Bush & Bolton: The Bully Twins -- Reflections on international law

[understandinglife]

Ms Marjorie Cohn provides a cogent summary of why Bush will not relinquish Bolton.

Bush & Bolton: The Bully Twins

June 23 2005

By Marjorie Cohn

George Bush and John Bolton have a symbiotic relationship. They need each other to nail shut the coffin of the United Nations, to make the world safe for US domination.

Bolton's record of cooking intelligence to whip up US aggression against other countries fits nicely with Bush's modus operandi. In 2002, while Bush told Tony Blair they would invade Iraq together, Bolton orchestrated the ouster of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to prevent him from inspecting and revealing that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons. Had Bustani sent chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad, that might have defused the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined the US rationale for war. All the while, Bush lied to the American people, "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

<clip>

If Bush really wanted to woo his colleagues at the UN, he would attend the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco later this month. But like Cheney during the Vietnam War, Bush has other priorities, and won't be traveling to San Francisco to honor the world's premier peace-building organization.

As United States ambassador to the UN, John Bolton would walk in lockstep with his twin bully, George Bush. And the promise of the United Nations in 1945, to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," will be rendered even more hollow.

Marjorie Cohn, a contributing editor to t r u t h o u t, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.

More at the link:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062305Y.shtml

I think the agenda is not merely to render the UN's promise 'even more hollow,' but Bush needs Bolton to do to international law what he already has Gonzales doing to our Bill of Rights.

Given the actions of the World Tribunal on Iraq, now in its final deliberations after two years of gathering evidence, it is quite worthwhile to review John Bolton's comments on the International Criminal Court (ICC). Note that his screed was delivered twice in 2002: to the Aspen Institute on September 16, 2002; and, to the Federalist Society on November 14, 2002. During that time, as we now know, the US and UK were already waging their illegal war of aggression on Iraq. No wonder Bolton was working so hard to undermine the ICC.

The United States and the International Criminal Court

John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Remarks to the Federalist Society
Washington, DC
November 14, 2002

<clip>

"In the eyes of its supporters, the ICC is simply an overdue addition to the family of international organizations, an evolutionary step ahead of the Nuremberg tribunal, and the next logical institutional development over the ad hoc war crimes courts for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Statute of Rome establishes both substantive principles of international law and creates new institutions and procedures to adjudicate these principles. The Statute confers jurisdiction on the ICC over four crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The Court’s jurisdiction is "automatic," applicable to covered individuals accused of crimes under the Statute regardless of whether their governments have ratified it or consent to such jurisdiction. Particularly important is the independent Prosecutor, who is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations based on referrals by States Parties, or on the basis of information that he or she otherwise obtains.

So described, one might assume that the ICC is simply a further step in the orderly march toward the peaceful settlement of international disputes, sought since time immemorial. But in several respects, the court is poised to assert authority over nation states, and to promote its prosecution over alternative methods for dealing with the worst criminal offenses.

<clip>

Numerous prospective "crimes" were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations, such as the crime of "aggression," which was included in the Statute, but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, "aggression" can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. For example, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that certain actions, such as its initial use of force in the Six Day War, would be perceived as illegitimate preemptive strikes that almost certainly would have provoked proceedings against top Israeli officials. Moreover, there seems little doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint in the ICC concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel recently decided to declare its intention not to become a party to the ICC or to be bound by the Statute’s obligations.

A fair reading of the treaty leaves one unable to answer with confidence whether the United States would now be accused of war crimes for legitimate but controversial uses of force to protect world peace. No U.S. Presidents or their advisors could be assured that they would be unequivocally safe from politicized charges of criminal liability.

<clip>

It is important to note that we are not seeking immunity for our citizens, but a simple, non-surrender agreement as contemplated in the Rome Statute. We fully commit ourselves to, where appropriate, investigate and prosecute serious, credible allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide that have been made against any of our people."

More at the link: http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm

Well, we now have the words of Perle regarding matters of international law getting in the way of what the US decides to do:

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

And, we have the broad context of the "Downing Street" documents for the premeditated (in April 2002) actions of deception and aggression on the part of both the US and the UK.

Bush, Cheney, Perle, Bolton, Wolfowitz and others certainly anticipated that the world would not remain passive in the face of their illegal actions in Iraq and elsewhere. The actions of the World Tribunal on Iraq are ample evidence that their concerns about having the US subjected to the Statute of Rome via the ICC were correct.

