btw: Sammi jo, once again your figures are questionable. Iraqbodycount.net? Oh, OK. LOL [/B]
SDW, since the US Defense Dept. does not tally civilian casualties, then some other party has to do it. Does that mean that those people that we are apparently "liberating" (Iraqi civilians) are considered "less than human" and their lives mean nothing to the occupying force and it's commanding officers?
Read up the qualifications that Iraqbodycount.net use to count the numbers: they also list a minimum, and a maximum. The deaths listed on Iraqbodycount.net have details associated with them. What kind of source for an Iraq body count would you lend credence to?
One never knows for sure though: the figures could easily be wrong....in that they could be grossly undercounted. Iraq is an Islamic nation and it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours of death. Many people killed in bombardment etc. etc. in the more remote areas have probably not been counted, especially during the chaos of war, with communications, power and transport cut off.
It looks as if the U.S. National Lawyers Guild has a take on whether Bush could end up being charged as a war criminal:
Quote:
Guild: Bush Should Be Tried For Role In Torture
Monday, 21 June 2004, 10:25 am
Press Release: US National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild Calls For Prosecution Of President Bush For Role In Torture
2003 State of the Union Address Contained Implicit Admission
New York, June 18, 2004--The National Lawyers Guild calls for the prosecution of President George W. Bush with a "command responsibility" theory of liability under the War Crimes Act. Bush can be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act or the Torture Statute, if he knew or should have known about the U.S. military's use of torture and failed to stop or prevent it. A comment in the President's January 2003 State of the Union Address contained an implicit admission by Bush that he had sanctioned the summary execution of many when he said: "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate." "Let's put it this way," he continued, "they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
The Defense Department and the Justice Department each commissioned documents attempting to justify the use of torture under the President's war-making power, notwithstanding the Constitution's clear mandate that only Congress can make the laws. The Defense Department memo said that as commander-in-chief, the President has a "constitutionally superior position" to Congress. This blatant disregard for the tripartite Separation of Powers doctrine is also contrary to the landmark ruling in the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tire Co. v. Sawyers, in which the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was ratified by the United States and is thus part of the supreme law of the land. Congress implemented U.S. obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture Statute, which provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death penalty if death results from torture committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute. The Convention Against Torture prohibits the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain a confession, (b) punish him or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or suffering must be inflicted "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth international guidelines for the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Included in the Protocol's list of torture methods are rape, blunt trauma, forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries, humiliations, death threats, forced engagement in practices violative of religion, and threat of attacks by dogs. The photographs and reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib include all of these techniques. Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a torturer could get off it he acted in "good faith," not thinking his actions would result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his conduct on the advice of these memos, he could according to this argument, have acted in good faith.
Referring to the 9/11 Commission's preliminary reports issued this week, National Lawyers Guild President Michael Avery said: "The Justice Department memorandum reads like a pre-trial brief on behalf of the Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg trial. It's rife with justification after justification for the use of torture."
Bush implicitly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and/or inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996.
The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, comprises over 6,000 members and activists in the service of the people. Its national office is headquartered in New York and it has chapters in nearly every state, as well as over 100 law school chapters. Guild members provide legal support to progressive demonstrations throughout the country, and well understand the nationwide trend toward increasingly repressive measures deployed against political protesters.
*\tto safeguard and strengthen the rights of workers, women, farmers and minority groups, upon whom the welfare of the entire nation depends;
*\tto maintain and protect our civil rights and liberties in the face of persistent attacks upon them;
*\tto use the law as an instrument for the protection of the people, rather than for their repression.
Your reply looks to be deliberately ambiguous. I imagine, if you support civilized values, that the NLG would meet with your approval. Their mission appears to have the aim of furthering concepts that define civility. I hope you don't have any problems with that.....
It's not false to say that invading Iraq violated international treaties.
Yes, we all understand that there is no law book of international laws, and that the UN isn't an international police force. That's not the point. If the US signs an international treaty and violates that treaty, we are breaking our own laws.
