BushCo crimes - lets do the world a favour

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

If he came up here on a non state visit he could be arrested. Actually something to that is going on here now, but "W" wont have the balls to show, I bet.

Canadian Court Allows Bush Torture Prosecution

A Canadian court has allowed a prosecution of President George Bush under the Criminal Code for violations of the 1987 Convention Against Torture.

A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to prosecute U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code. Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called Lawyers Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting of a publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president. “It’s great news, but really they had no choice,” Davidson told the Georgia Straight.

click link near top of my post for rest. I hope "W" gets what he deserves one day.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

There is no longer any doubt that Bush is responsible for torture and therefore guilty of crimes against humanity. The cowardice of the US, especially the Republican Party, in dealing appropriately with the fact that their leader is an international criminal is highly disappointing. Hopefully Irwin Cotler and the rest of the Liberal Party will not show the same cowardice as those in positions of power in the United States have.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
You know, it would be a real education for us all.

We grew up as all of us do under some national mythology and one of the alluring concepts was that American allegiance is to the constitution, not the Flag, not the President, but to the ideas of the constitution.

I'm thinking such pressure even if it appears highly selective and unfair to we Americans might begin a whole new way of looking at the world, and make us all tougher for it.

Perhaps if the world in wanting to kick us so hard will get to revisit their own hypocrisy and their own inalienable natures.

In the end, allegiance is to an idea, not to one man, not to one flag.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets do the world a favour

EagleSmack said:
Canada arrest the President of the US!

Oh please. Stop being so foolish.


foolish?? :roll: :roll:

given the right circumstances (LEGAL and other wise) it can be done...... and it just might be the most constructive move/initiative that CA could make towards world peace.---arrest the fecking warmonger......but LEGALLY and ETHICALLY. Would create an international crisis ........but then maybe that is what it would take for some of those brainwashed/braindead neocons to wake up.......
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Well, foolish, ya, I will go home with my tail between my legs, ok ok.
Canada won't arrest Bush...

AMERICA WILL !!!!
HA!

Look at this poll that says Americans favour impeaching Bush "IF HE INVADED Iraq ON THE BASIS OF LIES OVER WMD"
http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1

etc:
http://rocketjam.gnn.tv/blogs/10340/Poll_Says_Impeach

endgame - Clusterfuck Nation: They Lied to Us! :
=http://sisyphus.gnn.tv/blogs/10280/Clusterfuck_Nation_They_Lied_to_Us LIES

i just like the idea of clusterfucks -
Karlin
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Tomgram: Failing upward, Bush-style

[Note to Tomdispatch readers: Three weeks ago, Nick Turse wrote a dispatch, The Fallen Legion, Casualties of the Bush Administration, about government officials who resigned or retired in protest, or were forced over a cliff by this administration. It was, in essence, a proposal for a Wall of Honor. At the time, we realized that it should be accompanied by a Wall of Shame. This, then, is the first of two linked pieces that attempt to apportion a little of the shame and honor. Look for Nick Turse's accompanying piece tomorrow.]


Bush's Wall of Shame
By Tom Engelhardt

The motto of this administration might easily be: "failing upward." Of course, that's not hard when those leading the country into catastrophe are also making the appointments and bestowing the honors. Somewhere in this world of ours there should be at least one Wall of Shame (and perhaps an adjoining Wall of Cronyism) for an administration which has heaped favor, position, and honors on those who have blundered, lied, manipulated, and broken the law (not to say, cracked open the Constitution and the republic). Here is just a sampling of the band of culprits who might appear on such a wall and but a few of the things for which they might be held accountable:

Honored for Catastrophe

Former CIA Director George ("slam dunk") Tenet, who oversaw an "intelligence" program of lies, misinformation, abductions, torture, the disappearing of prisoners, and the setting up of a mini-gulag of private prisons from Thailand to Eastern Europe, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom as his tenure at the Agency ended.

Former Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul (I never saw an army I didn't want to disband) Bremer III, under whose leadership in Baghdad the American occupation mis- and displaced more money than is humanly imaginable, and under whose leadership Iraq descended into chaos, awarded the Medal of Freedom.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard ("Guantanamo is a model facility") Myers, who oversaw the Iraq War and whose claim to fame may have been that he called Dan Rather of CBS to try to suppress the first "60 Minutes II" report on Abu Ghraib, awarded the Medal of Freedom.

Former Centcom Commander Tommy ("we don't do body counts") Franks, who oversaw "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq in wars that have never ended, retired to great administration praise and became a "paid patriot," awarded the Medal of Freedom.

Promoted (or Retained) for Disaster

Defense Secretary Donald ("stuff happens") Rumsfeld, who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq so brilliantly and bragged that he could stand up longer than any Guantánamo detainee, kept on as Secretary of Defense in George Bush's second term.

Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul ("There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq") Wolfowitz, who spearheaded the administration's blind cakewalk into Iraq and declared himself "reasonably certain" that the Iraqi people "will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down," was made World Bank president and now prefers not to be "distracted" with ancient "history."

Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John ("I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote" and "there is no such thing as the United Nations") Bolton, who never saw a country he couldn't include in the Axis of Evil, a treaty he wasn't ready to shred, or negotiations he wasn't prepared to sabotage, was given a presidential recess appointment as UN Ambassador after his nomination was deep-sixed by Senate Democrats.

The Torture Brigade

Former White House Counsel Alberto (no rules apply) Gonzales, who helped marshal the administration's case for "relaxing" interrogation rules on prisoners, and the man to whom so many of those torture memos were sent, was made Attorney General.

Former General Counsel for the Pentagon William J. Haynes II, who appointed a working group to circumvent laws and treaties restricting the administration's urge to torture, developed administration policies to deny detainees at Guantánamo prisoner of war status; developed the Pentagon's military tribunal policy to try them; promoted the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the President without legal counsel or judicial review, and recommended (over the protests of military lawyers) many of the most abusive tactics used at Guantánamo, was nominated to a judgeship in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by George W. Bush on September 29, 2003. Only a Democratic filibuster in the Senate derailed the appointment.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice John ("must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.") Yoo, infamous for drafting the August 2002 "torture memo" to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and a supporter of unfettered presidential rule in matters of foreign policy, returned to his position as professor of law at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and wrote a book.

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay ("certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [a legal] proscription against torture") Bybee, who was the official author of the August 2002 torture memo , is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Former Legal Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions," "a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects and… a prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts," known for his "devotion to secrecy" and to an extreme version of unfettered presidential power (as well as a backer of the stalled Haynes judgeship), was promoted to Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff after I. Lewis Libby's resignation.

Former head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division Michael Chertoff, who advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002-03 on how far CIA interrogators could go in coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute, was appointed head of the Homeland Security Department where he oversaw FEMA's disastrous responses to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and where he remains today.

Former principal deputy assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs John Hannah, a conduit for Iraqi exile prewar mis- or disinformation on Saddam's WMD arsenal, involved in producing prewar administration claims linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and in the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson smear campaign, promoted to National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.

"Demoted"

Former FEMA Director Michael ("I am a fashion god") Brown, who so spectacularly botched the agency's response to hurricane Katrina, is now on the federal payroll as a $148,000-a-year consultant to FEMA.

Former U.S. Military Commander in Iraq Lt. General Ricardo ("Arab fear of dogs") Sanchez, who personally signed off on the use of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, including the use of "working dogs," was to be made head of the U.S. Southern Command and nominated for his fourth star until Pentagon officials came to fear that his role overseeing the Abu Ghraib scandal would create opposition in the Senate and so he was given a major command in Europe.

Former Commander of Joint Task Force Guantánamo Maj. Gen. Geoffrey ("Gitmo-ize the confinement operation") Miller, who brought Guantánamo interrogation methods, including the use of dogs, to Iraq before the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal (reportedly claiming that Arab prisoners "are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe they're more than a dog, then you've lost control of them"), and for his efforts was then made senior commander in charge of detention operations in Iraq, instead of being cashiered in shame, is now assigned to an Army management position in the Washington, D.C area.

Sadly, while this gallery of rogues was being honored and/or promoted and/or protected, those who really should have received honors and medals were, by and large, overlooked or forgotten -- not just figures like ex-Marine and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who insisted before the war (to the sneers of American reporters) that Iraq was unlikely to possess even the shreds of its former WMD program, but all those millions who massed in the streets and insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be a path, paved by lies, that would lead only to madness. No "medals of freedom" for the likes of them.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War. His novel, The Last Days of Publishing, has just come out in paperback.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
In the Name of Democracy

American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond

By Jeremy Brecher, Jill Cutler and Brendan Smith

11/07/05 "ZNet" -- -- Brandon Hughey was a private at Fort Hood when he discovered that his army unit was about to be sent to Iraq. The eighteen-year-old from San Angelo, Texas, was desperate-not because he was afraid to go to war, but because he was convinced that the Iraq war was immoral. He considered solving the problem by taking his own life. Instead, he got in a car and drove to Canada. He explained, "I would fight in an act of defense, if my home and family were in danger. But Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. They barely had an army left, and [UN Secretary-General] Kofi Annan actually said [attacking Iraq was] a violation of the UN charter. It's nothing more than an act of aggression. You can't go along with a criminal activity just because others are doing it." If, as the Bush administration has maintained, the United States is fighting in Iraq to protect itself from terrorism, free the people of Iraq from tyranny, enforce international law, and bring peace and democracy to the Middle East, then war resisters like Brandon Hughey appear deluded if not cowardly and criminal.

