|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: play
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What is the ICTI?
I've never heard of them before. Who are they associated with? Are they linked with any political movement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It appears to be a 'Peoples Tribunal'.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
And whose going to come and get Bush and Blair? I know it is an FYI, but......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Origins of the project The 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3950 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
contracycle writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3950 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Patriots
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
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. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
looks like an arm of the UN
Page not found – International Action CenterInternational Criminal Tribunals and Special Courts from 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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3950 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024