ElBaradei Suggests War Crimes Probe Of Bush Team

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

(04-22) 12:07 PDT NEW YORK, (AP) --

Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq.

Freer to speak now than he was as an international civil servant, the Nobel-winning Egyptian accuses U.S. leaders of "grotesque distortion" in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, when then-President George W. Bush and his lieutenants claimed Iraq possessed doomsday weapons despite contrary evidence collected by ElBaradei's and other arms inspectors inside the country.

The Iraq war taught him that "deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators," ElBaradei writes in "The Age of Deception," being published Tuesday by Henry Holt and Company.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/04/22/national/a103238D42.DTL

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[ixion]

2. and now you'd have to include the Obama team as well

so chances are it'll never happen, 'cause Obama is all lookin' forward and out for his own butt.

[stevenleser]

16. No, you wouldn't. Obama hasn't broken any international laws. n/t

[rfranklin]

20. He has continued illegal occupations....

Or are you thinking that it takes four or five years to "wind down?"

[stevenleser]

22. Not true and easily proven to be untrue.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have governments. Those governments existed at the time Obama took office. Our troops are in those countries with the express permission of those governments. Thus, no international law is being broken.

Sending the troops in against an existing government in another country without UN authorization? Yes, that is a breach of international law. Keeping troops in another country without authorization of that country? Yes, that would be a breach.

There is a status of forces agreement in effect between the United States and Iraq. There are agreements regarding the troops between the United States and Afghanistan. If you disagree, let me know and I will provide links.

[ixion]

27. BS

Period.

[stevenleser]

28. You can claim the sun is made of cheese if you want, but I am 100% correct. n/t

[ixion]

30. I'm claiming it is what it is: A bloody, hostile occupation, one of several

we're currently engaged in. You can cite all the government BS you want, but it's the people who die in these occupations, not so often the bureaucrats who make these documents safely ensconced in their cubicle far away from the lives they're destroying.

[stevenleser]

37. Your emotions have nothing to do with international law.

You can cite all the emotion-filled assertions you want, you still are not talking about anything that resembles international law.

The assertion was made that Obama has broken international law. I have said that is not true and for obvious reasons. There are treaties between the US and Iraq and between US and Afghanistan that call for troops to be in those countries.

You can claim that it is morally wrong, and you can say you don't like it. But you cannot claim that Obama has broken the law because that is easily proven to be factually incorrect.

[ixion]

39. I'm sure the Iraqis we've killed would appreciate your semantic distinction

if they weren't, you know, dead.

There's a scene from 'The Adventures of Baron von Munchhausen' that I've always felt was an applicable analogy. While the city is being bombed, a bureaucrat is negotiating with the Sultan's emissaries as to what days they will bomb the city. That's basically what's going on now.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, they were both initially illegal invasions that have been legitimized after-the-fact by such documents, but that doesn't change what it was initially.

Now, Pakistan and Yemen are very different matters, and in fact those countries have claimed international law violations because of the drone strikes. So to claim that Obama has never broken an international law is a fragile claim to make, at best.

[stevenleser]

51. Again, your appeal to emotion has nothing to do with the law, which is the question here. n/t

[ixion]

64. So killing innocent civilians isn't agaist international law

who knew? :sarcasm:

[stevenleser]

78. Well, when dealing with law, international or otherwise, it's best to actually read the law.

Fortunately, I found the report of a UN investigator who was investigating just the kinds of things we are talking about and there is a link below. It turns out that international law regarding collateral damage is very specific. The key part is this:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,11 even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)
-------------------------
My own take is that the intent of the Geneva Conventions and other international law regarding war is not to make war a crime in all circumstances, and a blanket law criminalizing acts that result in the deaths of civilians would in effect do that. Its really not possible to wage war in such a way that no civilians die. If that is your standard, then in your opinion all war is criminal and thats fine, but then to single out any world leader in particular is silly.