But what if Private Hughey is right? What if the U.S. operation in Iraq is "nothing more than an act of aggression?" What if it indeed constitutes "criminal activity"? What, then, is the culpability of President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other top U.S. officials? And what is the responsibility of ordinary Americans? Until recently, the possibility that top U.S. officials were responsible for war crimes seemed to many Americans nothing but the invidious allegations of a few knee-jerk anti-Americans. But as more and more suppressed photos and documents have been disclosed, and as more and more eyewitness accounts from prisons and battlefields have appeared in the media, Americans are undergoing an agonizing reappraisal of the Iraq war and the broader war on terror of which it is allegedly a part.

the evidence

There are three sets of questions regarding possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq. The first set of questions concerns the legality of the U.S. attack on Iraq under international law. Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the United Nations stated shortly before the attack that the UN Charter is "very clear on the circumstances under which force can be used. If the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter." He subsequently stated that the invasion of Iraq was "not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter part of view, it was illegal." The U.S. admission that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and the growing evidence that the United States fabricated the evidence on which that charge was based, has provided added weight to Annan's view.

The second set of questions involves the possible illegality of the U.S. occupation of Iraq and its conduct. The seriousness of such questions was recently underlined by the warning of Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that those guilty of violations of international humanitarian rights laws-including deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, killing of injured persons, and the use of human shields-must be brought to justice, "be they members of the Multinational Force or insurgents."

The military technology the United States is using in Iraq, such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium, may be illegal in itself. Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." A UN weapons commission described cluster bombs as "weapons of indiscriminate effects." A reporter for The Mirror (United Kingdom) wrote from a hospital in Hillah, "Among the 168 patients I counted, not one was being treated for bullet wounds. All of them, men, women, children, bore the wounds of bomb shrapnel. It peppered their bodies. Blackened their skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reported that 'All the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs'...The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside."

The third set of questions has to do with the torture and abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody. This has been a huge but unresolved issue since it was first indelibly engraved in the public mind by the photos from Abu Ghraib prison. Cascading disclosures have revealed that torture and other forms of prisoner abuse have been endemic not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and many other U.S. operations around the world.


facing the implications

The possibility that high U.S. officials may be guilty of war crimes and may be preparing to commit more raises questions that few Americans have yet faced. These questions go far beyond technical legal matters to the broadest concerns of international security, democratic government, morality, and personal responsibility. Part IV presents perspectives from a variety of disciplines and political viewpoints designed to help us address those questions.

The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the principles of international law, while all too often violated, have provided some basis for international peace and security. What is the likely result of following the advice of the Bush administration's John Bolton that it is "a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law"? Is it likely to be greater freedom and security, or an unending war of all against all? Are the American people-not to mention the people of the world-ready to abandon the international rule of law and return to what Justice Jackson called "a system of international lawlessness"?

resisters

Some of the most difficult issues are faced by those in the military and the government who may be directly complicit in war crimes. Some have said no to participation in the war in Iraq and the cover-up of related criminal activity.

Specialist Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, South Dakota, joined the Eighty-second Airborne as a paratrooper in 2001. He wanted a career in the military and did a stint in Afghanistan. Then he was ordered to Iraq. "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

In September 2004, Stephen Funk, a marine reservist of Filipino and Native American origin was tried for refusing to fight in Iraq. "In the face of this unjust war based on deception by our leaders, I could not remain silent. In my mind that would have been true cowardice...I spoke out so that others in the military would realize that they also have a choice and a duty to resist immoral and illegitimate orders."

In December 2004, the Hispanic sailor Pablo Paredes reported to his ship in San Diego Harbor wearing a T-shirt reading, "Like a cabinet member, I resign." Refusing to help take troops to Iraq, the Bronx native said, "I don't want to be a part of a ship that's taking three thousand marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won't come back...I'd rather do military prison time than six months of dirty work for a war that I and many others do not support. War should be an absolute last resort...Never in a million years did I imagine we would go to war with somebody who had done nothing to us."

halting war crimes

Under the principles established by the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals, those in a position to give orders are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity conducted under their authority. But responsibility does not end there. Anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent the commission of the crimes.

Crimes are ordinarily dealt with by the institutions of law enforcement. But those institutions are largely in the hands of people who may be complicit in the very crimes that need to be investigated. Can they be held accountable? Or can war criminals forever act with impunity?

The problem of a government that is ostensibly democratically elected but that defies actual accountability is one that citizens in many countries have faced at one time or another. We can take inspiration from the way citizens from Serbia to the Philippines and from Chile to Ukraine have utilized "people power" to block illegal action and force accountability on their leaders. We can similarly take inspiration from resistance to illegitimate authority in our own country from the American Revolution to the Watergate investigations that ultimately brought the Nixon administration to account for its criminal abuse of power.

in the name of democracy

If war crimes are being committed, they are being committed in the name of democracy. Their ostensible purpose is to extend democracy throughout the world. They are committed by a country that proudly proclaims itself the world's greatest democracy.
Such acts in Iraq and elsewhere represent, on the contrary, the subversion of democracy. They reflect the imposition by violence and brutality of a rule that is not freely chosen. Such acts also represent a subversion of democracy at home. They represent a presidency that has denied all accountability to Congress, courts, or international institutions. As Elizabeth Holtzman puts it: "The claim that the President...is above the law strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It was the centerpiece of President Richard Nixon's defense in Watergate-a defense that was rejected by the courts and lay at the foundation of the articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee." It denies the constitutional constraints that have made the United States a government under law. It subverts democracy in the name of democracy.