In her opening address to the World Tribunal, delivered today by Arundhati Roy, she issues a call to all of humanity to hold the US and UK accountable:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9259.htm

<clip>

"The Jury of Conscience at this tribunal is not here to deliver a simple verdict of guilty or not guilty against the United States and its allies. We are here to examine a vast spectrum of evidence about the motivations and consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation, evidence that has been deliberately marginalized or suppressed. Every aspect of the war will be examined - its legality, the role of international institutions and major corporations in the occupation, the role of the media, the impact of weapons such as depleted uranium munitions, napalm, and cluster bombs, the use of and legitimation of torture, the ecological impacts of the war, the responsibility of Arab governments, the impact of Iraq’s occupation on Palestine, and the history of U.S. and British military interventions in Iraq. This tribunal is an attempt to correct the record. To document the history of the war not from the point of view of the victors but of the temporarily - and I repeat the word temporarily - vanquished.

<clip>

Let me say categorically that this tribunal is the defense. It is an act of resistance in itself. It is a defense mounted against one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history, a war in which international institutions were used to force a country to disarm and then stood by while it was attacked with a greater array of weapons than has ever been used in the history of war.

Second, this tribunal is not in any way a defense of Saddam Hussein. His crimes against Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and others cannot be written off in the process of bringing to light Iraq’s more recent and still unfolding tragedy. However, we must not forget that when Saddam Hussein was committing his worst crimes, the U.S. government was supporting him politically and materially. When he was gassing Kurdish people, the U.S. government financed him, armed him, and stood by silently.

Saddam Hussein is being tried as a war criminal even as we speak. But what about those who helped to install him in power, who armed him, who supported him - and who are now setting up a tribunal to try him and absolve themselves completely?

<clip>

There are remarkable people gathered here who in the face of this relentless and brutal aggression and propaganda have doggedly worked to compile a comprehensive spectrum of evidence and information that should serve as a weapon in the hands of those who wish to participate in the resistance against the occupation of Iraq. It should become a weapon in the hands of soldiers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, and elsewhere who do not wish to fight, who do not wish to lay down their lives - or to take the lives of others - for a pack of lies. It should become a weapon in the hands of journalists, writers, poets, singers, teachers, plumbers, taxi drivers, car mechanics, painters, lawyers - anybody who wishes to participate in the resistance.

<clip>

The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, our intelligence, and our future.

We recognize that the judgment of the World Tribunal on Iraq is not binding in international law. However, our ambitions far surpass that. The World Tribunal on Iraq places its faith in the consciences of millions of people across the world who do not wish to stand by and watch while the people of Iraq are being slaughtered, subjugated, and humiliated.

No wonder Bush needs Bolton so badly at the UN and has needed him there for the past several months. They must shred any and all system of law because they have no intention of halting their occupation of Iraq (Bush told us that today) and their expansion of aggression in places like Syria and Iran.

More and more, the illegal war on Iraq and the efforts to occupy and exploit its resources, indefinitely, are being recognized as the truth. Each American needs to provide Bolton and Bush a mega-dose of exactly what Bolton proclaimed as the American alternative to the ICC - "We fully commit ourselves to, where appropriate, investigate and prosecute serious, credible allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide that have been made against any of our people."

Mr Bolton you are hereby charged with aiding and abetting the President of the United States in deceiving the American public and its elected representatives and in his pursuit of illegal acts of aggression on the people of Iraq, massive destruction of the country, currently unaccounted numbers of dead and wounded Iraqi citizens, and torture.


Peace.

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

[fooj]

1. Another excellent post from one of my favorite Truth Warriors!

United Voice...United Message!!!

Truth is our most powerful weapon!

peace.:patriot:




BTW-Good question! Why aren't all of those treasonous madmen in jail where they belong?

