Dust off the Nuremberg Files

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Perhaps they may be needed again for both Bush & Blair along with their cohorts.

Dust off the Nuremberg Files

By Anwaar Hussain

06/20/05 - - At Nuremberg, in early October 1945, the four prosecuting nations -- the United States, Great Britain, France and Russia -- issued an indictment against 24 men and six organizations of the Nazi Germany. Of that 24 only 21 eventually sat down in the trial. The individual defendants were charged not only with the systematic murder of millions of people, but also with planning and carrying out the war in Europe. Twelve Nazi officials were sentenced to be hanged, three sentenced to life in prison, four were given prison sentences of 10-20 years, and the rest were acquitted.

Presently, the ongoing American and British slaughter of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians constitutes a blatant war crime. Average legal skills should be able to prove that a similar case for the prosecution against the current coalition leaders can easily be constructed on comparable lines.

In September 2004, the incumbent UN Chief Kofi Annan made a very clear statement. Talking to BBC Annan said "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." Being the UN Chief, and the custodian of International law, he should have known what he was talking about.

The consequent unlawful war of aggression, the killing of civilians and abuse of prisoners constitute war crimes as clearly as the UN Chief's statement.

Here are the Nuremberg Trial indictments.

The Nuremberg Trial Counts One & Two: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War and Waging Aggressive War. The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes. Accusation for Count Two was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

Abundant evidence is now available that shows that leaders and advisers of the Bush and Blair administrations engaged in "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression." Iraq posed no threat to either the United States or Britain. Its government had neither the means nor the intent of waging war against these countries; nor did it issue any threat to them. It possessed no WMDs.

The events now bear out that the US administration had plans ready well before the 9/11 crime to not only invade Iraq, but also target much if not all of the Middle East. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and presidential advisor David Gergen have confirmed that. The war of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," was planned well over a decade earlier. All alibis put forward by Bush administration for the Iraqi invasion, and the resultant near-genocidal massacre, have now been fully exposed as fraudulent motives.

link to balance of article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9218.htm
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,052
7,604
113
Room 112
All I can say is pure rubbish. This clown Hussain has a track record of spewing anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-west propoganda, at least since the Persian Gulf War. WoodPeckr, stop wasting our time posting this useless crap.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Anwaar Hussain

Anwaar Hussain is an ex-F-16 fighter pilot from Pakistan Air Force. A Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad, he now resides in UAE. He started writing as a hobby not very far back and has, since then, published a series of articles in Defense Journal, South Asia Tribune and a host of other web portals. Other than international affairs, Anwaar Hussain has written extensively on religious and political issues that plague Pakistan.
http://www.paktribune.com/news/authorscenter.php?id=63

K,
Yeah sorry. My mistake for not getting it cleared first by Faux news or Rush Limbaugh's Lobotomy/cheerleading network........ :rolleyes:
In any event there is a whole other world out there, where some people even believe in international laws and such. But when you are on a unilateral roll/crusade blindly marching in lockstep to the chief cowboy hegemon from Crawford Tx, things like that just don't matter.......they just git in the way.
 

Mcluhan

New member
K,
Yeah sorry. My mistake for not getting it cleared first by Faux news or Rush Limbaugh's Lobotomy/cheerleading network........ :rolleyes:
In any event there is a whole other world out there, where some people even believe in international laws and such. But when you are on a unilateral roll/crusade blindly marching in lockstep to the chief cowboy hegemon from Crawford Tx, things like that just don't matter.......they just git in the way.
This is probably a dumb question, but i'll ask it anyway...maybe someone with a more conservative background can provide a correct answer. What does one call it when a country (or two) invades another country in this day and age, without UN sanction, in contravention of International law, unprovoked, and kills 100,000 civilians... is there some other word than a "Crime"?

And if the invading country justifies the operation on legal and moral grounds by falsifying the facts and the reasons for the invasion, does this make a difference?

Wondering
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
Mcluhan said:
This is probably a dumb question, but i'll ask it anyway...maybe someone with a more conservative background can provide a correct answer. What does one call it when a country (or two) invades another country in this day and age, without UN sanction, in contravention of International law, unprovoked, and kills 100,000 civilians... is there some other word than a "Crime"?

