on war and was manipulating evidence related to WMD and terrorism in order to sell it through false advertising. The documents also make clear that going to the United Nations would be an attempt to legalize a predetermined war, not an attempt to avoid the Bush administration's publicly stated goal of "regime change."

Was this public knowledge in July 2002? Let's read the Post: Reading all the Washington Post articles, columns, and editorials containing the word "Iraq" and appearing in the Nexis database in June, July, and August, 2002, fails to find these facts publicly reported. Of course, I cannot comment on what Post editors knew and kept to themselves, but it is what they told the kids who were going to be sent off to kill and die that seems most significant.

The full analysis is definitely worth reading:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/407

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE....MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE WAR CRIMINALS; IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

55. Al Lorentz: "It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission

... is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn."

Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz

September 20, 2004

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

<clip>

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE....MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE WAR CRIMINALS; IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[savannahana]

56. kick for truth and justice

Never Give Up

:kick:

[understandinglife]

57. "Bush's lies are discrediting and destroying democracy in America."

A War Waged by Liars and Morons
What is Bush's Agenda in Iraq?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
June 20, 2005

How many more American troops are going to be killed and maimed for Bush's lies? How many more Iraqi civilians must be killed, maimed, and locked up?

Bush's Iraq policy is based on lies, and force based on lies cannot bring democracy to Iraq or to any other country.

<clip>

Congress gave Bush the go-ahead for the invasion because Congress trusted Bush and believed his word that Iraq had fearsome weapons that would be unleashed on America unless we preempted Saddam Hussein's attack by striking first. Congress did not give Bush the go-ahead for initiating a war in order to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives "building democracy in Iraq."

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06212005.html

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND HIS FELLOW WAR CRIMINALS; WE THE PEOPLE ... MUST DO JUST THAT

[understandinglife]

80. K Breitweiser: "Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us."

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"

June 23, 2005

Kristen Breitweiser

"Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

More at link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_3103.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, "Why is Bush not yet in jail?"

[oblivious]

58. I'd like to add LynntheDem's thread - 'The world knew there were no WMD'

That would make this a nice reference thread.

NO, the world DID NOT believe Saddam had "WMD".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3908733

[understandinglife]

59. Much appreciated. Thank you!

I have several more items I will be adding to this thread in the days and weeks, ahead. And, I encourage others to do as you have done and add references/links.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE....MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE WAR CRIMINALS; IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

60. "...grand schemes were hatched ... long before the first rumbles of shock

... and awe were ever heard."

"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11"

(This is great investigative work, and further evidence that Bush and the neocons were planning pre-emptive military action long before September 11th, and no matter what WMD intelligence revealed--Chris Bowers)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/21/11741/6199

<clip> (I have not included any of the extensive, substantive evidence as it is only fair to those investigating and building this case that, once you read the following summary, you read their entire first of three reports)

THE ROAD TO WAR WAS PAVED WITH PROPAGANDA

<clip>

Able to use the smoldering embers of the World Trade Center as a canard to sell a "global" war on terror to not only the American people, but to those who would fight it, the Administration was able to cover their tracks with a web of misinformation. Al-Udeid was never intended as a frontline in a war against the terrorists of 9-11. It was planned as the frontline for something far different; the "War on Terror", which was nothing more then a clever repackaging of the plans for Iraqi regime change that began with the first Gulf War.

The level of misinformation can be illustrated with a simple story coming from the building of Al Udeid:

According to the official DOD history of Al Udeid, the first fatality of Operation Enduring Freedom was a civil engineer, Master Sgt. Evander Earl "Andy" Andrews who died on Oct. 10, 2001 in a construction accident. To honor Andrews, the sprawling tent city at Al-Udeid was christened "Camp Andy". The story of "Camp Andy" is oft told in press accounts about the base and is a cornerstone in the façade of the official account.

Left out of the official story is the fact that since the existence of the base was classified at the time, the military initially announced only that the fatality occurred somewhere in "Southwest Asia", and his parents waited months to find out what had really happened to their son. Just as Master Sgt. Andrews parents were not told the truth about their sons' death in Qatar, the American people were never told about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. The history of the building of AL Udeid demonstrates that the Military planners were on a path to war long before the events of that fateful September morning "changed everything".

(This is the first in a three part series by the IRAQFACT working group on military activities prior to Congrssional approval for war)

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[cthrumatrix]

64. so where are the lawyers ?????????????????

[anarch]

66. here they are:

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

And good luck to them! That link doesn't seem all too current, though....