[hiley]

27. The People's Email Network Leadership ALERT/UN Ambassador

The People's Email Network Leadership ALERT

With the president stuck in a quagmire over his choice of U.N.
ambassador, people are saying it's time for our side to take the initiative and
suggest our own alternatives. Why is this such a good idea? First, it
demonstrates to the American people in a positive way, "These are the
kind of nominees you would get IF YOU ELECTED US." Second, it forces
the president to turn his nose up at each and every one of 2-5 strong
candidates. And third, it further shows the intransigence of a president
incapable of admitting or correcting his mistakes, regardless of how
apparent the failure of his policies is to everyone else. Tell your
senators we need to hold a PRESS CONFERENCE this coming week and do just
exactly that.

http://www.usalone.com/unambassador.htm

And if you have not yet submitted the MEDIA ACTION PAGE on the Downing
Street minutes, our one click form now also sends your personal message
to the ombudsmen for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and 7 of
the most important TV network news programs. They still are not giving
this scandal the coverage it warrants so let's all demand it.

http://www.usalone.com/downingstreet.htm

Take action NOW on this and post and forward this message everywhere
you can to everyone you know.


posted below as well..

[hiley]

2. US State Department has made positive diplomatic steps since Bolton ...

Bush & Bolton: The Bully Twins
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
snip---

Bush's choice for US ambassador to the UN is also famous for hyping threats posed by Cuba and Syria, and taking a dangerously combative stance toward North Korea.


* It is noteworthy that the US State Department has made positive diplomatic steps since Bolton stepped down from his post as undersecretary of state. US negotiators have finally secured a breakthrough with Russia to eliminate enough plutonium to fuel 8,000 nuclear bombs.* The administration abandoned its campaign to remove the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And, for the moment, Team Bush is talking to our European allies to achieve a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear program. But rest assured that Bolton is ready to do what he does best - wreak havoc - if he is confirmed as US ambassador to the UN.

If former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is right about US designs on Iran - the way he called George W. Bush's Iraq charade early on - Bolton as UN ambassador can be expected to pave the way for a US attack on Iran.

snip--
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062305Y.shtml
Scott Ritter, treated like dirt by the MSM ..
Seems to me he tells the TRUTH and he is a Patriot!

Understandinglife
this statement you made is absolutely the truth .
"I think the agenda is not merely to render the UN's promise 'even more hollow,' but Bush needs Bolton to do to international law what he already has Gonzales doing to our Bill of Rights."
Solidarity,
hiley

[hiley]

3. Bolton is such an abusive asshole

"During that time, as we now know, the US and UK were already waging their illegal war of aggression on Iraq. No wonder Bolton was working so hard to undermine the ICC."

exactly UL !


From the above post..
The United States and the International Criminal Court

John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Remarks to the Federalist Society
Washington, DC
November 14, 2002

snip--

But deterrence ultimately depends on perceived effectiveness, and the ICC fails badly on that point. The ICC’s authority is far too attenuated to make the slightest bit of difference either to the war criminals or to the outside world. In cases where the West in particular has been unwilling to intervene militarily to prevent crimes against humanity as they were happening, why will a potential perpetrator feel deterred by the mere possibility of future legal action? A weak and distant Court will have no deterrent effect on the hard men like Pol Pot most likely to commit crimes against humanity.
**Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?**
**Holding out the prospect of ICC deterrence to the weak and vulnerable amounts to a cruel joke.**

Beyond the issue of deterrence, it is by no means clear that "justice" as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes. It may be, or it may not be. Human conflict teaches that, much to the dismay of moralists and legal theoreticians, mortal policy makers often must make tradeoffs among inconsistent objectives. This can be a painful and unpleasant realization, confronting us as it does with the irritating facts of human complexity, contradiction, and imperfection.

snip---
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm

[frictionlessO]

4. recommended and kicked! More please!

A most excellent job UL... as usual I might add.

[understandinglife]

5. Thank you and I will strive to do more. It's the least one can do when ...

... our fellow citizens are being killed to service the lies and world-domination ambitions of Bush, the neoconsters and their tiny band of mega-wealthy corporatistas.

And, then there is this that we all must never forget:




Peace.


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

[understandinglife]

24. You ask, I try to respond:

Wanted to share this with you. Will look forward to your comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3948518&mesg_id=3948518

Peace

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[The Doctor.]

6. Thank you for this brilliant piece of work.

The picture is very clear.

The pieces all fall into place... everything is accounted for.
It is so very clear, there can be no question that it is simply willfull ignorance that prevents most Americans from realizing these things.

After all;

"It's hard work..."

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. Another important UL post. Recommended.

...and thanks!

[Karenina]

20. More thanks

AND a :kick:

[Time for change]

8. Great work UL

The contempt of this Administration for international law is equalled only by its contempt for non-wealthy Americans at home.