War crimes represent the defiance not only of international but also of U.S. law. The effort to halt them is at once a movement for peace and a struggle for democracy.


visualizing the entire bush cabal in orange jump suits.... and in one of their own "secret" prisons....... where the darkest of deeds take place.

.........idle musings..(but hopeful)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Fallujah Massacre- hidden war crimes

November 7, 2005

IRAQ: ITALIAN TV ALLEGES U.S. USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN FALLUJAH

Rome, 7 Nov. (AKI) - A documentary to be aired on Tuesday by Italian state satellite TV channel RAI News 24 alleges that US troops used chemical weapons during their assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November last year. The documentary - 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' - uses witness accounts from former US soldiers, Fallujah residents, video footage and photographs, to support its claim that contrary to US State Department denials, white phosphorous was used indiscriminately on the city, causing terrible injuries to civilians, including women and children.

"I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorous was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorous burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone," says one former US solider, interviewed by the documentary's director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

"I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosophorous explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," the former soldier adds.

"A rain of fire came down on the city, and people targeted by the different coloured substances began to burn. We found people dead, with strange injuries, with their clothes intact," a biologist from Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji tells Ranucci.

The evidence in 'Fallujah - the hidden massacre' claims to show the US forces did not use phosphorous in the legitimate way - to highlight enemy positions - but dropped the substance indiscriminately on the city, and on a massive scale. The documentary also shows the terrible damage wrought by the US bombardment of Fallujah, and the carnage to civilians, some of whom lay sleeping.

Equally disturbingly, a document in the report claims to prove that the U.S. forces have used the MK77 form of Napalm - the chemical used with devastating effect on civilians during the Vietnam war - on civilians in Iraq.

"I had gathered testimonials on the use of phosphorous and Napalm in Iraq from several refugees from Fallujah, and wanted to tell the world about it, but my kidnappers would not allow me to," said Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, held hostage in Iraq earlier this year, during the documentary.

The use of white phosophorous and Napalm is prohibited by UN conventions. Moroever, the United States signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997


some of the photographic evidence. (if this makes anyone uncomfortable........then protest against any war/bush crimes with all your might )

picture deleted
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

by Peter Popham, The Independent [London, UK]

Nov. 8, 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumors have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."

In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the Usinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 meters is done for."

Photographs on the website of RAI TG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Center of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, color close- ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelized or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-colored substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."

The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Meanwhile, five US soldiers from the elite 75th Ranger Regiment have been charged with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.

The news came as a suicide car bomber killed four American soldiers at a checkpoint south of Baghdad yesterday.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

I did not see you posted this story. I posted it in another thread but never the less, the american government is scum for doing this.

They bitch about how Saddam did it but they are no better. A country like America in theory should set an example, not follow the lead of what dictatorship country would do. But I guess America is heading towards dictatorship by the looks of it anyways.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

no1important said:
I did not see you posted this story. I posted it in another thread but never the less, the american government is scum for doing this.

They bitch about how Saddam did it but they are no better. A country like America in theory should set an example, not follow the lead of what dictatorship country would do. But I guess America is heading towards dictatorship by the looks of it anyways.

ya know what I think now.........the US is the LEADER in cruelty and people like SH learn from them. (albeit add their own twist to it.) The fecking u.s. knew what SH was doing all along......and ignored it......or supported it as long as it suited their purpose. They cannot be trusted as they will turn on their best friend if their agenda calls for it. Nothing humane about the current u.s.. nor is there anything civilized.

then bush has the audacity to say "we don't do torture". IDIOT......and his sheeple actually believe him. They would believe him before any of the evidence that has been coming out. STUPIDITY of the lowest order.

(if that is a tad emphatic .....so be it. Fact remains.......personally , I abhor LIERS, murders, elective wars of choice and torture........no matter who does it.......but when a nation that "claims" to be progressive, "moral"..... and gosh even "Christian" does this kind of thing........then it becomes visceral. The hypocracy is appalling. How can anyone in their right mind respect this kind of society /gov't.???

oh well........Rome fell too. The only concern is who and how many with the u.s. take down with them??? If it implodes .......that is one thing......but an explosion could affect this planet now.