[understandinglife]

68. 25 Feb 2005: Clare Short, Ex-UK Minister, Wants Iraq War Probe

Ex-UK minister wants Iraq war probe

Friday 25 February 2005, 11:26 Makka Time, 8:26 GMT

Former British cabinet minister Clare Short is demanding a parliamentary investigation into Attorney General Peter Goldsmith's advice on war with Iraq. Short said on Thursday night that Lord Goldsmith breached the ministerial code by submitting a summary of his advice to senior ministers.

<clip>
Goldsmith apparently told an official inquiry the verdict presented to Parliament in his name was "set out" by Blair's ex-flatmate Lord Charles Falconer and top aide Baroness Morgan.

Transcripts of private evidence the peer gave to Lord Butler's investigation into the use of intelligence in the run-up to war were produced by the Guardian.

The attorney general warned Blair less than two weeks before the invasion that military action could be deemed illegal, according to previous reports.




"Clare Short wants the House of Lords to set up a committee

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F99E7703-6556-451C-8391-F5E3C8ADD1FA.htm

I agree with "Apian" and Ms Short - have Goldsmith testify under oath. Ask him the direct questions: Was it Alberto Gonzales who leaned on you; Alberto and Ashcroft; Alberto and Ashcroft and Cheney ...?

Apian: "Well, gee, who might have leaned on him? What case are we looking to lay open here?

What case? It was ALBERTO GONZALES, the "water-boarding" expert who leaned on Goldsmith, who worked him over, along with Ashcroft and Haynes, to FORCE him to change his opinion that the illegal war was made legal (how?), that invasion of Iraq was covered by three previous UN Security Council Resolutions (say what?) and that fears of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and further legal action by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament would just disappear. Not only that, but they had to force him to change his opinion within a period of TEN DAYS! Between March 7, 2003 and March 17,2003. Ten days to make an illegal war "legal."

Goldsmith DID NOT write the final March 17th opinion. He read it all right, but it was written by Morgan and Falconer. Morgan has since left office.

What is missing in this case is the CRAWFORD and WASHINGTON connection. Every single player in the drama we read in the minutes and memos, briefing notes and intel reports, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN THIS CRIMINAL DRAMA WAS BEING DIRECTED FROM WASHINGTON AND CRAWFORD. And that's the ONLY reason we are having leak after leak after leak from the UK. Peter Goldsmith is the key. Clare Short is on the right path."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/21/202215/067

And, as to just how many individuals are likely ready and willing to respond and provide even more evidence:

Apian: " ... there's no worry about Clare Short. or Mary Ann Wright, who spoke at the Democratic House Judiciary Hearing on the Downing Street Minutes on the 16th of June. She had just come from speaking to Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
There are loads of people -- former diplomats, intel ops, military and government officials who resigned in protest of the illegal war Iraq.

There is Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. There are scores of people who have the experience and are deeply involved.

It's just a matter of getting these people together, and that is what AfterDowningStreet.org is doing. My only emphasis has been to get the British and Australian groups into the coalition... especially veterans and Bereaved Families. They are the ones, finally, who will bring this about.

But the diplomatic corps is so important.

After Wilmshurst resigned from the Foreign Office she went full time into International Law -- the UN and the International Criminal Court. She is a powerful and fascinating woman!"

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/6/21/202215/067/20#20

And, "Apian's" focus, is mine, as well:

Apian: "The focus, in my constant opinion, is on the law. It is a criminal situation with a legal remedy. In the US we have a Constitutional remedy and that is Resolution of Inquiry. We have an International Criminal Court as well. The UK is a member. We have everything we need but an informed public."

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/6/21/202215/067/10#10

[understandinglife]

69. May 2 2005: "How to legitimize a war in 10 days"

How to legitimize a war in 10 days

Britain's attorney-general, Peter Goldsmith, expressed reservations about war on March 7 2003, but on March 17 advised that it would be legal, writes Paul Vallely, Colin Brown, Anne Penketh and Kim Se

The document bore a single word heading. Above the lion and the unicorn crest of the British crown, it said simply: "Secret".

It was not what the prime minister wanted to read. War on Iraq was imminent. The United States and Britain had set a deadline 10 days thence - March 17 - by which the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein must comply on six key demands. If he did not, then America would let slip the dogs of war, with Britain committed to fight at its side.

But the 13-page paper in his hand gave Tony Blair six reasons why the war might be adjudged to be illegal. Worst of all, the briefing was signed by attorney-general Peter Goldsmith, the government's own chief legal officer. It was March 7. Lord Goldsmith had just 10 days to change his mind.