And if the invading country justifies the operation on legal and moral grounds by falsifying the facts and the reasons for the invasion, does this make a difference?

Wondering
Hmm... that is an easy answer, even for K... It all depends on who the invader is a friend or a foe! :rolleyes:
 
B

belgiumcdn

Winners

You can't hold victor's to any law so unless the Iraq's or the Un can defeat the British US coalition any chance of war crimes being held agianst them are not going to happen.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
In September 2004, the incumbent UN Chief Kofi Annan made a very clear statement. Talking to BBC Annan said "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." Being the UN Chief, and the custodian of International law, he should have known what he was talking about.
Earth to internationalists: You make these claims from one side of your mouth and entreat America to serve as the enforcement muscle of so-called "international law" and other pet projects of the UN from the other. But who enforces the laws, can also break them. Anything else is a theocratic pipe-dream. Who's going to enforce "international law" against the enforcer ? God ? His representative Pope Kofi Anann ? :rolleyes:

In English, this is covered by an old aphorism concerning the relationship between having your cake and eating it...
 

Mcluhan

New member
Truncador said:
But who enforces the laws, can also break them.

QUOTE]

So...this is a built in exception/priviledge to the rule? USA and UK gets to break international law but France doesn't. And we should just all accept that, because, well, that's just the way it is.

Glad you recognize God's impotence anyway.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Mcluhan said:
So...this is a built in exception/priviledge to the rule? USA and UK gets to break international law but France doesn't. And we should just all accept that, because, well, that's just the way it is.
Pretty much, yeah. It's not such a bad deal deal, either. Actually a pretty good one compared to the alternative.
 

Mcluhan

New member
Truncador said:
Pretty much, yeah. It's not such a bad deal deal, either. Actually a pretty good one compared to the alternative.
Trunc, I have to agree with you here. (oh the pain), it's an imperfect world. I'd rather live in a Washington Mob controlled imperfect world than one controlled by the Russian mob... Actually, If I had a chice I would prefer Spanish rule, because the Spanish legal system is so mucked up, that nothing would ever be resolved by the courts and a state of anarchy would almost prevail...and men would get their most of their rights back..
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
The US, UK, France, Russia and China have UN Security Council vetoes. This means that they have all the rights of a Sovereign within that body, more properly it means that they make, not break, any international law concerning their rights to action. Just where is the UN SC resolution condemning the Iraq war as illegal? This wasn't even attempted, as all concerned parties knew that two vetoes would have prevented the resolution from passing. Same was the case with France's recent war against Serbia - France went ahead without approval because of the Russian veto and was immune, more correctly Sovereign, because of her own veto.

President Bush should have reprimanded the arrogant crackhead Annan for his outburst: the phrase "Says who exactly?" comes to mind.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Mcluhan said:
Actually, If I had a chice I would prefer Spanish rule, because the Spanish legal system is so mucked up, that nothing would ever be resolved by the courts and a state of anarchy would almost prevail...and men would get their most of their rights back..
Also, in the Spanish-speaking world the preponderance of do-gooders trying to save the citizen from himself with a torment of seat-belt laws, smoking bans, sin taxes, exhortations against unsafe sex and fatty foods, etc. is much lower.
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
Outrageous!

Dirty heathen Spanish bastards!

A US invasion is needed now!

Clean up this back country government and their flawed ideas. I say invade all Spanish speaking countries and make them wear seatbelts while eating Big Macs.

That's the way of the world and they gotta learn.

Conform bitches! It's the new bible baby!
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
Peeping Tom said:
The US, UK, France, Russia and China have UN Security Council vetoes. This means that they have all the rights of a Sovereign within that body, more properly it means that they make, not break, any international law concerning their rights to action. Just where is the UN SC resolution condemning the Iraq war as illegal? This wasn't even attempted, as all concerned parties knew that two vetoes would have prevented the resolution from passing. Same was the case with France's recent war against Serbia - France went ahead without approval because of the Russian veto and was immune, more correctly Sovereign, because of her own veto.

