Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair

quote:

---

Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair
By Julian Ryall in Tokyo

​

Monday 07 March 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT

​

George Bush and Tony Blair were judged guilty on several counts

​

US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair deserve life sentences, with the possibility of parole after 25 years, for the war crimes and genocide in Iraq, according to a lawyers' panel.

​

Speaking on Monday at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, Kohki Abe, a professor of law at Kanagawa University, said they should face the "maximum penalty available". That would not include the death penalty, however, as the members of the tribunal opposed capital punishment, he added.

​

Abe is the chief justice of a four-person panel of the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI) that has judged the two leaders guilty of a series of charges.

​

The tribunal has headquarters in Istanbul, Turkey, and a final meeting of regional panels is scheduled for June.

---

play

quote:

---

he tribunal found Bush guilty on 13 counts, Blair guilty of eight crimes, Koizumi guilty on four counts and Arroyo guilty of aiding and abetting the other defendants of crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity, Abe said.

​

Bush is guilty of genocide for the use of "devastating" economic sanctions, as well as war crimes for attacks against civilians and the use of indiscriminate weapons, such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons. The attack on Falluja also makes him guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.

---

This post is mostly an FYI, but also raises interesting questions: the report is 3 days old and yet I have seen none of this on British media. I assume there has been no mention of it in American media either, correct me if I'm wrong. I think it stands as a demonstration of the tacit filtering that Western media imposes on the information it broadcasts. Admittedly this is anon-binding judgement, but considering the profile of the issue, and the ongoing campaign to impeach Blair for lying to Parliament, one would have thought it deserved some mention.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-10-2005 08:10 AM

What is the ICTI?I've never heard of them before.Who are they associated with? Are they linked with any political movement?

It appears to be a 'Peoples Tribunal'.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And whose going to come and get Bush and Blair? I know it is an FYI, but......

quote:

---

And whose going to come and get Bush and Blair? I know it is an FYI, but......

---

Quite true - the US is too powerful, thats why it apparently feels free to commit any atrocity it likes without fear of reprisal.But both the US and UK have impeachment processes, and there is no reason our populations could not do the right thing and hand these mass murderers over to the Hague to stand trial. Furthermore, under the international convention against torture, any indictment issued by a signatory state obliges all other states to pursue the indictment. All that would be required is that one judge in a signatory state use this legal opinion as a basis for indictment, and Blair and Bush may never be able to leave their countries again.

quote:

---

Who are they associated with? Are they linked with any political movement?

---

Origins of the projectThe idea of organising an international tribunal against the invasion of Iraq originated nearly simultaneously in several places around the world. It was discussed and in principle supported at Anti-War Meetings during 2003 in Berlin, Jakarta and Geneva, Paris and Cancun. The Jakarta Peace Consensus declared on May 25th, 2003 its commitment to the realisation of an international war crimes tribunal. The proposal was also discussed at the Networking Conference (European Network for Peace and Human Rights) organised by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation in Brussels on June 26/27th 2003, and the idea was broadly supported at that meeting.The working group meeting in Brussels discussed the idea and possibilities of convening an international tribunal to investigate and establish the crimes perpetrated against the people of Iraq and humanity. It was decided that it would consist of several hearings around the world, each of them focusing on different aspects of this war and the strategies behind it. The tribunal platform from Turkey was entrusted with the task of acting as the secretariat and the clearing house, and carrying out the coordination in close contact with the groups in Brussels, Hiroshima, New York, London and other cities. This international Coordinating Committee convened a meeting in Istanbul on October 27-29th 2003 to decide the concept, form and aims of the project.Page not found – The News Wire

You say "our populations". Which population do you belong to? I'm curious because the link was to an Aljazeera website and you use the phrase "mass murderers" when referring to Bush and Blair.

If Bush and Blair are not mass murderers for starting a war under false pretenses which has killed over 100,000 people then what would you call them?

Patriots

Can you define "patriot" for me in your own words? I guess I just don't see how starting a war in a foreign country can make someone a patriot over here. What part of it was "patriotic"?

We are heading into areas where we will find very strongly held opinions. Let's try to debate this in as civil a manner as possible.Please, no matter what opinion someone expresses, remember to argue the position and not the person.

---

looks like an arm of the UNPage not found – International Action Center
International Criminal Tribunals and Special Courtsfrom what I can find.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I can see where this might lead and I'm not sure I want to go there. I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion on the validity and justification for the Iraq war. That should be a separate thread.My post was in regards to descriptions of Bush and Blair as mass murderers which I disagree with. With regards to "patriotic", I do believe the term fits these two gentlemen as individuals who care deeply for, and are intent on defending, their respective countries.This message has been edited by MyMonkey, 03-10-2005 21:01 AM

I would call Bush and Blair both surprisingly courageous. It would have been very easy to let Saddam Hussein's regime get away with bending the rules one more time.And again let's not forget the obvious, that Saddam Hussein and his regime were the ones primarily responsible for leading people to believe Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction.Most of the people that were killed, were supporting a cruel dictatorship. I think the tragedy in their lives is more that they supported a cruel dictatorship, rather then that they were prematurely killed.Although I must say that the bombing of the Iraqi army by the coalition, seems to have been extremely savage. The Iraqi army didn't have any chance whatsoever. I think therein lies the most guilt. More might have been done to convince the Iraqi's to just give up, (give up the standard army at least, and just fight as guerilla's), since they didn't have any chance as a standard army. But again this is mostly the fault of Saddam Hussein's regime, who lied continuously during the invasion, deceiving his own army and people.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you and grey can both be correct. For example Hitler was also quite keen on defending his country, yet commited massmurder to achieve that end. So I do not see that you can remove the charge of "massmurderer" just because Bush is a "patriot". The latter is simply an explanation for what reason he used to commit the killings.What defines massmurder from something else would be the reason for killing, was it a justified or reasonable course of action? So any discussion would have to be about the legitimacy of the Iraq War. Since this thread is about Bush and Blair being found guilty because of Iraq I guess this would be a pertinent thread. But maybe not.In any case, their original reasons were completely flawed. If you are accepting the current "reason" given, which is the spread of democracy, then to the degree you feel Napoleon was justified in his campaigns which killed many, so too is Bush. Otherwise it is simply massmurder or mass manslaughter... regardless if he was a patriot.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)