<clip>

Full expose available here: http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=671&fArticleId=2504531

What the article provides is a precise analysis that leaves little doubt Peter Goldsmith, 'leaned on' or not, experienced an intellectual and moral transformation that would have appalled Sir Thomas More.


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

70. April 29, 2005: Ten days that made a legal case for war

Ten days that made a legal case for war

Labour says 'circumstances changed' to make Lord Goldsmith's Iraq advice unequivocal. Guardian writers look at the evidence

Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday April 29, 2005
The Guardian

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, cited "changed circumstances" yesterday when asked to explain the differences between the advice offered by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, on the invasion of Iraq on March 7 2003, and his less equivocal advice 10 days later, on the eve of the conflict.

What were these circumstances and does the government's version of events stand up to scrutiny? Here we test the government's claim against what happened at the time.

(I'm not reproducing items 1-6 as to avoid copyright infringement; suffice # 7 makes the point):

7. Briefing the cabinet

The government argues:

Although the full 13-page advice of March 7 was not presented to the cabinet, Lord Goldsmith presented his short statement of March 17 spelling out his advice to the cabinet, sitting in the seat vacated by Robin Cook who had resigned earlier in the day.

What happened:

Clare Short, who was present, says none of the ministers present was allowed to ask questions. What is clear is that the full cabinet had not seen the attorney's full legal opinion of March 7, with all the caveats. This was despite an express requirement in the ministerial code that the whole cabinet should receive the "complete text" of advice from the government's law officers. One crucial unanswered question is whether Lord Goldsmith knew whether the cabinet had not been shown his full legal advice. Patricia Hewitt, who was in the cabinet, admitted that neither she nor any other member had questioned Lord Goldsmith.

The .pdf of the entire legal document:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

Summary of advice made available for publication only on April 27 2005:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471655,00.html

text of what was made available for publication on March 17 2003:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471659,00.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - WE THE PEOPLE .... MUST FILE CHARGES, INDICT AND PROSECUTE BUSH AND ALL THE OTHER NEOCONSTER WAR CRIMINALS. IT'S THE LAW, STUPID

[understandinglife]

74. A bunch of them are Istanbul for the next few days. Check the agenda:

Just in case anyone thinks that the world is asleep regarding the vast destruction of life, culture, and sovereignty of Iraq that are the consequences of Bush's illegal war and occupation, check the titles of the talks and the closing session topic.

The Tribunal will consist of three days of hearings investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media, as well as the destruction of the cultural sites and the environment. The session in Istanbul is the culminating session of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence about the invasion and the occupation.

DAY ONE, 24 JUNE 2005

09:00 – 09:30 Arundhati Roy, Opening Speech of the Spokesperson of the Jury of Conscience and the Introduction of the Jury

09:30 – 09:50 Richard Falk, Opening Speech on behalf of the Panel of Advocates: Macro approach to the system; the "moral" responsibility underlying the constitution of the UN; the limits to the exercise of power for the states; violation of international law.

First Session / The Role of International Law and Institutions (Moderator: T. Tarhanlý)

09:50 – 10:00 Turgut Tarhanlý: The Framework of the Session
10:00 – 10:20 Phil Shiner: The Illegality of preventive attack and unilateral use of force; the illegality of use of force in inter-state relations; the illegality of the occupation.
10:20 – 10:40 Hans von Sponeck: The conduct of the UN before and after the 2003 invasion
10:40 – 11:00 Larry Everest: The history of US and UK Interventions in Iraq
11:00 – 11:20 Questions from the Jury

11:20 – 11:40 Coffee Break

11:40 – 12:00 Jim Harding: Neo-Colonization Trends
12:00 – 12:20 Amy Bartholomew: Empire's Law and Human Rights as Swords of Empire
12:20 – 12:40 Issa Shivji: Implications of the Decrease in Confidence in International Institutions and International Law
12:40 – 13:00 Tony Alessandrini: The Violation of the Will of Global Anti-War Movement as a Crime Against Peace
13:00 – 13:20 Questions from the Jury

13:20 – 14:30 Lunch

Second Session / The Responsibility of Governments (Moderator: Ahmet Ýnsel)