President Bush should have reprimanded the arrogant crackhead Annan for his outburst: the phrase "Says who exactly?" comes to mind.
The UN Charter itself(the grandaddy of all resolutions and treaties) makes the Iraq war, or any pre-emptive war, illegal. It's that simple.
 

Mcluhan

New member
Truncador said:
Also, in the Spanish-speaking world the preponderance of do-gooders trying to save the citizen from himself with a torment of seat-belt laws, smoking bans, sin taxes, exhortations against unsafe sex and fatty foods, etc. is much lower.
<Sigh>... yes, don't remind me.. not to mention the ubiquity of ho-houses, easier to find than a gas station. Another point, their society is about 100 times more polite AND friendlier than ours (less so in mother Spain). People in North America are very uptight by comparision. Could be that afternoon siesta....or maybe it's all that sex.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,052
7,604
113
Room 112
Mcluhan said:
Truncador said:
But who enforces the laws, can also break them.

QUOTE]

So...this is a built in exception/priviledge to the rule? USA and UK gets to break international law but France doesn't. And we should just all accept that, because, well, that's just the way it is.

Glad you recognize God's impotence anyway.
France (and Germany) broke int'l law when they started supplying Iraq with weapons after the Persian Gulf war, in direct contravention to the U.N. arms embargo. So don't even go that route.
 

Mcluhan

New member
K Douglas said:
France (and Germany) broke int'l law when they started supplying Iraq with weapons after the Persian Gulf war, in direct contravention to the U.N. arms embargo. So don't even go that route.
It was, sir knave, a polite rhetorical question. But as you wish to further debate the obvious, read the following, and then slide your stately point back into the context of meaninglessness. (along with mine)

G8 still selling weapons to worst regimes
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,052
7,604
113
Room 112
Mcluhan said:
This is probably a dumb question, but i'll ask it anyway...maybe someone with a more conservative background can provide a correct answer. What does one call it when a country (or two) invades another country in this day and age, without UN sanction, in contravention of International law, unprovoked, and kills 100,000 civilians... is there some other word than a "Crime"?

And if the invading country justifies the operation on legal and moral grounds by falsifying the facts and the reasons for the invasion, does this make a difference?

Wondering
Yes it is a dumb question but let me comment anyway. In normal times I would object to one country invading another if they were not directly threatened. But these aren't normal times. 9/11 ensured that. In the past few years we have seen a significant polarization of the world's larger countries. On one side you have a majority of Europe - led by France and Germany, Russia and China vs. the U.S. the U.K. Japan and Australia. Canada would lie somewhere in the middle. This has caused the U.N. to be largely ineffective in developing solutions to geopolitical conflicts. (On a side note I don't think John Bolton is the answer to U.N. reform, thats like putting gasoline on a fire.)
The fact that the U.N. is in a state of paralysis led to the U.S. and U.K taking action against Iraq without U.N. approval (read Security Council members France, Russia and China). Its also important to note that many other countries supported the invasion - Australia, Japan, S Korea, Poland, Spain, Ukraine, Slovakia, Greece, Turkey to name a few.
Another distortion in your post is that the US has killed 100,000 civilians - insurgents are not civilians. While true that many civilians are dying due to the war, the prime responsibility for those deaths is the former Baathist Bastards under Hussein and their loyalist insurgents who are shamelessly suicide bombing innocent civilians. Thats the real crime.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,052
7,604
113
Room 112
Mcluhan said:
It was, sir knave, a polite rhetorical question. But as you wish to further debate the obvious, read the following, and then slide your stately point back into the context of meaninglessness. (along with mine)

G8 still selling weapons to worst regimes
To put Israel on that list of human rights abusers along with the likes of Burma, Sudan, the Congo, Pakistan etc. is downright scandalous. And how in the hell does Canada supply the Saudi military when we can't even supply our own troops with necessary equipment. Too bad the opinion scars the underlying message which is true - that the G8 nations need to be more accountable to who they deal weapons to.
 

Mcluhan

New member
K Douglas said:
Too bad the opinion scars the underlying message which is true - that the G8 nations need to be more accountable to who they deal weapons to.
lol...and who exactly do you propose that would be? ...each other?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts