War Crimes Tribunal: tries Bush & Blair

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
War crimes tribunal tries Bush, Blair

A War Crimes Tribunal in the Malaysian capital has begun its hearing against George W. Bush and Tony Blair, charging the former officials for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Press TV reports.


The tribunal will determine whether the former US president and British prime minister committed war crimes and violated international law during the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is an initiative by Malaysia's former Premier Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposes US-led military adventures in various troubled regions.

The hearing comes after two years of in-depth investigation, including testimonials from Iraqi war victims by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

According to the Kuala Lumpur War Commission, both Bush and Blair had participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws.

One complainant told the commission in 2009 that he was mistakenly detained and kept for six years in Guantanamo Bay under harsh conditions.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/210986.html


Let the bush defenders all rise and support his and blair's crimes against humanity. Lets hear them scoff at this .......as if there is no substance to it. THAT alone would define their own ethical standards.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,106
7,987
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Aren't Bush & Blair out? Isn't it Obama & What's-his-Pickle's turn now that
they have the reins of power? I'm not defending anyone, but I thought that
was how the game was played.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,106
7,987
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Malaysia & America do have an extradition agreement in force since June 2nd, 1997
....but....I'm not seeing America shipping off their ex-Presidents except on their currency.

I'm not sure of Britian & Malaysian agreements.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Malaysia & America do have an extradition agreement in force since June 2nd, 1997
....but....I'm not seeing America shipping off their ex-Presidents except on their currency.

I'm not sure of Britian & Malaysian agreements.

The Malaysians and the US may have an extradition agreement but the US hasn't signed off on things like the right of the World Court in the Hague to try its citizens, so I highly doubt they would treat this any differently... never mind that they are talking about a former president...

Not sure what the Brits do or don't have in place with the Malaysians either but again I find it highly doubtful that they would simply hand over their former PM to an international court with dubious (at best) jurrisdiction...
 

JackPhast

New Member
Nov 20, 2011
10
0
1
Vancouver
It is good to see someone standing up to their international obligations and declare Bush at least a war criminal (not sure on calling Blair a war criminal). He did admit to authorizing torture of prisoners of war, a clear violation of the Geneva Convention - and no, calling them 'enemy combatants' and 'terrorists' doesn't make it okay, at least in my opinion.

Too bad Canada couldn't have done the same when Bush came to Surrey, BC last month (at the invitation of the city, no less).
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
That is NOT a war crimes tribunal. It is a KANGAROO court. Lead by someone that should probably be standing in front of a war crimes tribunal.
 

JackPhast

New Member
Nov 20, 2011
10
0
1
Vancouver
That is NOT a war crimes tribunal. It is a KANGAROO court. Lead by someone that should probably be standing in front of a war crimes tribunal.

True enough - it isn't a war criminal tribunal, and a guilty finding doesn't really prove anything - surely, it will be pretty one sided. But, Malaysia isn't going to get a hold of them anyway, so it isn't on the same level as the show trials that get put on at places like Guantanamo Bay.

I'm not so sure on your claim that it is being led by someone that should be standing in front of a war crimes tribunal themselves - Malaysia is a democratic country, and although I don't know much about them, I haven't heard of any reason that this would be the case.

Anyway, just wanted to say that it is good to see a government standing up and saying what so many believe.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,106
7,987
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I think the statememt you're refering to has to do with this:

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is an initiative by Malaysia's former Premier Mahathir Mohamad.

...Combined with the Malay "Internal Security Act." Though Mahathir Mohamad didn't initiate
it, as their longest running PM (for 22yrs), he didn't ditch it and sure used it to his advantage.

Internal Security Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Security_Act_(Malaysia)
Mahathir Mohamad: Mahathir Mohamad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Breezy at it again
I'm interested in this story even if you aren't.
Thank you OB.

While a guilty finding only has symbolic meaning, it also means Malaysia will now off limits to these former heads of state aka war criminals. If most UN countries did the same thing, these war criminals travel plans would be severely restricted.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I don't quite understand the obsession with these two when there are big fish to fry. Mugabbe is one who comes to mind.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
I don't quite understand the obsession with these two when there are big fish to fry. Mugabbe is one who comes to mind.

are you suggesting that bush and blair are not big enough fish to be concerned about ??? It might be time to consider why some leaders get away with atrocities that are unspeakable for a so called civilized domain, and others doing the same are ostrasized??

The world is a much smaller place now and fair and just treatment must apply equally to all.

BTW: there is no obsession. But it is astounding to realize how many support the barbarism of the bush/ blair and cheney teams. Of course they explain it to themselves as "we are better than those we attack , so we can do as we wish with no consideration of the law , or inhumanity that their decisions involve.

Perhaps the question is: why do so many continue to support the bush/ blair / cheney trio. ?? How come the lies they spun worked so well on some ?? One might speculate that they are too afraid to question a gov't or leaders decision. Perhaps it is just easier" to go along and get along."

************
yes, a tribunal like this would probably be mainly symbolic......but it would still have a psychological (and personal )effect on the parties involved and the nations that they represent ..........a negative one. Many times symbolic acts like this have more impact that guns and bombs.-as they truly make a statement about the illegality , unethical and immoral quotients of their respective acts.

I'm interested in this story even if you aren't.
Thank you OB.

While a guilty finding only has symbolic meaning, it also means Malaysia will now off limits to these former heads of state aka war criminals. If most UN countries did the same thing, these war criminals travel plans would be severely restricted.

exactly. It takes courage and conviction of what is right / legal, ethical, moral to do what they are doing. Even if it is largely symbolic at this time. One never knows what the results might be. or what hornets nest will be exposed.


(and you are very welcome ,earth. ) It is refreshing to see that at least some don't dismiss it without even thinking about the tribunal itself and what it might reveal. Thank you for being open minded and receptive. to a situation that most would like to hide under the carpet and "move on".........as if the past will not come back in some form and bite these folks in the butt. Karma.
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
are you suggesting that bush and blair are not big enough fish to be concerned about ??? It might be time to consider why some leaders get away with atrocities that are unspeakable for a so called civilized domain, and others doing the same are ostrasized??

What criminal acts did they commit against their own citizens? Maybe the ones who did should be dealt with first. Not much use killing flies while rats are running rampant! :smile:
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I don't quite understand the obsession with these two when there are big fish to fry. Mugabbe is one who comes to mind.
How many people died as a result of Mugabe's actions? I am aware this tyrant has a shameful Human Rights record, but when it comes to mass murder, Mugabe doesn't come close to Bush and Blair.

Source Iraqi casualties Time period
Iraq Family Health Survey
151,000 deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
Associated Press 110,600 deaths March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project 103,536 — 113,125 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] March 2003 to October 2011
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][2][3][4] 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[5][6] January 2004 to December 2009