14:30 – 14:50 Baskýn Oran: U.S. Attack on Iraq and the Policy of the Turkish Government
14:50 – 15:10 Khaled Fahmy: The Responsibility of Arab Governments in the Iraq War
15:10 – 15:30 Guglielmo Carchedi: The Responsibility of European Governments
15:30 – 15:50 Walden Bello: The Responsibility of the Coalition of the Willing and Their Supporters
15:50 – 16:10 Questions from the Jury

16:10 – 16:30 Coffee Break

Third Session / The Accountability of the Media (Moderator: Ömer Madra)

16:30 – 16:50 Saul Landau: Economic-Political Connections of Media
16:50 – 17:10 David Miller: Media Wrongs in the War and Occupation
17:10 – 17:30 Witness - Mete Çubukçu: Moral Responsibility of War Journalism
17:30 – 17:50 Jayan Nayar: Media Wrongs against Truth and Humanity
17:50 – 18:10 Ömer Madra: The Quest for an Alternative Media
18:10 – 18:30 Questions from the Jury

SECOND DAY, 25 JUNE 2005

09:00 – 09:10 Summary of the Previous Day

Fourth Session / The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Moderator: Haifa Zangana)

09:10 – 09:20 Haifa Zangana: The Framework of the Session
09:20 – 09:40 Witness - Dahr Jamail: Testimony on War Crimes and the Recent Situation in Iraq
09:40 – 10:00 Akira Maeda / Sayo Saruta / Koichi Inamori: The Excessive Use of Weapons and Banned Weapons
10:00 – 10:20 Thomas Fasy: The Health Effects of DU Weapons in Iraq
10:20 – 10:40 Witness - Denis Halliday: The Conduct of the UN
10:40 – 11:00 Questions from the Jury

11:00 – 11:20 Coffee Break

11:20 – 11:40 Hana Ibrahim: Gender Based Violence (security and gender based violence)
11:40 – 12:00 Eman Khammas: Ruin of Daily Life (security and education system)
12:00 – 12:20 Witness - Tim Goodrich: The Conduct of the US Army
12:20 – 12:40 Amal Sawadi: Detentions and Prison Conditions
12:40 – 13:00 Witness - Fadhil Al Bedrani: Collective Punishment
13:00 – 13:20 Questions from the Jury

13:20 – 14:30 Lunch

Fourth Session / Cont. ... (Moderator: Joel Kovel)

14:30 – 14:50 Joel Kovel: Effects of the War on the Infrastructure
14:50 – 15:10 Herbert Docena: Economic Colonization
15:10 – 15:30 Mohammed Al Rahoo: Iraqi Law Under Occupation
15:30 – 15:50 Abdul Ilah Al Bayaty: The Transfer of Power in Iraq
15:50 – 16:10 Niloufer Bhagwat: The Privatization of War
16:10 – 16:30 Questions from the Jury

16:30 – 16:50 Coffee Break

16:50 – 17:10 Huda Al Nuaimi: The Occupation as Prison
17:10 – 17:30 Barbara Olshansky: Covert Practices in the U.S. War on Terror and the Implications for International Law: The Guantanamo Example
17:30 – 17:50 Witness - Mark Manning / Rana M. Mustafa: Testimony on Falluja
17:50 – 18:10 Abdul Wahab Al Obeidi: Human Rights Violations and the Disappeared in Iraq
18:10 – 18:30 Johan Galtung: Human Rights and the U.S./U.K. Illegal Attack on Iraq

18:30 – 18:50 Questions from the Jury

THIRD DAY, 26 JUNE 2005

09:00 – 09:10 Summary of the Previous Day

Fifith Session / Cultural Heritage, Environment and World Resources (Moderator: Hilal Elver)

09:10 – 09:20 Hilal Elver: The Framework of the Session
09:20 – 09:40 Gül Pulhan: The Destruction of Cultural Heritage: A Report from the Istanbul Initiative
09:40 – 10:00 Witness - Amal Al Khedairy: Testimony on the Destruction of Cultural Heritage
10:00 – 10:20 Joel Kovel: The Ecological Implications of the War
10:20 – 10:40 Witness - Souad Naji Al-Azzawi: Tes. on Radioactive Contamination in Iraq
10:40 – 11:00 Questions from the Jury

11:00 – 11:20 Coffee Break

]b\Sixth Session / Global Security Environment and Future Alternatives (Moderator: Ayþe Gül Altýnay)

11:20 – 11:40 Ayþe Gül Altýnay: Militarism and the Culture of Violence
11:40 – 12:00 Nadje Al-Ali: Gender and War: The Plight of Iraqi Women
12:00 – 12:20 Liz Fekete: Creating Racism and Intolerance
12:20 – 12:40 Samir Amin: The Economy of Militarization
12:40 – 13:00 Ahmad Mohamed Al-Jaradat: Relationship between Iraq, Palestine and Israel.
13:00 – 13:20 Questions from the Jury

