Thursday, January 26, 2006

Saddam to sue Bush and Blair

Defence lawyers for Saddam Hussein Wednesday distributed copies of a lawsuit against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for destroying Iraq.

The suit accuses Bush and Blair of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar.

The Amman-based legal team had said Sunday that the ousted president intended to start legal action against the two leaders of the Iraq war in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but the text of the suit was made available Wednesday.

The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.

Bush and Blair were also accused of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment.

The lawsuit demanded that Bush and Blair appear before court to answer the charges filed against them and requested the harshest punishment in line with Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.

It also requested compensation for all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people.

Source : here


Blogger R2K said...

I hate bush the most for making me actually agree with saddam. Saddam has legitimate points here. Isnt that some crazy ish?

Bathroom Review

January 26, 2006 4:29 am  
Blogger Mea said...

The US is not party to the ICC. Thus the ICC has no jurisdiction over this case, whether Saddam wants to submit it or not.

January 26, 2006 5:28 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

Of course M thats obvious

You miss the point .

when the Ex Iraqi dictator affectionately known as the 'Butcher of Baghdad' starts calling George Bush a war criminal and he actually has a point , surely the time for this President is nearly over ....

He is being Made to look a fool now even by Saddam.

The UK is signed up to the ICC and it won't happen to blair either.

Please dont take everything I post seriously . I pressumed the fact that this would never happen was obvious to all.

January 26, 2006 6:00 am  
Blogger Wacky Wabooz said...

I am intrigued by your blog.

January 26, 2006 6:04 am  
Blogger Mea said...

Gee, you really hide behind the serious but not serious thing, huh? I feel the issue is more valuable placed on this level... would you rather I not comment on the reality and seriousness of the issues being brought? Again, don't tell me what I can and cannot say and how I can and cannot view things. However, you can tell me not to comment on your page- if you want my opinions off your page, you got it.

I am never against any investigation into any entity committing war crimes.

I do not believe the time of the President is over- it is a dictator almost no one respects, threatening a lawsuit in a court with no jurisdiction, levying accusations against a government as if its the first time they ever did anything wrong. I urge you to look deeper- look into the concept that Saddam cannot have this done in the ICC and question how the international community can be more attentive and steadfast in addressing justice in concern to war crimes violations.

January 26, 2006 6:12 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

You are welcome to say what you wish M .... why do you think I told you not to say something ?

I just said it was obvious . I really didn't think anyone would take this article seriously in the context that you did.

I mean saddam is locked up standing trial , he is not exactly going to be allowed to fly over to Holland to take B n B to court.

The serious point in this is that George Bush is war criminal he has broken the UN charter he Has broken the Geneva convention and hence he is a war criminal

There is no debate about it . It is simply a fact

But being the President of the most powerful country on earth seems to make him exempt from the standards placed on other people and countries.

Saddam is standing trial for his crimes and will almost certainly face the death penalty

George Bush will probably never stand trial for his crimes and he should

But one thing for sure . There is nothing that can be done whilst GWB is still in power so the first objective it to get him out of office by whatever mesure Americans can legally do so .

I am not telling you what to write anymore than your telling me what to post and your very over sensitive to criticism there M .

You decide whether you wish to post here its your fingers and your keyboard so as long as you are willing to abide by the simple rules (which you do) I am not going to ask you not to post !

If you were to follow your argument through you would see that the UK although signed up to the ICC would never allow such a thing to happen either

Hence the fact the the US is not signed up really has no factor in the case at all , for there is no case

There are plenty of serious attempts going on to charge George Bush with war crimes . But they are all pointless .

Nothing will be done internationally in any way shape or form . Only if Americans themselves decide such an action is needed would anything have the slightest chance of success

The time of GWB is already over with or without any of this . that is obvious to everybody I would say , we just have to wait and see which one of his many errors brings him down

It is lik watching a boxer on the ropes , you know he is going to fall , you just do not know which punch is going to give the killer blow

Please try not to take personal offense for non is intended and as noted to you on the 'cartoon of the week' thread this is no place to be over sensitive.

Now please can we try to not turn this into a personal conversation , my email is there if your ever concerned or wish to urge me of anything .

I appreciate your comment

January 26, 2006 6:44 am  
Blogger Mea said...

"he is a war criminal
There is no debate about it . It is simply a fact"

I beleive in innocent until proven guilty.

"George Bush will probably never stand trial for his crimes and he should"

I completely agree.

"the first objective it to get him out of office by whatever mesure Americans can legally do so"

I see your point- but I don't think I should just find some law Bush may fit into and work that angle. If it is possible he is guilty for something, he should be tried. I am particularly irate about our Patriot Act (which I wrote to my Senators and Reps about), the wire-tapping, the torture and the humanitarian violations. Concerning Guantanamo inmates- they have already won some legitimate ground on that in the District Courts- it is next to go to the Supreme Court and with the way our bench looks, its not looking promising for those detainees. I actually did research for a forensic psychiatrist that worked at Gitmo- so I am doing my best as an American.