That being said, International law does make criminal unprovoked wars of aggression and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Of course, neither Obama nor the US since his inauguration, are guilty of either of those.


-------------------------
http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf

"Allegations concerning War Crimes
1. Allegations concerning the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks
The Office received many allegations relating to civilian deaths, injuries and damage occurring
during the military operations between March and May 2003.

Page: 5 / 10

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,11 even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive.

The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage; and
(c) whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).
In addition to satisfying the elements of a crime, information also has to indicate the requisite
involvement of a national of a State Party in order for the crime to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Several communications expressed concerns about the use of cluster munitions. The Rome Statute
contains a list of weapons whose use is prohibited per se (Article 8(2)(b)(xvii)-(xx). Cluster munitions are not included in the list and therefore their use per se does not constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute. A war crime could, however, still be established where any weapon is employed in a manner satisfying the elements of other war crimes. Allegations concerning cluster munitions were therefore analyzed in accordance with Article 8(2)(b)(i) and (iv) (targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks).

11 Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely-accepted definition of military objective: “In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”."

[cpwm17]

97. The war itself is illegal

and that is a crime. We have no right to conduct this war against Pakistan - it's mass murder.

The Pakistanis didn't give us permission to bomb their country, and they hate the US for it. If course some folks are under the impression that governments own the people. Well that is not how it works. That's authoritarianism. Governments should serve the people - and if they don't, they need to be voted out or overthrown.

This is how empires work. They get "permission" from some puppet government to abuse their own citizens. If the citizens revolt, the empire will then have an excuse to conduct full scale war to save the puppet government.

[stevenleser]

101. Yes, the Pakistanis not only gave us permission, they requested the bombing. See link downthread nt

[cpwm17]

110. No, the Pakistani people did not give us permission

to bomb their country. Please read again what I just wrote. Governments don't own the people and cannot give anyone permission to bomb any country.

[stevenleser]

111. Your distinction means nothing in this discussion about international law. As far as the UN

and criminal court would be concerned, there is no law broken.

You can talk about whether you think the Pakistani government has the moral authority to govern, but that is not what this discussion is about. Please see the original post of this thread.

[cpwm17]

112. I'm keeping to the original thread

with the first sentence reading "Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq."

President Obama is also guilty of conducting this "needless" war by his continuation and escalation of many of Bush's war policies. That is how this discussion started with your support of Obama with your pseudo legal justifications. But you can't defend your position, so you ignore my rebuttals.

[creon]

115. Correct

The Obama administration, in the matters of Iraq and Afghanistan, has not violated international law.

That does not mean that the operations carried out, in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the Obama administration are moral.

There is an important difference between immoral and illegal. It is important to know and understand that difference.

[Arctic Dave]

41. The word of the day is = Duress.

Contracts made by people under this are not a binding agreement.


ie: If you don't sign this I will hurt you and your family.

[clixtox]

57. What an incredibly facile rationalization!

Both of those unfortunate nations, illegally invaded and occupied by the planets primary terrorists, obviously have puppet governments. Hardly a legitimate basis, their supposed permission, for the continuing deaths and mayhem our meddling and murderous occupation causes daily.

One has to wonder what motivates anyone to take this sort of embroiling position and then follow up so persistently?

Of course there have been reports that there are paid provocateurs on these sort of threads to argue on behalf of the Military/Industrial Complex's rationalizing wars positions.

Who knows...

[ixion]

67. the OP doesn't appear to be concerned with reality

only with paper shuffling.

[stevenleser]

83. Reality like the actual law and those empowered to enforce and interpret it?

Forgive me for using the actual law and those who enforce it as my guidelines!

[stevenleser]

82. Take it up with the UN. They recognize governments like these and therefore there is nothing illegal

here. Dont forget, what we are actually talking about is a war crimes prosecution and thus matters of actual law.

[tavalon]

86. You really believe that?

You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

[Lasher]

93. He is citing clear facts.

His argument is compelling, and soundly based in logic. He has met and soundly defeated every challenge to his assertion.

[stevenleser]

107. I have provided links to back up all of my facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4824148&mesg_id=4824519

[truth2power]

89. "keeping troops without authorization" ...You don't take into account

that so many ME govts. are headed by US puppets. Otherwise they wouldn't be in power very long. When some ME leader gets uppity and starts doing things that annoy us, like wanting to control their own resources, or instituting land reform etc. then the US of A conconcts some BS about freedom and democracy and replaces the leader with some suck-up more to our liking.

[stevenleser]

103. That's fine for your personal morals, but not for international law. The UN recognizes these

governments as legitimate. Since the UN is the authority that also sits in judgment (or various departments thereof or oversees those who sit in judgment) regarding issues of international law, the issue is only whether they recognize the right of that government to request troops and strikes.

We can discuss whether a given government is legitimate, or is a dictatorship or is a puppet government, but none of that matters regarding the law here. The person who started this thread talked about also needing to bring Obama before an international criminal court. And I repeat my fact and linked based assertion that he has not committed any crimes under international law.

[ixion]

26. rofl... that's rich

such delusions you true believers live under. :wow:

[stevenleser]

29. As opposed to those who provide no facts to back up their assertions?

And before you try to claim that I have provided no facts to back mine up, note above my post regarding "illegal occupations" and also note that it is incumbent on the accuser to provide facts, not those defending the accused.

[ixion]

31. Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan

If you think no war crimes have been committed since Obama took over the as head Neocon, you're sorely mistaken.

[stevenleser]

38. We are in all of those countries with the permission of their governments. No war crimes have been

committed. You may not like what Obama has done, but everything he has done is within the limits of the law.

[ixion]

40. Wrong. Those governments have claimed otherwise

but nice try at revisionist history. :eyes:

Pakistan: U.S. must halt drone attacks - Democratic Underground
Jan 28, 2009 ... DAVOS, Switzerland (CNN) -- Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has called on the United States to halt its drone attacks against ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss... - Similar
Drone attacks may be expanded in Pakistan - Democratic Underground
Dec 14, 2009 ... The drone attacks, which are sanctioned by the Pakistani govt. behind closed doors, are not an effort to "dominate" Pakistan, but instead an ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss... - Similar
Anger in Pakistan at US plan to expand drone attacks - Democratic ...
Mar 18, 2009 ... Anger in Pakistan at US plan to expand drone attacks.
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss... - Similar
Pakistan PM urges Obama aide to halt drone strikes - Democratic ...
Jun 25, 2009 ... Gilani "called for stopping the drone attacks in order to ensure success of Pakistan's strategy for isolating the militants from the tribes ..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?domains=democraticunderground.com&q=drone+attack+Pakistan&sa=Search&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en


And just in case you want to argue semantics:

‘US drone strikes violate international law’

October 21, 2010

LONDON: The US programme of drone strikes targeting militants in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries violates international law and should be halted, a legal expert warned on Thursday. Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told a debate at a leading London think tank that the pursuit of al Qaeda and Taliban extremists should be a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

"The strongest conclusion is that there is no legal right to resort to drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere where the US is not involved in armed conflict," she told the respected Chatham House centre. She was particularly critical of strikes by the US Central Intelligence Agency in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan which border Afghanistan and are a haven for militants who use it as a base to attack NATO and Pakistani forces.

"The use of drones is causing really serious anger in Pakistan, I really seriously question the necessity for what we are doing," she said.

O’Connell said they could not be justified because there was no open consent from Pakistan and the strikes could not be taken as an act of war because they did not happen on Afghan soil, where US troops operate.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9366459


And here's another one, hot off the wire. Tell me how killing innocent women and children IS NOT a war crime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x944165

[stevenleser]

50. Lets examine each of your claims with my links in support because you are wrong on all counts

A. Regarding Drones

First off, its important to be FULLY forthcoming regarding the legal question of the drones. The question is not "Is it legal to use drones?" the question is, "Is it legal if someone other than the military is targeting the drones". You do understand that, right? If the targeting was done by Army intelligence instead of the CIA or government contractors, there would be no question at all. So the first question you should be asking yourself is if a change of targeting from the CIA to army intelligence would make you happy and is that what you want to be wasting both of our time to argue about. I think it is bullshit for you and all the other folks making all the noise you have been about the drones based on this minor question, but hey, its only your credibility at stake, not mine.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/28/drone.attack.hearing/

Here is the UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston regarding drones on Democracy now
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/1/drones
He says the questions regarding the drones are thus:

"So the big issues that he didn’t answer are, first of all, what law are you applying? And he very casually said, well, we are applying either the law of armed conflict or the rules governing the right to self-defense of a state. Now, those two sets of rules are radically different. He didn’t address the issue of whether he is talking about the application of human rights law, as well as international humanitarian law...
Then there’s the question of the role of the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA, as is now very clearly known, is essentially responsible for the operation of the drone program in Pakistan. It is not at all clear what rules govern the CIA. Harold Koh didn’t mention the CIA. He talked about “us” or “we” or whatever, the administration, but in the past there have been very different rules applied by the Department of Defense, on the one hand, and the CIA, on the other. So all of these concerns remain very much on the table.


B. Regarding whether other countries have asked us to be there
B1. Pakistan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5101196/Pakistan-helps-US-drone-attacks.html

As this article notes, the fact is, while publicly condemning the drone attacks, Pakistan had been begging the US to make the attacks and privately assists with the targeting. Pakistan, in fact, lends several of its airbases to the US for use in drone attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_airbase

B2. Yemen
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/28/yemeni-president-pledged-to-help-us-cover-up-attacks/

"It is no secret that the US military has been launching attacks against targets inside Yemen for awhile now, but the depth of those attacks has been deliberately covered up by the US government, with the aid of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The revelation, in one of the new WikiLeaks diplomatic cables, reports that Saleh had agreed to claim that bombings against targets in the country were all Yemeni air strikes, and not American ones. This puts in question just how many of the putative Yemeni bombing strikes this year were really American ones."


C. Killing of women and children a war crime
Are you seriously claiming that it is possible to wage war and not kill women and children? Can you name a war where one side never killed a woman or a child? Can you name a UN Statute that says if a woman or a child die during an otherwise legal act of war that it is a war crime? It turns out that international law regarding collateral damage is very specific. Below I have linked an actual report from a UN investigator into war crimes and included a fair amount of relevant text, but the key part is this:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives,11 even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article
8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian
injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of
proportionality)

http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf
"Allegations concerning War Crimes
1. Allegations concerning the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks
The Office received many allegations relating to civilian deaths, injuries and damage occurring
during the military operations between March and May 2003.
Page: 5 / 10
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives,11 even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article
8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian
injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of
proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life
or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive.
The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage; and
(c) whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).
In addition to satisfying the elements of a crime, information also has to indicate the requisite
involvement of a national of a State Party in order for the crime to fall within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
Several communications expressed concerns about the use of cluster munitions. The Rome Statute
contains a list of weapons whose use is prohibited per se (Article 8(2)(b)(xvii)-(xx). Cluster munitions
are not included in the list and therefore their use per se does not constitute a war crime under the
Rome Statute. A war crime could, however, still be established where any weapon is employed in a
manner satisfying the elements of other war crimes. Allegations concerning cluster munitions were
therefore analyzed in accordance with Article 8(2)(b)(i) and (iv) (targeting of civilians or clearly
excessive attacks).
11 Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely-accepted definition of
military objective: “In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by
their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or
partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military
advantage”."

[ixion]

63. You are calling the Pakistani government wrong, not me

which is laughable. You political hacks really crack me up. Keep on rolling with that delusion, it seems to be working out quite well for you.