13:20 – 14:30 Lunch

Sixth Session / Continues

14:30 – 14:50 Wamidh Nadhmi: Polarization and the Narrowing Scope of Political Alternatives
14:50 – 15:10 John Ross: Collateral Damage: The Mexican Example
15:10 – 15:30 Christine Chinkin: Human Security in Iraq
15:30 – 15:50 Ken Coates: The Future of the Peace Movement
15:50 – 16:10 Corrine Kumar: Towards a New Political Imaginary
16:10 – 16:30 Biju Matthew: Alternatives for an Alternative Future
16:30 – 17:00 WTI Ýstanbul Coordination: The WTI as an Alternative: An Experimental Assertion
17:00 – 17:20 Questions from the Jury

17:20 – 17:40 Coffee Break

17:40 – 18:00 Richard Falk - Closing Speech on Behalf of the Panel of Advocates
18:00 – 18:20 Arundhati Roy - Closing Speech on Behalf of the Jury of Conscience
18:20 – 18:30 The Closing of the World Tribunal on Iraq, Istanbul.

27 JUNE 2005
11.00 Press conference announcing the decision of the Jury of Conscience at Hotel Armada

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=1


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - IT'S THE LAW, MY FELLOW AMERICANS

[hiley]

76. UL this thread is so informative for the masses.

Great email tools from all of your posts.
thank you !
I posted this announcement further up the thread also.

** Programs will also stream on the Internet @
http://www.worldtribunal.org and http://www.deepdishtv.org



SPECIAL FREE SPEECH TV PROGRAMMING ANNOUNCEMENT
===========================================================================

Free Speech TV and Deep Dish TV present
The Final Session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) - Istanbul,
Turkey
June 24-27, 2005 (broadcast times listed below)


World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI)
-----------------------------
The final session of the WTI in Istanbul is the culmination of two
years
of rigorous investigation documenting violations of international law
and human rights by the United States and its allies leading up to and
during the invasion of Iraq and in the continuing occupation. Previous
sessions of the WTI have been held in Barcelona, Stockholm, Copenhagen,
Rome, Genoa, Seoul, Osaka, Hiroshima, Mexico City, Mumbai and New York.
They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the
illegality of the invasion and occupation.

(for information on the WTI, visit http://www.worldtribunal.org)


Final Session of the WTI
-------------------------
The Istanbul session of the WTI will summarize and present further
testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S.
pretexts
for and conduct of this war.

Expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence will
address:

- The torture of prisoners
- The unlawful imprisonment of Iraqi civilians without charges or
legal defense;
- The use and health risks of depleted uranium weapons;
- The effects of the war on Iraq's infrastructure, including U.S.
mandated privatization and sale of Iraq's industries.
- The destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability
of
the invaders in international law for failing to protect these
treasures of humanity.


Historical Broadcasts
----------------------
Four hour-long programs from the final WTI session will broadcast on
Free Speech TV via a satellite uplink provided by longtime partner Deep
Dish TV. Don't miss this unique programming.

Program One:
Friday June 24, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday June 25, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Two:
Saturday June 25, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Sunday June 26, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Three:
Sunday June 26, 10 PM - 11 PM (ET)
Monday June 27, Midnight - 1 AM (ET)

Program Four:
Monday June 27, 8 PM - 9 PM (ET)
Tuesday June 28, 2 AM - 3 AM (ET)


** Programs will also stream on the Internet @
http://www.worldtribunal.org and http://www.deepdishtv.org


"The World Tribunal on Iraq is collecting a definitive body of evidence
on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be
indispensable to the global anti-war movement, to conscientious
objectors, and to students of history for years to come. Americans who
oppose the war have a duty to support and participate in this crucial
international effort to stand up to U.S. government lawlessness and
impunity."

-- Naomi Klein



== FREE SPEECH TV // www.freespeech.org
==
Using television to cultivate an informed and active citizenry in order
to advance progressive social change.

24/7 on DISH Network Channel 9415
Part-time on over 120 Public Access Cable Channels nationwide
Online at www.freespeech.org

[BamaBecky]

77. kick

[BamaBecky]

78. kick

[hiley]

81. A War Waged by Liars and Morons

What is Bush's Agenda in Iraq?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

snip--

In his June 18 weekly radio address last Saturday, Bush again lied to the American people when he told them that the US was forced into invading Iraq because of the September 11 attack on the WTC. Bush, the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer, actually repeated at this late date the monstrous lie for which he is infamous throughout the world:

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."