"I am not telling you what to write anymore than your telling me what to post and your very over sensitive to criticism there M."

What I am trying to get at, is the fact that you post something about serious topics, so I take the serious angle and the first thing you say is why are you taking it so seriously (in a matter of words). This is silly- bottom line, post what you want and I will comment what I want- deal?

"Only if Americans themselves decide such an action is needed would anything have the slightest chance of success"

I agree with this to a certain extent. While it is our President, we have the duty to hold him accountable. But if we are talking about international iinfluence, then US citizens are not the only ones accountable. All others are accountable as well- if you were so angry and your government was your voice and this happened all over- what choice would America have? I believe we are all interconnected and if we say that one is repsonsible for the fate of many, we must also say that those many have a responsibility for contributing to that fate. I am sick of people blaming America for everything. maybe I am getting defensive- but place blame where blame is due. Don't only blame the powerful- that goes against the concepts of indivuality and innate freedom each person has. In addition, a lot of this seems to be focused on Bush being horrid. I don't hear anyone trying to get rid of Rumsfeld who has botched up just about everything. In addition, the US has not only done horrible things. We have done quite a significant amount for AIDS and spearheaded the wiping out of debt at the G8. I have never seen human rights reports and human trafficking reports more in depth than it has been under Bush. You can always see the negative, just remember there is positive as well. I do agree that the negative is quite overwhelming in this case, but to be honest, a lot of these things have been happening under many other administrations and many other countries- it is not fair to give so much credit to Bush. For example- have you looked into the Maze in the UK? Or terrorist techniques in Israel (in fact where the US learned many of the ones they are alleged to emply)?

"try not to take personal offense"

I believe it is time to explain myself. I am a very intense person. I can argue with someone on a topic at a ridiculous length for a ridiculous amount of time on every ridiculous angle. This sort of dialogue only fosters open debate and helps me and others to see another point of view- if we were lacking such insight, we would not be very capable of making competent arguments. I take none of this personally- it is a battle of words, nothing more.

January 26, 2006 7:14 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

I am pleased you don't take things personally . Of course I post what I like and you comment what you wish already .

If i think something is obvious I will say so , if you think something is shit , say so , and expect a response . I already know your an intense person . Like any web site all comments visits are noted whether anonymous or not and you have been very busy since you found us. Your new here so you are still getting used to what me and Djeb post and it will come as no surprise that the little site called terrorism news is not going to have any major impact on US politics.

Of course George bush is innocent until proven guilty as is Saddam (though not many have noticed that) but there is no denying GWB has broken the Geneva convention and the UN charter so what should we call him "a war criminal yet to be charged" ? Once charged we would call him a convicted war criminal to date he is merely a war criminal

I welcome the widest possible diversity of views here and your welcome as I have no said three times I believe , post what you like . if it was rude (which it isn't) I would delete it. If i think it is obvious I will say so. It is an open forum so post what you like and be prepared to get back whatever comes . Everyone has there own mind

As for what the world can do . we are already doing it , and we will keep doing it . Look down to the work Sen. Dick Marty is doing a few posts down. There is a message I am trying to get across in this post as there was with the cartoon but i don't tailor my posts to think of any single reader (that would be stupid) so sometimes maybe the message is not going to be noticed by you for it was not someone like you that I had in mind when i posted it.

The only thing that would concern me with your tendency to be intense is that you 'try' your best not to take over a thread (I am not saying you have) .I have repeated to you that my email is there , if you want to debate at length then create an email and send it , i will always debate along as it is sensible . here is for leaving a few comments and taking part in a collective conversation obviously.

But I find when 2 people continue to bounce back and forth on a single post with long comments it makes others feel like they are intruding and they choose not to post. With or without your point M , your welcome to post what you like. calling your point 'obvious' is really no reason to react . it is just my opinion on my own site.

Hang around , you will see me being attacked by your fellow countrymen of a right winged persuasion often and having hundreds of such attacks on here I have become direct with my style of response . so please maintain the view of not taking offense.

I can't put a little sticker on each post saying 'deadly serious' or 'now this is only partly serious' make your own judgments and I will continue to make mine.

PS yes I have looked into the maze etc and I am happy to discuss it with you but this post is on saddam, bush and blair so I will leave that for either a more personal debate or if/when me or Djeb decide to post on it

PPS if I just deleted someones comment it was an error please post again (I was trying to delete my dublicate so god knows what I deleted) , _H_ ponders why he is not asleep


January 26, 2006 8:13 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

Alex, anyone can make a valid point. Don't feel crazy.