[stevenleser]

76. Actually, I am not calling them anything. The UK Telegraph laid it all out. But...

Here is one for you. If the Pakistanis are not in fact helping us out, perhaps you could interpret this picture from a pakistani air base called Shamsi:




I understand that you are upset that you have been proven wrong but you really should check into dealing with that kind of thing better. Particularly since you are wrong a lot.

[emald]

87. facts, facts, facts....

and still the little people die. So according to your faulty beliefs those who are killed by our drones are asking for it? Those pesky little people keep getting in the way of the "law". Sure, they asked for us to be there. Sure they did. And Kharzi is really an honest broker of Afghani .........

Fuck your facts.

[Lasher]

94. Yeah, him with his fancy facts an' stuff!

Who the hell does he think he is, bein' right and all?

[stevenleser]

104. Facts and the truth hurt sometimes. Your issue is with the truth, not with me. n/t

[kas125]

54. You forgot to add the sarcasm smilie. n/t

[ixion]

65. He's serious

if you can believe that. :wow:

[stevenleser]

80. Yes, I am, and I have the links to back me up. n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

81. Nothing sad about it. The truth and applicable international law statutes are on my side. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

70. Yes he has

Aggression is a crime in many countries. That's what limits both Bush and Blair traveling to those countries - the risk of arrest. Same applies to Obama now too.

Generally refered to as "you can't have your cake and eat it too"

http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/michael-glennon-the-vague-new-crime-of-aggression/

[stevenleser]

108. Nope, I've backed up all my assertions with facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4824148&mesg_id=4824519

[spooked911]

71. drone attacks in Pakistan are a violation of international law

not to mention the Bradley Manning detention/abuse and the continuing shame of Guantanamo.

[stevenleser]

79. No, they arent. See my info above. The only question about drone legality is...

who is doing the targeting. Is that really about which you want to make a big deal? To ensure 100% legality, all the US has to do is transfer targeting to military intelligence from the CIA and contractors.

[No Elephants]

117. Bagram, extraordinary rendition, the list goes on (but the OP is about illegal war).

ETA; not prosecuting Busho for violation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment violates that treaty and that treaty is part of international law that binds the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

[Aerows]

95. Other than authorizing

the assassination of American citizens abroad? Okay, that may not break international laws, but it certainly isn't very savory.

[No Elephants]

118. Sure violates the U.S. Constitution

[Aerows]

98. Is killing children a violation of International Law

Y/N?

Yemen:

"A missile strike on December 17 in Yemen last year that killed 41 people including 21 children and 14 women was most likely the result of a US cruise missile strike — an opening shot in a US military campaign that began without notice and has never been officially confirmed.

Amnesty International says it has obtained photographs apparently showing the remnants of missiles known to be held only by U.S. forces at the site of the air strike against al Qaeda suspects."

War Crimes in Afghanistan:

“War Crime Images the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to See!”. Members of the Kill Team are accused of killing at least 4 unarmed Afghani civilians and mutilating several corpses. Their actions are chronicled in photos the Kill Team members took during their killing spree at the beginning of 2010."

***

"Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander of Western forces in Afghanistan, apologized Wednesday for the accidental deaths of nine civilians, identified by Afghan officials as children killed as they gathered firewood in a mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan. A 10th child was injured in the bombardment, Afghan officials said."

***

Pakistan:

"About 25 people including women and children were killed in a US drone attack in North Waziristan.

The US drones fired five missiles on a house in Hasan Khail, an area of Spinwam. According to officials, three women and five children were among 25 killed in the attack.

It was the 16th drone attack --- more than hundred people had been killed in US drone attacks during the year."

***

All of those occurred in 2010 or 2011. Who was President?

[stevenleser]

106. I've answered all that and more upthread. Here is a link to my comments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4824148&mesg_id=4824519

Regarding killing of children and innocents, see point #C.