[hiley]

9. Perle another piece of work maybe more abusive and evil than

John Bolton ! even appears scary..
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

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

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

snip---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3931759

[flyarm]

10. you are "THE BEST" UL!!!! BRILLIANT!!

"Why is Bush not already in jail?"

LET ME CUFF THE SOB!!

I KNOW , I KNOW, THE LINE IS LONG FOR THAT PLEASANT DUTY!!

THANK YOU OUR DEAR UL!!

[fooj]

12. Hey laaady! Fancy seeing you here!

:pals:

[understandinglife]

11. R Falk: "..an expression of what might be called “moral globalization”..."

BRussells Tribunal critical of joint US-EU conference on Iraq (Brussels, 21/6)

Statement of Richard Falk at Press Conference for WTI

AmigaPhil (WTI PR, June 23) 24.Jun.2005 01:15

The World Tribunal on Iraq is an undertaking of historic importance. It is the culmination of a process of tribunal sessions on the legal dimensions of the Iraq War that have been held in all parts of the world. This kind of spontaneous initiative of concerned people around the world has never taken place before. It represents an expression of what might be called “moral globalization,” acting on the belief that no state and no leader is above the law when it comes to matters of war and peace. And it expresses the overwhelming sentiments of peoples throughout the world that the Iraq War was against international law and morality. This initiative here in Istanbul has a quality of urgency as people are dying and suffering every day in Iraq as we speak. This is not an academic gathering of experts to find out the relevance of law. It is primarily an expression of popular democracy, of ethical conscience about what is right and wrong in world politics, and an expression of resistance to what is understood around the world as an American project to achieve world domination. The Iraq War is the eye of the storm at the moment. But the wider concern of the WTI is with America’s hegemonic global ambitions that is bringing danger, violence, and exploitation to many parts of the world at present.

The idea of a tribunal to judge legal responsibility of a state and its leaders for war is not new. After World War II the victorious governments convened tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and held the German and Japanese leaders responsible. The Nuremberg Judgment, a celebrated document, called aggressive war, that is, Crimes Against Peace, as the greatest of all crimes. The UN Charter has carried forward the idea that all wars that are not fought in self-defense or with the approval of the UN Security Council are illegal wars, and hence a Crime Against Peace. The WTI has been initiated by citizens of many countries who share the belief that the Iraq War is such an illegal war, and that the leaders of the USA and United Kingdom are individually and criminally responsible for its initiation and for the violations of the Law of War that have accompanied the occupation of Iraq.

<clip>

We understand that the WTI is not a court of law with powers of enforcement. It is rather an informed inquiry by concerned, independent, non-partisan, and honest persons into the relevance of international law that is designed to discredit any claims by the governments who have supported the Iraq War that their action is somehow legal and morally and politically acceptable. It is designed to tell the truth as clearly and powerfully as possible with respect to all aspects of the Iraq War. In the end if democracy is to be the true basis of political authority, then leaders must be made accountable, especially if they fail to uphold the Rule of Law in the area of war and peace. If governments and the United Nations are unable and unwilling to discharge this responsibility, then citizens acting on behalf of civil society have the duty to challenge and oppose an illegal war and practices that violate international humanitarian law. It is after all, in the famous words of the UN Charter, “We the peoples of the world” who are “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

The WTI takes these words seriously as a call to action. We who are participating in this Tribunal are speaking here in Turkey as ‘citizens of the world’ who are part of a global movement to oppose aggressive wars and to resist the wider ambitions of the United States Government to override the sovereignty and independence of states. And we of the WTI are calling on others in every country who seek global peace and justice, including the protection of human rights, to join us in doing this vital work. It is time to understand that aggressive war has become something more than a struggle between particular states. It is an assault on the well being of people everywhere, and must be opposed everywhere.

Aggressive war is not only a Crime Against Peace, it has also become the greatest Crime Against Humanity.

The WTI is opposing aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It is not opposing the governments or the United Nations. Indeed it hopes to create pressure from below that will encourage law-abiding governments and the UN to do their proper job of protecting weaker countries and their populations against such illegalities. And beyond this protection we are promoting a world movement of peoples and governments to realize a humane form of globalization that is equitable with respect to the world economy, legitimate in upholding the human rights of all, and dedicated above all else to creating the conditions for sustainable peace based on justice for every nation on earth.

