4 Presidents & 4 Prime Ministers Charged With War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity & Genocide in Iraq

[kpete]

Source: After Downing Street

4 Presidents & 4 Prime Ministers Charged With War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity & Genocide in Iraq
Submitted by Chip on Thu, 2009-10-08 04:44.

FOR JUSTICE FOR IRAQ: LEGAL CASE FILED AGAINST FOUR US PRESIDENTS AND FOUR UK PRIME MINISTERS FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE IN IRAQ | Press Release

MADRID: Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq.

This case, naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in defence of their rights and international law.

................

The persons named in this case have each played a key role in Iraq’s intended destruction. They instigated, supported, condoned, rationalized, executed and/or perpetuated or excused this destruction based on lies and narrow strategic and economic interests, and against the will of their own people. Allowing those responsible to escape accountability means such actions could be repeated elsewhere.

Read more: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46831

[thunder rising]

1. They couldn't act in solidarity to bring down Saddam?

I love my President, but he was warned about protecting the guilty.

[thunder rising]

2. George H W Bush, William J Clinton? These two being included I don't understand

[trotsky]

4. Herbie for the first gulf war.

Clinton because he ordered some military action including bombing raids, no doubt.

[jus_the_facts]

5. Desert Storm and Sanctions

[Captain Hilts]

16. Hussein was given a choice - permit inspections in exchange for oil sales, etc.

He chose, for years, to starve his own people rather than abide by the UN's criteria.

Can't blame GHWB or Bill Clinton for that, or Koffi Annan or Boutros Boutros G.

[arikara]

34. More than half a million dead Iraqi kids

and countless adult civilians because of Clinton's sanctions. According to Madeline Albright, it was "worth it". Clinton is as big a war criminal as the rest of them.

[Echo In Light]

40. Therein lies the crux of the bigger dilemma that supporters of Name Brands won't acknowledge

[karynnj]

39. The first Gulf war for GHWB, which even Dick Lugar said in the SFRC this year was for oil

and for Clinton, the bombings?

[Soylent Brice]

3. .

:popcorn:

[nc4bo]

17. I'll join you if you don't mind.

:popcorn:

[earth mom]

20. So you think the killing of a million plus people for NO reason is entertaining enough for popcorn?

:wtf:

:puke:

[No Elephants]

22. Absolutely not. But the responses to this thread will be entertaining enough

for popcorn. The two are not the same.

[Soylent Brice]

24. uh, no. i think reading the repsonses, and inevitable implosion is going to be entertaining.

if you've ever read any of my post you would know i'm insanely against any war of any kind.

[nc4bo]

30. Not sure what Brice's thoughts are but I definitely know what mine are

and that's prosecution of our war criminals should have never been taken "off the table". We're protecting the guilty, the world knows it and so do many Americans. It's a disgrace.

GWB is a given but GWB is not alone on this list. I guess I'm a bit surprised how far Spain is willing to go back in history and a bit surprised that it includes Obama even though Obama has a history of being against the war.

I can't see how we can ever claim having an improved standing in the eyes of the world. We will forever be hypocrites. Why another country has do OUR job is almost beyond my comprehension.

I also wonder what "official" reaction our government officials will have, if there's any official reaction at all :popcorn:.

[arikara]

Obama may be on record as being against the war

but its still full steam ahead under his administration. I guess that puts him on the list too.

[bvar22]

37. Obama has a history of "saying" he's against the war.

..not the same thing as actually being against the WAR.

[karynnj]

41. It also may be to make the list comprehensive, before

removing some.

[fascisthunter]

6. who didn't see this coming?

[No Elephants]

23. Me. I never expected to see anyone on the list but Bushco.

[SIMPLYB1980]

7. LOL!

I only see one name that belongs on that list.

[stray cat]

8. Spain? They certainly have a great track record/ upset about the olympics?

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

12. The Story Is Written To Convey A Misimpression

By opening with "Today, the Spanish Senate", when the only official action appears to be an action by the Spanish Senate to limit jurisdiction of the court to avoid people filing these kinds of actions and then trumpeting that "Spain" has instituted some sort of official proceeding.