[marasinghe]

120. any govt. that requests a foreign govt. to bomb their own citizens -

is no longer representative of their citizens.

now, i don't know what your international laws have to say about that - and i don't care.

but logically, it makes those rogue governments & the foreign govt. that either supports, or more likely coerces them - criminals.

and if you can't get that into your head - and past a mindless adherence to unjust & immoral laws put on paper by a bunch of ruling-class sociopaths - you would fall into the same category.

[alp227]

21. plus do you expect Obama to offend a good many of the American population

by pursuing "Bush war crimes"...I mean c'mon, although Bush might not be very popular, to prosecute a former American president for war crimes just hurts many people especially independent voters who simply cannot grasp the idea that a president could've done something horribly, horribly, violent to another sovereign nation. There's a reason why Atty. Gen. Holder decided to try the suspected 9/11 mastermind in a military tribunal rather than civilian court. Think about the many "low-information independent" voters next time you're offended that Obama didn't pursue the more controversial liberal causes such as Bush war crimes prosecution.

[RoccoR5955]

36. Meanwhile, how many RepubliCONs want to impeach Obama, or for that matter

stood up to impeach Clinton.

[creon]

116. True, for the reasons you laid out.

Putting GWB, and his associates, on trial by a USA court was, and remains, impossible.
If there is a trial, it will not be done in a USA court.

Further, the prisoners at Gitmo were never going to be tried by a US civilian court, either on US soil or at Gitmo. If those prisoners are to be tried, they will be tried by a military tribunal.

[peace4ever]

32. true, but unfortunately the powerful make, and break the rules

with impunity.

[dotymed]

42. yep. President Obama is guilty of perpetuating the war and

of not ending it. That candidate Obama guy is pretty damned good though. Maybe we can get him to investigate. Seriously, if President Obama ran America the way that candidate Obama promised to, and is now undertaking, we'd be in pretty good shape. It is amazing how an election can change politicians, usually for the better.

[Lorien]

44. Very true. nt

[Demeter]

49. Indict and prosecute them all

Let God sort them out.

[grahamhgreen]

59. True as that is

Let's support Baradei on this.

[ixion]

68. I support him 100%

And since Obama has chosen the neocon route, I'm all for him being prosecuted as well.

[grahamhgreen]

119. One step at a time....

!

[Dont call me Shirley]

3. Bring it on, PLEASE!

Please, will someone "bring it on" to bush and his
company of genocidalists.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[slay]

5. The Obama admin will never allow it

remember when Wikileaks - yes i know it's amazing how we NEVER hear anything on the news about wikileaks anymore - but anyways - remember back when Spain wanted the Bush admin officially questioned regarding the Iraq war - and Obama's admin convinced them to drop it?

Anyone say cover-up? :puke:

[me b zola]

6. Recommended

[leveymg]

7. I would love to see that. If the USG refuses, we can arrest them for the war crimes tribunal.

You can run, but you can't hide, Dick. . . You get one phone call, Dubya . . .

Mr. Rumsfeld, you have the right to remain silent . . .

[gratuitous]

8. Oh, don't go lookin' backwards to the past

America is all about lookin' forward to the future! Besides, the U.S. is exceptional, and we'll (probably) never have to face the righteous revenge of the survivors of our victims. Even if revenge is visited on the country, it will most likely hit reachable targets rather than the actual perpetrators, and ordinary Americans clearly don't mind being injured or killed for the crimes of the Bush administration.

[pmorlan1]

9. Standing Ovation

And while they are at it they can also do a war crimes probe on the Bush administration torture program.

[kas125]

55. along with the US torture program that still exists.

That should be probed and prosecuted, too.