Some of us still treasure life and the world around us......so when this kind of maliciousness is happening...... it affects the quality of ones life. Yet to ignore it ......is to stay in the dark. (which seems the favored u.s. method. rendering a vast number of mushroom-people)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

The reporting of the Iraqi death toll - both in its scale and account of who is doing the killing - is profoundly dishonest

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 8, 2005
The Guardian


We were told that the Iraqis don't count. Before the invasion began, the head of US central command, General Thomas Franks, boasted that "we don't do body counts". His claim was repeated by Donald Rumsfeld in November 2003 ("We don't do body counts on other people") and the Pentagon last January ("The only thing we keep track of is casualties for US troops and civilians").
But it's not true. Almost every week the Pentagon claims to have killed 50 or 70 or 100 insurgents in its latest assault on the latest stronghold of the ubiquitous monster Zarqawi. In May the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that his soldiers had killed 250 of Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" (or so 500 of his best friends had told him). But last week, the Pentagon did something new. Buried in its latest security report to Congress is a bar chart labelled "average daily casualties - Iraqi and coalition. 1 Jan 04-16 Sep 05". The claim that it kept no track of Iraqi deaths was false.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report does not explain what it means by casualty, or if its figures represent all casualties, only insurgents, or, as the foregoing paragraph appears to hint, only civilians killed by insurgents. There is no explanation of how the figures were gathered or compiled. The only accompanying text consists of the words "Source: MNC-I", which means Multi-National Corps - Iraq. We'll just have to trust them.
What the chart shows is that these unexplained casualties have more than doubled since the beginning of the Pentagon's survey. From January to March 2004, 26 units of something or other were happening every day, while in September 2005 the something or other rose to 64. But whatever it is that's been rising, the weird morality of this war dictates that it is reported as good news. Journalists have been multiplying the daily average of mystery units by the number of days, discovering that the figure is lower than previous estimates of Iraqi deaths, and using it to cast doubts on them. As ever, the study in the line of fire is the report published by the Lancet in October last year.

It was a household survey - of 988 homes in 33 randomly selected districts - and it suggested, on the basis of the mortality those households reported before and after the invasion, that the risk of death in Iraq had risen by a factor of 1.5; somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 extra people had died, with the most probable figure being 98,000. Around half the deaths, if Falluja was included, or 15% if it was not, were caused by violence, and the majority of those by attacks on the part of US forces.

In the US and the UK, the study was either ignored or torn to bits. The media described it as "inflated", "overstated", "politicised" and "out of proportion". Just about every possible misunderstanding and distortion of its statistics was published, of which the most remarkable was the Observer's claim that: "The report's authors admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja, which has been plagued by fierce fighting. Strip out Falluja, as the study itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced dramatically." In fact, as they made clear on page one, the authors had stripped out Falluja; their estimate of 98,000 deaths would otherwise have been much higher.

But the attacks in the press succeeded in sinking the study. Now, whenever a newspaper or broadcaster produces an estimate of civilian deaths, the Lancet report is passed over in favour of lesser figures. For the past three months, the editors and subscribers of the website Medialens have been writing to papers and broadcasters to try to find out why. The standard response, exemplified by a letter from the BBC's online news service last week, is that the study's "technique of sampling and extrapolating from samples has been criticised". That's true, and by the same reasoning we could dismiss the fact that 6 million people were killed in the Holocaust, on the grounds that this figure has also been criticised, albeit by skinheads. The issue is not whether the study has been criticised, but whether the criticism is valid.

As Medialens has pointed out, it was the same lead author, using the same techniques, who reported that 1.7 million people had died as a result of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That finding has been cited by Tony Blair, Colin Powell and almost every major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, and none has challenged either the method or the result. Using the Congo study as justification, the UN security council called for all foreign armies to leave the DRC and doubled the country's UN aid budget.

The other reason the press gives for burying the Lancet study is that it is out of line with competing estimates. Like Jack Straw, wriggling his way around the figures in a written ministerial statement, they compare it to the statistics compiled by the Iraqi health ministry and the website Iraq Body Count.

In December 2003, Associated Press reported that "Iraq's health ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war". According to the head of the ministry's statistics department, both the puppet government and the Coalition Provisional Authority demanded that it be stopped. As Naomi Klein has shown on these pages, when US soldiers stormed Falluja (a year ago today), their first action was to seize the general hospital and arrest the doctors. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties". After the coalition had used these novel statistical methods to improve the results, Blair told parliament that "figures from the Iraqi ministry of health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is".

Iraq Body Count, whose tally has reached 26,000-30,000, measures only civilian deaths which can be unambiguously attributed to the invasion and which have been reported by two independent news agencies. As the compilers point out, "it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media ... our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording". Of the seven mortality reports surveyed by the Overseas Development Institute, the estimate in the Lancet's paper was only the third highest. It remains the most thorough study published so far. Extraordinary as its numbers seem, they are the most likely to be true.

And what of the idea that most of the violent deaths in Iraq are caused by coalition troops? Well according to the Houston Chronicle, even Blair's favourite data source, the Iraqi health ministry, reports that twice as many Iraqis - and most of them civilians - are being killed by US and UK forces as by insurgents. When the Pentagon claims that it has just killed 50 or 70 or 100 rebel fighters, we have no means of knowing who those people really were. Everyone it blows to pieces becomes a terrorist. In July Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the US army, claimed that coalition troops had killed or captured more than 50,000 "insurgents" since the start of the rebellion. Perhaps they were all Zarqawi's closest lieutenants.