Whoever the "people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens" might be, they were not Iraqis, at least not until Bush invaded their country, killed tens of thousands and maimed tens of thousands more, detained tens of thousands others, destroyed entire cities, destroyed the country's infrastructure, and created mass unemployment, poverty, pollution and disease.

The only reason Iraqis want to harm the US is because George W. Bush inflicted, and continues to inflict, tremendous harm on Iraqis.

If the Bush administration has its way, the Iraqi insurgents will be joined by the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Jordanians and Palestinians. The "people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens" will increase exponentially.

snip--
And Bush has retained and promoted these morons!

No one has been held accountable for this enormous disaster.

How many more American troops are going to be killed and maimed for Bush's lies? How many more Iraqi civilians must be killed, maimed, and locked up?

Bush's Iraq policy is based on lies, and force based on lies cannot bring democracy to Iraq or to any other country.

Bush's lies are discrediting and destroying democracy in America. His "Patriot Act" alone has done more damage to Americans' freedom than Osama bin Laden.

Why did Bush invade Iraq?

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06212005.html

[hiley]

84. US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, says anti-war tribunal

channelnewsasia.com

ISTANBUL : The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, on Friday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein. "With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul. Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.

snip----

Its verdict on Monday after its final session is expected to condemn both the United States and Britain. Roy told the gathering here: ""The evidence collated in this tribunal should ... be used by the International Criminal Court -- whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize -- to try as war criminals George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvio Berlusconi, and all those government officials, army generals, and corporate CEOs who participated in this war and now benefit from it." She added that the tribunal was "an act of resistance," "a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history."

snip---

Critics said the sanctions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of children and a drastic decline in living standards for almost the entire Iraqi population.

snip----

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/154590/1/.html




http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/154590/1/.html

[understandinglife]

87. "Recommend that people throughout the world launch actions against US & UK

.... corporations that directly profit from this war," Arundhati Roy, .... told a news conference at the end of the meeting.

She said actions could include shutting down offices, consumer boycotts and pressure on shareholders to divest.

The group identified a series of companies including U.S. oil services company Halliburton, engineering firm Bechtel and defense contractor CACI International as being among those who benefited from the war.

<clip>

The tribunal also charged the U.N. Security Council with failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity and accused major media organizations of "disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities."

Link:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8901723

We should all be grateful to the tireless efforts of all involved in the World Tribunal on Iraq and especially:

Professor of International Law at Santa Barbara University. UNESCO peace prize holder. Prof. Falk has published over 30 books on international law and human rights, the most recent one entitled Declining World Order.


Renowned author and activist Arundhati Roy received the Booker Prize for literature in 1997. Presently, one of the most eloquent voices for the global justice and anti-war movement, she was also awarded, among many others, the Sydney Peace Prize in 2004, and the Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize in 2002.

These words of Dr Wamid Omar Nadhmi, as reported by Dahr Jamail, provide a concise summary of the challenge the world faces.

Dr. Wamid Omar Nadhmi, a senior political scientist at Baghdad University who was invited to this tribunal, told me last winter, “It will take Iraqis something like a quarter of a century to rebuild their country, to heal their wounds, to reform their society, to bring about some sort of national reconciliation, democracy and tolerance of each other. But that process will not begin until the US occupation of Iraq ends.”

And it is now exceedingly clear that the only way the Bush Administration will withdraw the US military from Iraq in order for Iraqis to have true sovereignty is if they are forced to do so.

Posted by Dahr_Jamail at June 25, 2005 07:37 PM from the

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000257.php#more

On July 23 2005 we can extend the courageous efforts of Congressman Conyers and those elected representatives who have cooperated with him. Specifically, we can all contribute to AfterDowningStreet.org call for a nation-wide endeavor to further expose the meaning of the "Downing Street" documents.

Downing Street Minutes 3rd Anniversary Events:
The Smoking Gun that Proves Bush Lied About Iraq
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/526

And, let us spread this image to as many as possible:

Members of Congress, from left to right, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) head down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, June 16, to deliver petitions demanding President Bush tell the truth on Downing Street Memo evidence that he lied to sell the Iraq war to the American people. http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/7266/1/275/

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections should have filed charges against Bu$h and the neoconsters before March 19 2006.