Iraq invasion called illegal at U.K. inquiry
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
This hasn't been covered yet.
International arrest warrants have been requested for George W. Bush, Richard (Dick) Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales at the International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands.
Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champain, United States of America, has issued a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court against the above-mentioned for their practice of “extraordinary rendition” (forced disappearance of persons and subsequent torture) in Iraq and for criminal policy which constitutes Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute which set up the ICC.
As such, the Accused (mentioned above) are deemed responsible for the commission of crimes within the territories of many States signatories of the Rome Statute, in violation of Rome Statute Articles 5 (1)(b), 7 (1)(a), 7 (1)(e), 7 (1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)8i) and 7(1)(k). Despite the fact that the USA is not a signatory State, the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute under Article 12 (2)(a) of the Rome Statute.
War Criminals: Arrest Warrants Requested - Pravda.Ru
International arrest warrants have been requested for George W. Bush, Richard (Dick) Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales at the International Criminal Court, The Hague, Netherlands.
Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champain, United States of America, has issued a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court against the above-mentioned for their practice of “extraordinary rendition” (forced disappearance of persons and subsequent torture) in Iraq and for criminal policy which constitutes Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute which set up the ICC.
As such, the Accused (mentioned above) are deemed responsible for the commission of crimes within the territories of many States signatories of the Rome Statute, in violation of Rome Statute Articles 5 (1)(b), 7 (1)(a), 7 (1)(e), 7 (1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)8i) and 7(1)(k). Despite the fact that the USA is not a signatory State, the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute under Article 12 (2)(a) of the Rome Statute.
War Criminals: Arrest Warrants Requested - Pravda.Ru
Rum and water for me on my fathers advice. An old family favourite. My grandfather circumnavigated the globe several times committing atrocities for his majesty using black rum.:canada:
Seriously though I think the invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq was illegal and Bin Laden will eventually be convicted on all charges, end of story, and we'll move forward in full reverse committing many new atrocities until we reach the magic nimber.
Well the US certainly made use of it after WWII (except for the Nazis they hired to run the CIA, and NASA). Even funnier is the way the US has used the UN to bolster it's wars of aggression (through lies to the UN), but now when they are under the spotlight suddenly the UN has no authority. Guess a few swinging in the breeze will change that opinion then watch the scrambling to go from accused to protected witness status. lol
If the US doesn't sign the treaty then its not valid in the US, not the rest of the world.
I support consistent application of international treaties to all countries.
If enough countries sign an international treaty then its valid in all those countries that sign as well as the International Court of Justice. Some international treaties are considered internationally applicable even if not all countries have signed it. For example:
Back in 1994, whether Rwanda signed this treaty or not was beside the point.
Because of their strength, no country can impose international treaties on the Americans and Brits. Ultimately they must decide what to do about their Iraq war criminals. Other countries can make other choices. Hopefully, one of these war criminals makes the mistake of entering another country which recognizes international law and has the balls to take action. All war criminals including American and British ones should fear arrest and extradition to the Hague.
I would like to see justice served, not justice denied.
Anybody can request an arrest warrant against anyone else, it means nothing without the courts blessing. P.S. It will not happen, nice try though.
Yes, we did arrest and prosecute people of other nations, but unlike some of you, we had a warrant issued and followed up by actually going after those people ourselves, not hiding behind some tree cheering others on to do it. Those of you who feel so strongly about Bush and Cheney etc. Do it yourself if you feel that strongly about it.
Yes, we did arrest and prosecute people of other nations, but unlike some of you, we had a warrant issued and followed up by actually going after those people ourselves, not hiding behind some tree cheering others on to do it. Those of you who feel so strongly about Bush and Cheney etc. Do it yourself if you feel that strongly about it.
Last edited:
You keep using that word 'we' when talking about America. If America is the 'beacon for truth and justice it is the Americans who should be arresting them so they can prove they are squeaky clean by facing any/all charges. You seem to promote America's right to do anything illegal they want as long as she can use her weapons to keep her politicians away from any International Courts. lol that really is her true colors.
Yep, they invented the idea that individuals were legally culpable in an international sense after World War Two......and that was a serious mistake.
I'm with Winston.......they should have slapped a couple of hundred of the worst offenders up against the nearest wall and shot them......no trial necessary.......and left any other acts of vengence to the nations involved.
As fr the UN, it has fulfilled its Charter only twice........in Korea in 1950, and in the First Gulf War......both times it was a tool of the USA......which means it is useless as more than a debating society........
If they hadn't recognized individual responsibility that neglect would have grossly undermined the flow of sacrificial lambs by obliging national block offerings, something which the world was very tired of at the time. Individual responsibility enhances stress and fear and tension, all spices of life, and meat tenderizers they say.
You also keep saying we. We do not agree with everything that you are advocating. The we I am referring to will go after anyone we believe have done us wrong or have done something we believe is wrong. As I have said, you believe is something strong enough, go and get it done. The rest of us will judge you if your wrong, as you are trying to do.
I'm trying to get you to change your flag to an American one instead of a Canadian one, just for me. That way I can look at your replies as coming from an American defending American policy rather than being a 'traitor' to what 'Canadians' try to peddle off as an International image, in reality our foreign policy is what America decides it should be. Rather than cheer that you might want to be a little concerned about who is pulling America's strings on their foreign policy adventures of the last century.
By saying you are above all laws then you should not be condemning any Nation for what the do. If you think the world belongs to you why do you cry at all when somebody appears to fight back?
Say you use the Human Rights as defined by various UN documents as the standard to judge me (and everybody else in the world), I can live with that, like it or lump it for me. However if those rules (and punishments)apply to me and you and your 'friends' are exempt from condemnation when you disregard those rules then my obligation to follow 'your rules' goes out the window. With you flying the Canadian flag some people might take that for the Canadian view (of how sub-servant we are to Americans)
By saying you are above all laws then you should not be condemning any Nation for what the do. If you think the world belongs to you why do you cry at all when somebody appears to fight back?
Say you use the Human Rights as defined by various UN documents as the standard to judge me (and everybody else in the world), I can live with that, like it or lump it for me. However if those rules (and punishments)apply to me and you and your 'friends' are exempt from condemnation when you disregard those rules then my obligation to follow 'your rules' goes out the window. With you flying the Canadian flag some people might take that for the Canadian view (of how sub-servant we are to Americans)