Did we violate any of our international treaties by attacking Iraq? I'd like to see a discussion of how we didn't violate any treaties. I'm not sure it's possible.
Please clarify...it is your position that we have violated international treaties? Or, are you asking for a negative to be proven? Wasn't that one of the reasons you attacked the inspection/disclosure process for WMD in Iraq?
SDW, since the US Defense Dept. does not tally civilian casualties, then some other party has to do it. Does that mean that those people that we are apparently "liberating" (Iraqi civilians) are considered "less than human" and their lives mean nothing to the occupying force and it's commanding officers?
Read up the qualifications that Iraqbodycount.net use to count the numbers: they also list a minimum, and a maximum. The deaths listed on Iraqbodycount.net have details associated with them. What kind of source for an Iraq body count would you lend credence to?
One never knows for sure though: the figures could easily be wrong....in that they could be grossly undercounted. Iraq is an Islamic nation and it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours of death. Many people killed in bombardment etc. etc. in the more remote areas have probably not been counted, especially during the chaos of war, with communications, power and transport cut off.
Sammi, I'm sorry, but you have shown your willingness to make absurd casualty claims on more than one occasion. And really...you're attributing ALL of those deaths to the U.S.? Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule? Hmmmm....
Just for the record, it was sammi jo that once claimed the Gulf War claimed over 100,000 lives, I believe.
GWB made a case to invade a sovereign country (ruled by an asshole, right, but that's not the question) based on lies (WMD and 9/11 ties).
That invasion is responsible for thousand of deaths.
This is were the war crime is: Big Lies -> Many Deads
(And I'm not even talking about the torture thing...)
That's why the question of the Hague stays opened.
Every war involves invading a sovereign country...or at least it usually does. I again ask: How mnay deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power?
Bush and his administration NEVER claimed Iraq was behind 9/11. That in itself is a lie.
Making a case for GWB to be prosecuted for war crimes is patently absurd. No reasonable person would even consider the possibility.
Please clarify...it is your position that we have violated international treaties? Or, are you asking for a negative to be proven? Wasn't that one of the reasons you attacked the inspection/disclosure process for WMD in Iraq?
[I'd like to have a discussion based on the treaties people believe we broke, and the arguments for and against said violations.]
It's probably very difficult for you to understand that someone actually wants to foster a discussion so they can assess the pros and cons of a given situation and only then make a more educated decision.
Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule?
Quote:
--_ 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
--_ 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
--_ 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign";_
--_ 22 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;_
--_ 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001;_
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
I did some extensive research on prison deaths just in america. In one north eastern state (I think it was NH) the yearly death rate was around 60, the suspicious deaths fell in around 15. These are rough numbers, going on memory. But I think you get the point.
Multiply that by 50 states.
Now the question that I asked before in another thread, that noone here will address: How many of these 23 deaths were "normal" prison deaths (if there is such a thing)?
Comments
Originally posted by Common Man
This is so off base. GDW has commited no war crimes. Please.
GWB made a case to invade a sovereign country (ruled by an asshole, right, but that's not the question) based on lies (WMD and 9/11 ties).
That invasion is responsible for thousand of deaths.
This is were the war crime is: Big Lies -> Many Deads
(And I'm not even talking about the torture thing...)
That's why the question of the Hague stays opened.
Originally posted by pierr_alex
GWB made a case to invade a sovereign country (ruled by an asshole, right, but that's not the question) based on lies (WMD and 9/11 ties).
That invasion is responsible for thousand of deaths.
This is were the war crime is: Big Lies -> Many Deads
(And I'm not even talking about the torture thing...)
That's why the question of the Hague stays opened.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-050700-2315r
It looks more and more like the links are there.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-050700-2315r
It looks more and more like the links are there.
I don't know how you read that in to this editorial...
Originally posted by New
I don't know how you read that in to this editorial...