We can expect the US and UK governments to seek to minimise the extent of their war crimes. But it's time the media stopped collaborating.

interesting, isn't it?? they don't do body counts. (inference being Iraqis are just casualties and don't matter as human beings ) .........yet they are the same ones who are being so gracious in granting the Iraqis freedom (by killing /destroying).....( inference being that "free" Iraqis will be more pliable to the u.s. whims...and somehow "happier" )

convoluted does not begin to describe this criminal insanity
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
US regime used lethal gas against the Iraqi people in Fallujah




US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."


an aside....but : It sure would be nice if some of the neocons on here would acknowledge this conduct of their heros......and demonstrate a bit of humane concern. But as usual.......anything truthful/negative gets ignored.... Arrogance or denial?? or both??

quite curious.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Steel curtain” in Iraq—another US war crime
By Bill Van Auken
8 November 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Once again the US military has laid siege to an Iraqi city. Dubbed “Operation Steel Curtain,” the offensive launched by some 2,500 American troops and 1,000 US-trained Iraqi forces entered its third day Monday in the Euphrates River market town of Husaybah.

The town of 30,000 is a suburb of al-Qaim, which has about 150,000 residents, and is 200 miles northwest of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

Major US media outlets—the New York Times and CNN—have their reporters embedded with the assault troops, reporting on their progress. They uniformly talk of troops battling “al Qaeda-led insurgents” and an operation designed to halt the influx of “foreign fighters” into Iraq.

As to the impact of such a military operation upon the people who live in Husaybah, the media is relatively silent. Needless to say, none of their reporters are embedded with the men, women and children facing this onslaught.

Nonetheless, there is enough in even these reports—despite their slant toward military propaganda—to establish that the Bush administration and the Pentagon are conducting another war crime against the Iraqi people.

“U.S. forces have used Hellfire missiles and dropped 500-pound bombs on homes believed to house insurgents,” CNN reported. “Marine Capt. Brendon Heatherman said troops were clearing every home in central Husaybah, looking out for homemade bombs and ‘bad guys,’” the network added

“It’s a cesspool; it’s time for this area to get cleaned up,” Col. Stephen W. Davis, of the Second Marine Division, said of Husaybah,” the Times reported

“Some officers called in airstrikes,” the newspaper reported. “Others ordered Abrams tanks to blast away with their main cannons. ‘I got bombs; he got bombs,’ Colonel Davis said. ‘I got more bombs than he got.’”

“There had been an exodus of families during the past several weeks, officers said,” according to the Times, which added, “The Marine Corps says it plans to go through all the residences in Husaybah and the immediate area, a total of 4,000 homes.”

What are the effect of Hellfire missiles and 500-pound bombs on mudbrick Iraqi homes? What happened to those who joined the exodus from the city? What becomes of those who remain behind, when heavily armed combat troops told they are being sent into a “cesspool” kick down their doors? Neither the Times nor CNN provide any insight on such matters.

There are reports that give at least a partial answer to these questions, but they find little reflection in the American mass media.

According to the United Nations-affiliated news agency, IRIN, scores of civilians have been killed and thousands driven from their homes by the offensive against the impoverished city near the border with Syria.

“The situation is becoming critical,” Ferdous al-Abadi, spokesman for the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS) told IRIN. “People are seriously suffering.”

According to the news agency, “One doctor in al-Qaim said [on Saturday, the first day of the offensive] that the US military’s regular use of anti-personnel cluster bombs had left at least 31 dead and 44 wounded, among them women and children.”

According to the International Red Crescent Society, people began fleeing Husaybah a week before the US onslaught began, IRIN reported. It added that the relief agency’s local volunteers put the number of displaced persons at 4,000, many of whom are living in makeshift camps and tents in the desert.

The Arab satellite news agency Aljazeera reported that strikes by US warplanes in al-Jamahir, al-Risala and other Husaybah neighborhoods had demolished homes and killed or wounded dozens of people.

Quoting an Iraqi journalist, the news network reported, “The US shelling has demolished government buildings, including al-Jamahir primary school, al-Qaim preparatory school for boys, the educational supervision building, al-Qaim post office and communication centre, al-Qaim education directorate and two mosques in the city.”

The journalist added, “The city is suffering a complete lack of all of life’s basic necessities. There is no fuel and winter is upon us. There is no food and there are no services whatsoever, not even health services.” He added that ambulances cannot respond to emergencies because they face being fired upon by US forces.

The Associated Press, meanwhile, reported that “Scores of terrified Iraqis fled the besieged town of Husaybah Sunday, waving white flags and hauling their belongings to escape a second day of fighting...” The news agency added, “Residents said coalition forces warned people by loudspeakers to leave on foot because troops would fire on vehicles.”

The Pentagon chose to launch the offensive on the final day of Eid al-Fitr, a three-day festival that is one of Islam’s principal holidays. The Washington Post, which had an Iraqi correspondent in Baquba, spoke by cell phone to a 45-year-old government employee as he trudged out of Husaybah with his wife and three children: “We are in the third day of Eid,” he said “We are leaving the town not for fun but to save ourselves from death. Instead of having my family for a picnic in an amusement park, I am taking them out of the town, walking and expecting death every moment. Let Bush see how he created a generation that hates the Americans.”