[Dogtown]

10. K&R n/t

[DCKit]

11. He's been reading DU, and we finally convinced him. nt

[Soylent Brice]

12. K&R

[Solly Mack]

13. k/r

[brewens]

14. Murdered 4000+ and counting of our own guys and countless

Iraqis. One reason and one reason only. To make Bush and Cheneys people rich.
You can't say those guys died for nothing. Each one of those 4000 probably made them a few million. I've thought that dying for Dick Cheney is about as honorable as being drowned in an outhouse. No fault of our guys that signed up trying to do the right thing though.

[valerief]

15. Duh. Any wagers on what will happen, though? nt

[stevenleser]

17. I've always liked Elbaradei! n/t

[Hotler]

18. k&r n/t

[slipslidingaway]

19. Lives destroyed, possibility of revenge attacks and then a deficit commission ...

who talks about entitlement cuts.

Several reasons to investigate, but we are told we need to look forward ... maybe to entitlement cuts.

:puke:

[PuffedMica]

23. Please let this come to pass quickly

Every day that passes is one more free day for these Republican criminals. They need to be in prison.

[MissDeeds]

24. K&R

[yurbud]

25. Bush kept saying the weapons inspectors backed him up too.

[freshwest]

33. Yeah, yeah, yeah!

[Joey Liberal]

34. Just do it! nt

[RoccoR5955]

35. About freakin' time!

About freakin' time someone had the testicular fortitude to do this. I hope that Bushco, Inc. goes to jail in some far away place!

[freshwest]

43. More thoughts after reading other posts some might consider:

War crimes are almost never tried by the governments that did them. The perpertrators are prosecuted by new regimes installed years later or with revolutions, which may be peaceful or may be bloody. Or as in the case of Nuremberg, by occupiers who usurped the government of the land they decimated.

I want justice for folks everywhere, but explain how a crime this big is going to remedied in real world terms.

IMHO, no American government official will ever be charged, anymore than any British or other country who went into the Middle East, for these crimes against humanity. Millions of people and the wealth of nations went into doing this.

I applaud any format exposing these crimes to international law, to show us and the world what has been done. I applaud Wikileaks for bringing these filthy secrets to life for the world to see and for it to decide what kind of world we want.

Sadly, the only way to prosecute Bush and his accomplices in the USA, is to invade the USA. Does anyone have a favorite country they would like to bring our entire government to its knees, which would involve a war so massive, little would be left?

Most especially, the Constitution, the UN, and other ideas of governance we base the idea of war crimes on, would be eliminated. So under what authority would justice be served?

And since these are not solely their crimes alone, but those of corporations and other nations who have played along for not just the last half century, but much longer, who will sit in judgment?

Our anger needs to not be directed at the individuals involved, neither Bush nor Obama. Nothing is done in a vacuum. While no one I know personally approved, many did because of fear, tradition and economic reasons. Will they all stand trial beside these men?

In a way, we are standing trial now. We are all being punished collectively and watching these same interests destroy us now. Obama is like the boy with his finger in the dyke trying to stop the flood killing us all. It's a very dangerous task. Will he succeed?

If he doesn't, and we implode like so many other countries have, will we even be have the luxury of this moral discussion?

:rant:

[lovuian]

45. Don't you get the feeling that a bargain with the Arab countries

has been broken by Bush and company

[patrice]

46. Oh God, please! let there be Justice.

[Iliyah]

47. Maybe

the wrong doers are leaving the building with the help of the ones who allow them to do it.

Read history, and American history.

[patrice]

56. What happened to the Iraqis AND to our troops just breaks my heart and that of millions of

other Americans.

[Duval]

48. K&R n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. It's about fucking time! By the time they're found guilty,

they will have set up camp in Dubai and will get away with MURDER. Just watch. I'm sure they've all planned their escapes...:grr:

[Javaman]

53. let's all collectively hold our breaths. nt

[grahamhgreen]

60. Bring on the heat!

[IndyJones]

61. "Freer to speak now than he was as an international civil servant"

WTF does that mean? Translation: I didn't do the job I was paid to do when I was in the position, but now I want to make money on a book so I'm telling it like it was. But, um, er, maybe I should be in trouble for not doing my job and reporting what I should have back then...because maybe if I did, the war wouldn't have happened. But don't point a finger at me...I wasn't free to speak back then, except I really was but I didn't because it wasn't economically beneficial for me to do that...but now it is because I have a new book out!