Link: http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/117066.shtml

And, just so everyone maintains focus on the scale of the evil that Bolton and Bush are doing all they can to ensure zero accountability, take a look at this photo



Iraqi hospitals ailing under occupation; http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000256.php

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - A simple question my fellow Americans, "Why is Bush not already being prosecuted by a US Court of Law?"

[hiley]

15. World Tribunal on Iraq (online & satelitte)

SPECIAL FREE SPEECH TV PROGRAMMING ANNOUNCEMENT (from newsletter)
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

World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) streaming online if you don't have
FSTV...

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

[EFerrari]

13. Kick if your remember the purpose of THE UNITED NATIONS.

:kick:
:kick:
:kick:

[hiley]

14. the 14 "jurors of conscience" -- including the militant Indian novelist

Arundhati Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things."

(Arundhati Roy one of the best human beings ever to live!)

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

Pass It On! :

The Whispering Campaign is your chance to help accelerate the spread of
information from the blogosphere to the rest of the country.
http://psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com/

[hiley]

16. understandinglife... Neoconservatives Speechless!

Neo-Con Piece by
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.


Neoconservatives Speechless!

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Neoconservatives from the left, right and middle, including George W. Bush, believe that they create their own reality, live in their own world, and make their own history.

It’s kind of funny how they don’t want to talk about it right now.

Freshly ironed World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, when asked about the Downing Street Memoranda, had this to say:

"There will be a time and place to talk about history," he added, "but I really don't believe it's now."

Highly classified and eyes-only official government records, written by the British counterpart to George Tenet at the time, record the Bush decision in early 2002 to invade Iraq – long before the Congress or the American public was alerted by the administration to any national security risk involving Iraq. The Downing Street memoranda also indicate that the George W. Bush administration crafted and disseminated half-truths and falsehoods to Congress and the media to support this predetermined policy.

I saw it, many others saw it, and we could not stop it. Each and every day since the war in Iraq was illegally launched, long before actual invasion in March 2003, people have died as a result. Cities and entire nations have been destroyed as a result. Billions and billions of U.S. borrowed money – added to the oppressive tab already owed by our children and grandchildren – has been wasted as a result.

snip---

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski115.html

[understandinglife]

17. P. Shiner: Illegality of Preventive Attack and Unilateral Use of Force

Illegality of Preventive Attack and Unilateral Use of Force

June 24, 2005 before the World Tribunal on Iraq

by Phil Shiner

In this paper I wish to address three issues:

1. Whether the Iraq war was a “crime of aggression” (which is the “worst of crimes”);

2. Whether the way in which the war was conducted involved the commission of “war crimes” and;

3. Whether the subsequent occupation of Iraq involved, and continues to involve, the commission of “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity” and other illegal acts.

However, before addressing these themes, I wish to put these matters in the context of a changing international legal order.

There is no doubt that the world has changed post 9/11. And no doubt too that international law has been central to that change. Much of the debate about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the so-called “war on terror” revolves around questions of legality. It is plain that the neo-cons and Bush and Blair wish to restructure International law to make it weaker but more flexible, and less concerned with the peaceful resolution of disputes. Who can counter this fundamental challenge to all those who are concerned with peace, and that international law should underpin and support an absolute legal commitment by all member states that the use of force is, and should remain as, the option of last resort? It is my view that the War Tribunal on Iraq should have this fundamental ideological struggle in its sights. It can make those responsible for the Iraq war accountable, and it can be part of a global struggle in response to the Bush/Blair agenda on International law.

<clip>

Conclusion

The Iraq war and occupation challenges us all to face the threat to international law by the actions of the US, UK and other members of the coalition. We must be resolute in our determination to make international law stronger and more concerned with peace. There must be accountability for the dreadful numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties in this aggressive war and bearing in mind the use of indiscriminate methods of attack. There cannot be impunity for the acts of torture in detention - and in some cases deaths - nor the wanton killing of civilians during the occupation. In so far as US and UK interrogation techniques violate Article 1 of UN Convention on Torture, it cannot be acceptable that there be impunity. Accountability - rather than impunity - rests on two building blocks:

1. That there be an independent investigation to establish who is responsible for what acts and how far up the chain of command should responsibility lie. That is the importance of the positive obligation of Article 3 of the ECHR, and thus the critical importance of UK cases that attempt to establish that the ECHR did apply during the occupation.

2. That the ICC Prosecutor fulfils its functions to make those responsible for these “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” accountable through principles of individual criminal liability. In decisions over the next few months as to how, if at all, to investigate and prosecute these matters, it is important that he recognise the fundamental duty he has to uphold the rule of law.

More at the link:
http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?#

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

18. A common trait of neoconsters: "contempt for international law"

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]

23. H. Docena: "Shock and Awe" Therapy

‘Shock and Awe’ Therapy<[br />
How the United States is attempting to control Iraq’s oil and pry open its economy

June 25, 2005

BY HERBERT DOCENA

<clip>

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has attempted to open up almost all sectors of Iraq’s economy to foreign investors; pry it open to international trade; launch a massive privatization program to sell off over 150 state-owned enterprises; liberalize its financial market and re-orient the role of its Central Bank; impose a flat tax and remove food and oil subsidies; adopt a patents and intellectual property rights regime beneficial to corporations; and lay the ground for the eventual privatization of Iraq’s oil.

<clip>

Awarded the task to remake Iraq’s economy and prepare the ground for the likes of Coca-Cola and McDonald was Bearing Point, a private business consultancy group. Its contract with USAID, a meticulously methodical document complete with timetables, delegation of responsibilities, and assignment of tasks for specific Iraqi government posts, is essentially the masterplan for the US economic design on Iraq – the “smoking gun” proving the US’ intent to reconstruct Iraq’s economy along neo-liberal lines. The language of the contract is revealing: At one point, it says, “The new government will seek to open up its trade and investment linkages and to put into place the institutions promoting democracy, free enterprise and reliance on a market-driven private sector as the engine of economic recovery and growth” – as though this government will have no other choice.

Link to document:
http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/popup/docena.doc

I've only quoted two paragraphs of Mr Docena's presentation at the World Tribunal on Iraq. What it reveals is that ample documentation of the neoconsters and corporatistas plans for colonization of Iraq exist. Along with the reports of the extensive colony being built under the rubric "Green Zone," to the exclusion of any other reconstruction in Baghdad, one has more than adequate evidence of a premeditated illegal persistent occupation of Iraq.

Bush certainly needs Bolton to deliver 'shock and awe therapy' to the UN, asap.

Our elected representatives will be complicit in the ongoing crimes against Iraq if they allow that to happen.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us -

[understandinglife]

19. B Press: "Why Senate must reject John Bolton"

Why Senate must reject John Bolton

April 29, 2005

by Bill Press

Some of America's most outstanding citizens, Republican and Democrat, have served as ambassador to the United Nations: Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, George H.W. Bush, Madeleine Albright and John Danforth, among others. John Bolton isn't fit to breathe the same air. And it's important to understand why.

<clip>

Those are all strong arguments – and all good reasons for questioning Bolton's qualifications for any job, except maybe professional wrestler. But they're beside the point. The one and only reason the Senate should reject John Bolton for this particular job, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is: He's a sworn enemy of the United Nations! He says it's useless. He argues you could lop off the top 10 stories of the U.N. building (frightening imagery for a nation still reeling from Sept. 11) and not notice the difference. Bolton's not out to reform the U.N., he's out to destroy it.

<snip>

President Bush should know better. After all, just weeks ago, he told reporters in Rome how much he admired Pope John Paul II. Did he ever listen to a word the pope said? Many times, the late, great pope praised the United Nations as the proper forum for problem-solving and chided Bush for not working through it.

In honor of Pope John Paul II, the president should dump John Bolton – and replace him with someone who believes in the United Nations and is a proven diplomat. It's the only way for Bush to prove that his praise for the late pope was, in fact, sincere – and not mere lip service.

Bill Press is a political analyst for MSNBC, a syndicated columnist, and the author of "Spin This!"

Link:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44041

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - A simple question, my fellow American, "Why is Bush not already being prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity?"

[troubleinwinter]

21. Excellent post!! Nominated.

[hiley]

22. Bush & Bolton the Bully Twins

Although, I beleive in continuing to fight the domination of John Bolton to the UN Ambassadorship I also believe Dictator Bush will do the recess appointment on Bolton. Just the fact that georgie has to have his way no matter what makes me believe this.

We have Scottie's avoidance of the question at the press briefing.
Then when asked again...