The violence unleashed against Husaybah follows a series of bombing raids against neighboring al-Qaim on October 31. The US military said that the air raids involved the use of “precision guided munitions” and destroyed two “terrorist safe houses.”

According to a doctor in the city, however, the bombs killed and injured scores of people and made hundreds homeless. The local hospital put the number of dead at 43, including a large number of women and children. A local tribal leader insisted that there were no “terrorists” in either the demolished homes or the surrounding neighborhood.

Once again, Washington claims that it is unleashing murderous firepower in order to defeat “Al Qaeda” and “foreign fighters.” It was the same a year ago in Fallujah, when it could claim to have killed only 35 such “foreigners”—Arabs who share with the Iraqis a common language, culture and history of struggle against foreign imperialist oppression—out of some 2,000 people massacred there.

While the US military has reported arresting hundreds in Husaybah, it has given no indication as to the nationality of those detained. The Associated Press indicated that the prisoners were members of “a pro-insurgent Iraqi tribe.” No doubt, if the Pentagon could identify Syrian or other “foreign” fighters, it would do so to further the Bush administration’s lying claim that the struggle in Iraq is one being waged to defeat “terrorism.”

This is clearly not the case. The US occupation forces are waging a dirty colonial war against the Iraqi people with the purpose of suppressing mass opposition to the country’s subjugation.

The methods that are being employed in Husaybah, like those used in Fallujah a year ago, constitute war crimes under the terms of the Geneva Conventions and the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials of the leaders of Germany’s Nazi regime.

In defending the administration’s policy in Iraq before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared: “Our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions.”

In reality, this strategy has been reduced to “clearing” cities with massive violence, only to see resistance reemerge as soon as the operation has ended. This is the third such major offensive that the American military has conducted in the area in the last few months. Last May, the Pentagon declared “Operation Matador” a success, and then it launched two such offensives—“Operation Iron Fist” and “Operation River Gate” in the same area a month ago.

The New York Times article acknowledged in a rare moment of candor that it is “as hard as ever for the Americans to win widespread support among the people.” As Colonel Davis told the paper, “We don’t do a lot of hearts and minds out here because it’s irrelevant.”

Meanwhile, one US marine was shot to death in Husaybah and another four US soldiers were killed south of Baghdad Monday when a suicide car bomber drove into a checkpoint they were manning. These latest casualties bring the total number of American soldiers killed since the war began to 2055. Twenty-six troops have been killed in the first week of November alone, a rate that is on track for making the month the deadliest since last year.

just another war crime in everyday bushregime &business as usual.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Randi Rhodes show

Scroll down a little and there is a link to some of the photo's from the use of chemical weapons on Iraqi's by US.

The pictures are "sickening" "upsetting" and can be "disturbing", so look at your own risk.

I linked to her site and you can scroll down and click the link "graphic, gruesome photos" to go to picture site if you really want to see them. Not pretty, thats why I did not do a direct link.

Link to RAI News 24, the all-news Italian satellite television channel video with english commentary Graphic images so be warned.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Bushevism: The Dirty Little Secrets That Everybody Knows

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

As for today's news, we have the Orwellian -- actually, beyond Orwellian -- Bush claim that his administration doesn't torture people (despite all the overwhelming proof to the contrary), but that he needs Congress to let him and his Cheney Busheviks continue torturing people. We guess the people in "What's the Matter with Kansas" who support these psychotic Republicans are nodding their heads and muttering, "makes good sense to me."

It shows that we're not just leaving lots of children behind; damn, we've left boatloads of adults behind in the brain game.

On top of that, there is now proof of what we've long suspected and commented on. The Busheviks are performing crimes against the Iraqi civilian population as bad or worse than the ones that the Busheviks keep using to justify their invasion of Iraq: i.e., Saddam gassed some of his own people (with Rumsfeld's nod and wink and the rest of the Republican administration at the time). Proof has now emerged that the White House dropped phosphorous bombs and, perhaps, a variation of napalm on civilians in Fallujah, and probably other cities it laid under siege -- and that's just what we can prove at the moment.

In short, we used Weapons of Mass Destruction against the civilians of a nation that we claimed we invaded to save these same civilians -- and us --from Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out not to exist in that country -- until Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld dropped them on residents from American planes. Got it?

If these aren't war crimes, what are? How can we continue to allow the barbarians to rule in the White House? Who will perform fellatio on Bush and Cheney so that we can get them impeached? William Kristol is a good candidate.

This has gotten beyond the revolting stage. We are in a parallel universe of lies, deception and macabre horror.

Who will save the good name of the United States from these horrible people? Who will protect us from the Armageddon they are precipitating to the glee of their fundamentalist base? Who will hold them accountable for their treason and treachery?