As in the US, where anyone can file whatever they'd like for $350 and a walk to the federal courthouse, one can file whatever one would like in the relevant body in Spain.

[No Elephants]

26. Yes, but in the US, you can be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit. You would not have the Senate

intervening, either.

I don't see anything in the story that is misleading, either. The Senate, acing under pressure from powerful governments, put the kibosh on the lawsuit. That is said right up front.

[No Elephants]

25. Did they indict the President of Brazil?

[tocqueville]

9. then by those standards... why not Chirac ? and AZNAR ????

he did actively participate in Gulf War's aftermath.

the scope make the accusations ridiculous.

[thunder rising]

11. Exactly! Maybe including those that acted withing UN prescribed measures is the poison pill.

This will be thrown out.

[grahamhgreen]

10. To not prosecute for war crimes is to be complicity in war criMes, is it not? Obama must prosecute.

[SIMPLYB1980]

14. Obama is not King. nt

[No Elephants]

27. No kidding. But he does hire everyone in the D of J and they do seem to be listening to him.

Obama said that he would look forward rather than prosecute Bushco. He also said he would not prosecute anyone who stayed within the parameters of the bogus legal memos. So far, Holder has mentioned prosecution only for those torturers who went beyond the bogus legal memos.

With apologies to Mel Brooks, it's good to be the king, but it's also good to be the President.

[grahamhgreen]

36. No, but he can direct justice to investigate.

[Solly Mack]

13. Global reach of Spain's courts curtailed

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0626/p06s02-woeu.html

Spain Looks To Prosecute Bush Officials
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/28/world/main4900114.shtml


Just some background

[Captain Hilts]

15. Iraq started a war in 1990. They suffered the consequences. Unfortunate for the Iraqi people. nt

[No Elephants]

29. Before Iraq took any action, it asked permission from our State Department. Its

response was basically, "Your borders are your business," though those were not the exact words.

Then, Iraq acted and we showered it with missles.

Edited to add links: http://independentindian.com/category/iraq-war/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

[Stanchetalarooni]

18. How can the perps of the modern era Manifest Destiny be deemed illegal...

...when it was ordained by God?

[ensho]

19. kick

nt

[earth mom]

21. Good. It's about time something is done to bring about some kind of justice regarding the genocide

of over a million plus people!

[dixiegrrrrl]

28. uhhh...the links show that Spain cannot now do anything.

But Spain is now following an international legal trend away from allowing national courts to try anyone, anywhere, analysts say. Courts in France, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany have also seen their forays into global justice curtailed.

Under the new law, expected to quickly pass in Spain's senate, the nation is narrowing its legal mandate. Although a wide variety of cases that originate overseas may still be brought, they must involve grievances that include a Spanish citizen.

Per the csmonitor link in the OP.

and that is the problem. Spain wanted to prosecute, other coutnries pressured then to change their law about jurisdiction to that Bush and etc, could skate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. A completly bogus and frivolous lawsuit that distracts from real concerns about Iraq

Margaret Thatcher, for instance, resigned as PM on 28th Nov 1990 - a day before the UN Security Council resolution that said Saddam had to get out of Kuwait. There had been no fighting involving the UK at that point; to claim she was involving in war crimes is ridiculous. The leaders of many other countries were far more involved in the 1991 Gulf War than she was.

This is a stupid stunt.

[No Elephants]

32. .....

"Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain’s laws of universal jurisdiction."



Gee, I wonder which powerful governments pressured Spain about this lawsuit?

[geek tragedy]

33. What a bullshit 'story'

The Spanish Senate is not okaying any prosecution here.

And, to the great disappointment of a lot of the Naderscum here, Obama is not going on trial for war crimes. Suck on it, haters.

[Rude Dog]

35. Way to waste time...

...and make those of us who want a REAL end to this look stupid.

Fucking scum.

[bvar22]

38. Mixed feelings.

On one hand, I like the expanded viewpoint.
The destruction of Iraq and the confiscation of the rich oil fields for Western Corporations HAS been a long term PLAN and GOAL of those who run US foreign policy.

On the other hand, the broad scope has diluted any chance of real world consequences beyond drumming up Anti-US sentiment.