I may be because i read the BIG words too.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I may be because i read the BIG words too.
good fer ye... make sure you read more than just the headlines.
From your link, it looks to me like there is some serious straw-grasping going on....
I'm beginning to realise why Saddam was the bastard he was.
Originally posted by SDW2001
btw: Sammi jo, once again your figures are questionable. Iraqbodycount.net? Oh, OK. LOL [/B]
SDW, since the US Defense Dept. does not tally civilian casualties, then some other party has to do it. Does that mean that those people that we are apparently "liberating" (Iraqi civilians) are considered "less than human" and their lives mean nothing to the occupying force and it's commanding officers?
Read up the qualifications that Iraqbodycount.net use to count the numbers: they also list a minimum, and a maximum. The deaths listed on Iraqbodycount.net have details associated with them. What kind of source for an Iraq body count would you lend credence to?
One never knows for sure though: the figures could easily be wrong....in that they could be grossly undercounted. Iraq is an Islamic nation and it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours of death. Many people killed in bombardment etc. etc. in the more remote areas have probably not been counted, especially during the chaos of war, with communications, power and transport cut off.
Guild: Bush Should Be Tried For Role In Torture
Monday, 21 June 2004, 10:25 am
Press Release: US National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild Calls For Prosecution Of President Bush For Role In Torture
2003 State of the Union Address Contained Implicit Admission
New York, June 18, 2004--The National Lawyers Guild calls for the prosecution of President George W. Bush with a "command responsibility" theory of liability under the War Crimes Act. Bush can be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act or the Torture Statute, if he knew or should have known about the U.S. military's use of torture and failed to stop or prevent it. A comment in the President's January 2003 State of the Union Address contained an implicit admission by Bush that he had sanctioned the summary execution of many when he said: "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate." "Let's put it this way," he continued, "they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
The Defense Department and the Justice Department each commissioned documents attempting to justify the use of torture under the President's war-making power, notwithstanding the Constitution's clear mandate that only Congress can make the laws. The Defense Department memo said that as commander-in-chief, the President has a "constitutionally superior position" to Congress. This blatant disregard for the tripartite Separation of Powers doctrine is also contrary to the landmark ruling in the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tire Co. v. Sawyers, in which the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was ratified by the United States and is thus part of the supreme law of the land. Congress implemented U.S. obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture Statute, which provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death penalty if death results from torture committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute. The Convention Against Torture prohibits the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain a confession, (b) punish him or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or suffering must be inflicted "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth international guidelines for the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Included in the Protocol's list of torture methods are rape, blunt trauma, forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries, humiliations, death threats, forced engagement in practices violative of religion, and threat of attacks by dogs. The photographs and reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib include all of these techniques. Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a torturer could get off it he acted in "good faith," not thinking his actions would result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his conduct on the advice of these memos, he could according to this argument, have acted in good faith.
Referring to the 9/11 Commission's preliminary reports issued this week, National Lawyers Guild President Michael Avery said: "The Justice Department memorandum reads like a pre-trial brief on behalf of the Nazi defendants in the Nuremberg trial. It's rife with justification after justification for the use of torture."
Bush implicitly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and/or inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996.
The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, comprises over 6,000 members and activists in the service of the people. Its national office is headquartered in New York and it has chapters in nearly every state, as well as over 100 law school chapters. Guild members provide legal support to progressive demonstrations throughout the country, and well understand the nationwide trend toward increasingly repressive measures deployed against political protesters.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.nlg.org/
from their mission statement:
*to eliminate racism;
*\tto safeguard and strengthen the rights of workers, women, farmers and minority groups, upon whom the welfare of the entire nation depends;
*\tto maintain and protect our civil rights and liberties in the face of persistent attacks upon them;
*\tto use the law as an instrument for the protection of the people, rather than for their repression.
Your reply looks to be deliberately ambiguous. I imagine, if you support civilized values, that the NLG would meet with your approval. Their mission appears to have the aim of furthering concepts that define civility. I hope you don't have any problems with that.....