Harry Reid had one good day when he forced the Senate into secret session. Is that all we get?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
"November 10, 2005
The Last Lie of the Iraq War Exposed

by Paul Sperry
"Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

"Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgment day comes, yeah."
- Black Sabbath, "War Pigs" (1970)

It seems like only yesterday U.S. deaths in Iraq had reached the grim milestone of 2,000. Now they're already up to 2,055, reminding us all that the only ones really paying for this dishonest war are young GIs, with their lives and limbs.

The White House and its shameless surrogates continue to try to squelch criticism over the soaring body count by saying it dishonors and demoralizes the troops on the ground over there. In other words, if you don't support the war, you don't support the troops.

Excuse me, but who doesn't support the troops? The war pigs need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Let's not forget it was the secretary of defense who told them to stop whining about missing Humvee armor, and then minimized their brutal roadside deaths by comparing them to random U.S. highway traffic fatalities on the Sean Hannity radio show last year.

For that matter, Donald Rumsfeld's deputy couldn't even remember how many of their soldiers had been killed in action.

Asked about the toll at a House hearing last year, during the deadliest month at that time for American troops, Paul Wolfowitz sat there with his face flapping. "It's approximately 500 … I can get the exact numbers," he stammered. He was off by nearly 250 soldiers – 250 brave Americans who left behind grieving mothers, fathers, wives, children – for what?

But Wolfowitz no doubt was thinking of other "metrics," as he's fond of saying, such as how many more pawns he'd need to make the Middle East safe for Israel. Never mind that the bastards who attacked this country are still on the loose.

Rumsfeld is so out of touch with fallen soldiers, he used a machine to sign his name to letters of condolence to the families of the first 1,000 service members who died in Iraq. He stopped only after he was caught.

Certainly their commander-in-chief is less callous, right? Fat chance. After sending troops into a shooting gallery with bull's-eyes on their backs, he egged on their killers from the safety of the White House with the cry, "Bring 'em on." He no doubt said the same thing about the VC while knocking back bourbons in Alabama.

We've already taken more casualties than in the first three years of Nam. In fact, just by wounding more than 15,000 of our soldiers, the Iraqi insurgents have taken out a full Army division.

And these aren't flesh wounds. These soldiers have had arms and legs ripped from joints, eyeballs blown from sockets, and skulls crushed in, permanently damaging gray matter. These wounded won't be going back for another tour. They face a lifetime of painful rehab and depression.

For what? To capture Osama bin Laden? No. To keep WMD out of his hands? No. To protect America? No. To liberate Iraq? No. The only thing that's been liberated is Islamic fundamentalism from under the thumb of secular Saddam Hussein. The new Iraqi constitution contains all the provisions necessary for an Islamic state, including Article 2: "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established." Praise Allah.

And the insurgency is not going to die with this election, or any election, so long as we're over there. Listen to near-amputee Terry Rodgers tell it:

"There's always gonna be insurgents trying to blow us up. There's just too many of 'em that are willing to do it. You're never gonna catch all of 'em. And it seems like they have unlimited amounts of ammunition. So I don't think it's ever gonna end."

Rodgers, who was maimed by a roadside bomb while on patrol with the Army, is so mad at Bush for "getting people killed and mutilated for no reason" that he's refused to see him in the few times the president has visited Walter Reed Hospital. And Bush hadn't even tried to visit amputees, or attend funerals, before his reelection campaign.

But he had plenty of time to attend a black-tie dinner in Washington to joke about getting people killed and mutilated for no reason. "Nope, no WMDs there," he quipped to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on a slide showing him looking under White House furniture. Ha, ha.

Last year, an equally glib Bush was spotted taking in a baseball game with Rice just after wires reported several female marines were killed in an Iraq ambush that shocked the nation. That didn't seem to faze either of them. Cameras caught Bush and his gal pal Condi yucking it up in a VIP box. It's apparently all one big game to them.

The last lie of Iraq has been exposed – that Bush and the neocons care about the troops they sent needlessly into harm's way in Iraq. This is the ultimate betrayal.

Now, more than 160,000 are deployed there as sitting ducks, and an increasing number will be picked off, as the insurgents perfect their methods and their attacks grow bolder and deadlier.

And when the death toll tops 3,000, it will mark a most tragic irony in U.S. history. Three thousand brave American soldiers died avenging the murder of 3,000 of their fellow Americans – all on the wrong front, thanks to the war pigs who sent them there."




WAR PIGS INDEED!!
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: BushCo crimes - lets

Karlin said:
what happened to the format here?
It is so wide... that long URL is doing it ?
Solutions?

Karlin

When you have a very long URL it is best to go to www.tinyurl.com and enter your long URL for a shorter one.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Re:Update- Babs [Streisand] says IMPEACH THE PRES.!!!

http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#ifnotnowwhen

Barbara Streisand has several statements at the link about the White HouseCabal , and she is demanding they be slammed for their evil deeds.

She will join the growing crowd of important or famous people who want Bush impeached [not the least of whom is I, lol].


Karlin

BTW - I am at Tiny Urls site, tq for that hint, I will try it after I post this update mopghrabi