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 24, 2005

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
snip----

Q Scott, two questions. One, yesterday I spent part of the day at the United Nations in New York assessing a number of issues, including ambassador John Bolton and U.N. reform and also (inaudible). And, also, there was a -- eight countries were given award for good performance and also for the public service, including India and Canada. My question is here, that as far as Mr. Kofi Annan's support in the U.N. goes, it's diminishing or it's going down, because there is some kind of memorandum going against him, one. And also talking about John Bolton, depending on who you talk with, Mr. Kofi Annan said that -- and diplomats, a number of them I spoke to, they said that we will work with another ambassador from another country, representing these countries to the U.N. My question is here how far President now willing to go for Mr. John Bolton and also for Mr. Kofi Annan? Will they still have his full support?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have worked closely with the Secretary General and we are continuing to work closely with the Secretary General, particularly when it comes to reforming the United Nations. He's put forward some ideas for comprehensive reform; we strongly support comprehensive reform. And we outlined our ideas for moving forward in a comprehensive way to reform the United Nations and make it more effective -- that means making it more open and transparent and establishing a democracy fund, a convention on terrorism, and also moving forward on budget and management reform, among other issues. And Security Council reform is part of the overall, comprehensive reform in our view, as well.

snip---

Q Thank you, Scott. Brief questions: Back to John Bolton for a moment, with the clock ticking toward a congressional recess this summer, just what Democrats is the President calling and talking to in order to try to break the filibuster? And, realistically, if the filibuster fails to be broken, can we expect a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton next month?
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, the President believes very strongly that John Bolton is the right man to go about advancing reform at the United Nations. This is a critical period at the United Nations, when they're looking at some major reforms to really make it more effective. And that's why the President believes so strongly that he is the right person to be there at this critical time.
The President continues to believe that the Senate needs to give him an up or down vote. He enjoys the support of a majority of the United States Senate. There are some Democratic leaders who already voted against John Bolton's nomination that claimed they wanted more information.
And the administration has worked in very good faith to address some of those issues that they brought up, and it's clear that they're not interested in more documents. They're only interested in moving the goalpost and trying to block the nomination from proceeding forward. And what they're doing is preventing us from moving forward and getting about the important work of reform at the United Nations. I think the American people expect better from the United States Senate and from their Democratic leaders.
It's clear he has majority support on the floor of the Senate, and so we've continued to act in good faith. The President has had conversations with some Democrats. I don't think that at this point it's necessary to get into all those conversations. Andy Card has reached out, as well, and other members of the White House staff, including our legislative team. And we will continue to do so. It doesn't take but a few more to break with the ranks of their leadership who simply aren't interested in acting in good faith to move this nomination forward.
Q So we shouldn't expect a recess appointment and you feel this process is going to work?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is continuing to push for an up or down vote.
Go ahead, Bob.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050624-3.html

"Good faith !"from scottie and the WH come on .

[hiley]

25. The People's Email Network Leadership ALERT/UN Ambassador

The People's Email Network Leadership ALERT

With the president stuck in a quagmire over his choice of U.N.
ambassador, people are saying it's time for our side to take the initiative and
suggest our own alternatives. Why is this such a good idea? First, it
demonstrates to the American people in a positive way, "These are the
kind of nominees you would get IF YOU ELECTED US." Second, it forces
the president to turn his nose up at each and every one of 2-5 strong
candidates. And third, it further shows the intransigence of a president
incapable of admitting or correcting his mistakes, regardless of how
apparent the failure of his policies is to everyone else. Tell your
senators we need to hold a PRESS CONFERENCE this coming week and do just
exactly that.

http://www.usalone.com/unambassador.htm

And if you have not yet submitted the MEDIA ACTION PAGE on the Downing
Street minutes, our one click form now also sends your personal message
to the ombudsmen for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and 7 of
the most important TV network news programs. They still are not giving
this scandal the coverage it warrants so let's all demand it.

http://www.usalone.com/downingstreet.htm

Take action NOW on this and post and forward this message everywhere
you can to everyone you know.

[salin]

26. Nominated

great work.

Oh ya... Bush to the UN... "Vote for my resolution, or risk becoming irrelevant."

Or... NSA spying on UN Security Council members before the invasion - and when they didn't get dirt they could use to force the vote their way... decided to go around the UN... "Can Not Wait Any Longer" (as they knew that no WMDs would be found - and pfffft go their rationale for war.)