Innocent until proven guilty? Lucky for George that "Laws are like spiders' webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape."

The man's power aside, he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter and the The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (AKA the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928) (and the Geneva conventions as _H_ mentioned) thereby violating Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America.

With regards to Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, I think the judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Corfu Channel case of 1949 fits:

The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the defects in international organization, find a place in international law. Intervention is still less admissible in the particular form it would take here; for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most powerful states and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself.

The judgement at Nuremburg was also instructive as it pertains to violations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact:

The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

If you're not up to speed on the Kellogg-Briand Pact, it was summed up by Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in 1932:

War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellog-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter, when engaged in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law... We denounce them as law breakers.

GW ordered the invasion. GW thereby violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and Articles 32 and 39 of the UN Charter. GW initiated "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The other day, someone posted something about a duck. It goes something like this: if it looks like a duck. walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then George Bush is a war criminal even if he has too much power to ever stand trial.

As for no one going after Rumsfeld, I've posted on him before and have supported organisations trying to get rid of him (and just about anyone else in the current administration; and Clinton's when he was around).

As for the G8, There is quite a bit you have not read on the 'wiping out debt' fascade. You are grabbing at straws as a result of "getting defensive." How do you define youself? By who you are, or by the actions of your government? I could tell you which I think is the wiser choice, if you would like. Until then, I'll look at you for who you are and not which state controls your life.

January 26, 2006 2:55 pm  
Blogger Mea said...

We all have different interpretations of events, but don't assume that my perspective is indicative of ignorance. In retrospect, I agree that I should not have brought up the G8, only because this post is in fact not about that.

I am not going to begin to define myself- I don't know any psychiatrist, neuroscientist, philosopher, or politician that can do any such thing for themself or any one person- I do the best I can to educate myself and stay true to certain principles and because I am not isolated, my environment and social constructs influence me to a great degree. I believe in democracy and the government has been elected to represent me. Therefore I am to some extent bound to the actions they take.

I do agree with H that these long diatribes are not right for these posts. I will look into emailing in the future, now that I know it is preferred.

January 26, 2006 5:57 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...


your comment has been deleted. If your willing to explain 'why' you believe what you do and actually supply factual information to support your claim then feel free to post again .

but please read the previous comments first

January 26, 2006 6:30 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

One can "represent" democracy as much as one can "represent" a glass of water. You either have a glass of water, or you don't. A painting of one will not go very far towards quenching your thirst.

January 27, 2006 12:16 am  
Blogger Mea said...

Nice analogy.

January 27, 2006 12:52 am  
Blogger Tyranno said...

So much moral righteousness! Were or are you also disposed to prosecute Putin for Chechnya? Chirac for Cote D'Ivoire?
Hussein for the 400,000 unidentified corpses unearthed so far? etc, etc, etc . . . .

Not at all odd that you have chosen the fashionable and preferred, safe place to vent your very selective spleen.


January 27, 2006 2:54 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

Cote D'Ivoire .... yes
Chechyna ... yes
Hussein ... yes

I have been to the middle east(including Iraq)

Now does the crimes of others prevent GWB from being a war criminal ? or does it have no base within this thread or post

let me flip the question , does the existence of Hitler mean that Saddam should not be tried for his crimes ?

whats your point ? . This is about the war crimes of GWB and TB and there is no factual denial of those crimes so I assume you accept the undeniable facts above

Now I think that answers all your questions and it seems all your points were mute

Maybe you should not judge so quickly then you would not come in all angry and end up getting everything wrong .

thanks for your 'selective spleen'

Please note: that posting was border line . personal attacks and offensive messages are deleted on this site , your welcome to comment on the posts but you have already shown your powers of prophecy when judging people to be far from accurate . Attack the comments (with facts) if you so wish but refrain from attacking the author of any post or comments as all others do on this site.

January 27, 2006 3:30 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

_H_, you beat me to it. Tyranno, yes, yes and yes.

You outta check out the site before venting your very selective spleen. Sorry about the plagiarism...

January 27, 2006 10:53 am  
Blogger Radio op said...

Personally S.Hussein should in my opinion be awaiting trial in Camp X-Ray with all the others not being tried well attempting to be tried in Iraq.
this never happened a the end of WW11 justice was meted out at Nuremburg this stupid performance is happening at the Hague with that other criminal from Bosnia or Kovosko one or the other.

January 30, 2006 11:05 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

They don't carry out trials at Camp X-Ray.

January 30, 2006 3:29 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

Also, a real trial would attempt to get at the truth, meaning that they connections between the U.S., Europe and Iraq would be thoughly exposed.

January 30, 2006 3:32 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home