Originally posted by sammi jo
It looks as if the U.S. National Lawyers Guild has a take on whether Bush could end up being charged as a war criminal:
What a joke
Originally posted by bunge
It's not false to say that invading Iraq violated international treaties.
Yes, we all understand that there is no law book of international laws, and that the UN isn't an international police force. That's not the point. If the US signs an international treaty and violates that treaty, we are breaking our own laws.
Did we violate any of our international treaties by attacking Iraq? I'd like to see a discussion of how we didn't violate any treaties. I'm not sure it's possible.
Please clarify...it is your position that we have violated international treaties? Or, are you asking for a negative to be proven? Wasn't that one of the reasons you attacked the inspection/disclosure process for WMD in Iraq?
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, since the US Defense Dept. does not tally civilian casualties, then some other party has to do it. Does that mean that those people that we are apparently "liberating" (Iraqi civilians) are considered "less than human" and their lives mean nothing to the occupying force and it's commanding officers?
Read up the qualifications that Iraqbodycount.net use to count the numbers: they also list a minimum, and a maximum. The deaths listed on Iraqbodycount.net have details associated with them. What kind of source for an Iraq body count would you lend credence to?
One never knows for sure though: the figures could easily be wrong....in that they could be grossly undercounted. Iraq is an Islamic nation and it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours of death. Many people killed in bombardment etc. etc. in the more remote areas have probably not been counted, especially during the chaos of war, with communications, power and transport cut off.
Sammi, I'm sorry, but you have shown your willingness to make absurd casualty claims on more than one occasion. And really...you're attributing ALL of those deaths to the U.S.? Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule? Hmmmm....
Just for the record, it was sammi jo that once claimed the Gulf War claimed over 100,000 lives, I believe.
Originally posted by pierr_alex
GWB made a case to invade a sovereign country (ruled by an asshole, right, but that's not the question) based on lies (WMD and 9/11 ties).
That invasion is responsible for thousand of deaths.
This is were the war crime is: Big Lies -> Many Deads
(And I'm not even talking about the torture thing...)
That's why the question of the Hague stays opened.
Every war involves invading a sovereign country...or at least it usually does. I again ask: How mnay deaths would there have been had Saddam been left in power?
Bush and his administration NEVER claimed Iraq was behind 9/11. That in itself is a lie.
Making a case for GWB to be prosecuted for war crimes is patently absurd. No reasonable person would even consider the possibility.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Please clarify...it is your position that we have violated international treaties? Or, are you asking for a negative to be proven? Wasn't that one of the reasons you attacked the inspection/disclosure process for WMD in Iraq?
[I'd like to have a discussion based on the treaties people believe we broke, and the arguments for and against said violations.]
It's probably very difficult for you to understand that someone actually wants to foster a discussion so they can assess the pros and cons of a given situation and only then make a more educated decision.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me ask you...how many thousands more would have been murdered under Saddam's rule?
--_ 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
--_ 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
--_ 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign";_
--_ 22 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;_
--_ 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001;_
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Making a case for GWB to be prosecuted for war crimes is patently absurd. No reasonable person would even consider the possibility.
That's absurd. Someone that considers Bush immune from the possibility of guilt is deranged.
Originally posted by bunge
Many times I've asked others to search out this information, but they're afraid to do it because it undermines their conservative bias in favor of the attack and war.
23 Political prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Haven't we killed about that many there in recent months?
I did some extensive research on prison deaths just in america. In one north eastern state (I think it was NH) the yearly death rate was around 60, the suspicious deaths fell in around 15. These are rough numbers, going on memory. But I think you get the point.
Multiply that by 50 states.
Now the question that I asked before in another thread, that noone here will address: How many of these 23 deaths were "normal" prison deaths (if there is such a thing)?
How many were prisoner on prisoner crimes?
Something to chew on...