Should the whistle blower who didn't also be under international criminal investigation if what he's saying is true? Honestly, I'm sick of these guys who come out after the fact and act like they are so holier than thou when they did us no favors by not reporting the truth when they should have done so.

Does this sort of thing bother anyone else?

[burrowowl]

62. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

69. Oh, I see. This guy has a book to sell. Otherwise why would we care what this guy thinks?

He's not involved in it at all.

[patrice]

72. I don't know what your definition of "we" is or whether you include yourself in what you

just said, but some of us here have been caring what el Baradei thinks ever since 2002.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Prediction: Nothing will happen. N/T

[tabasco]

74. Wait as minute. The Iraqis loved liberator Bush and built a statue of him

didn't they?

[leveymg]

77. Sure. It's standing in the center of Michael Ledeen Square in Baghdad.

[AllyCat]

75. What a great idea...if only anyone else would have thought of this.

Still, it is nice to have another international figure make this obvious bit of sense, well, obvious.

[indimuse]

84. Evidence shows U.S. weapons cause birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq ~ knr!

http://www.workers.org/2011/world/fallujah_iraq_0113/ (MORE)

Evidence shows U.S. weapons cause birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq

By Gene Clancy
Published Jan 9, 2011 8:08 PM

Zainab Abdul Latif moves wearily among her three children, wiping their foreheads and propping them up in their wheelchairs. “Every day, they need intensive care,” the 29-year-old Fallujah mother says. Neither her two sons, Amar, 5, and Moustafa, 3, or daughter, Mariam, 6, can walk or use their limbs. They speak two words — “mama, baba” — between them. All are in diapers.

Zainab is one of many faces of Fallujah’s battle aftermath. She is overwhelmed by a situation that she has no way to change. “They cannot eat or drink by themselves, and every day I have to take Mariam to the hospital. She is very sensitive to flu and regularly gets diarrhea and other ailments. The doctors have told me they are mentally and have nerve paralysis. They say it is congenital. I really can’t take care of them like this and I need help.”(Guardian, Nov. 13)

[Botany]

85. Iraq 935 it is all laid out for all to see

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

[jaysunb]

105. +1 n/t

[MarinCoUSA]

88. Shame of a needless war! indeed!

Crimial Rethugs will spend rest of their lives rinning from this.....
Hope they are caught

[L. Coyote]

90. Good Morning Barack!

Wake up and smell the indictments.

[felix_numinous]

91. K&R

[PonyJon]

92. THE POINT IS...

The point is, Bush/Cheney et. al. should be held for war crimes after lying to everyone to start the war. If this were to happen the Executive (Commander in Cheif) would for sure think twice before using the military unilaterally. Obama does not have this blood on his hands.

[ProgressIn2008]

96. Heh. Like the Obama admin would allow this. They might end up in the dock themselves.

Nice thought, though!

[Lasher]

99. Saint Ronnie and his fellow Iran/Contra criminals should have been sent to prison.

But they weren't. Junior and his gang won't pay for their crimes either. Face it, the law doesn't apply to everybody.

[StarburstClock]

100. The U.S. will never have any credibility until they do, whether found guilty or not

because everybody knows how corrupt the courts are in the U.S.. Still, the only way our massive criminal society will be turned around is to start at the top with the worst war criminals this country has every had.

[bobthedrummer]

102. K&R n/t

[wordpix]

109. the whole world is foot-dragging on this issue, esp. here in the US---I'm with ElBaradei

:applause:

[Hotler]

113. kicking n/t

[creon]

114. They should be

GWB and several of his associates should be investigated and tried, if the investigation warrants it.

I belive that a defendant should be given a fair trial prior to hanging.