Matt Wiser
February 29th 04, 01:09 PM
Ramsey Clark? Saddam's most persistent apologist-anything he writes/says is
heavily suspect. He even offered to defend the Butcher of Baghdad at his
upcoming trial. Mr. Clark would be advised to collect his fee in advance.
And get ready to defend himself on charges of aid and comfort to the enemy,
embargo violations, and (hopefully) treason. Oh, and Mr. Clark ignores the
fact that the Taliban harbored and Sheltered Al-Queda; they refused to kick
OBL and his thugs out, and paid the price. Saddam's removal did the world
a favor. Picking up the pieces is messy, but when a dictatorship is tossed
out by force, democracy takes time to take root. Hard to stomach for someone
using a bunch of Stalinsts as his supporters.
"=> Vox Populi ©" > wrote:
wrote:
>> OPEN LETTER FROM RAMSEY CLARK - to UN Secretary
>General Kofi Annan,
>> members of the UN Security Council, and Our
>'Fear and War' President
>> George Walker Bush
>>
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> January, 29, 2004
>>
>> Dear Secretary General Annan,
>>
>> U.S. President George W. Bush again confirmed
>his intention to
>> continue waging wars of aggression in his
>State of the Union message
>> on January 20, 2004.
>>
>> He began his address:
>> " As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands
>of American service men
>> and women are deployed across the world in
>the war on terror. By
>> bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering
>justice to the violent,
>> they are making America more secure."
>>
>> He proclaimed:
>> " Our greatest responsibility is the active
>defense of the American
>> people... America is on the offensive against
>the terrorists..."
>>
>> Continuing, he said:
>> " ...our coalition is leading aggressive raids
>against the surviving
>> members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.... Men
>who ran away from our
>> troops in battle are now dispersed and attack
>from the shadows."
>>
>> In Iraq, he reported:
>> " Of the top 55 officials of the former regime,
>we have captured or
>> killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive,
>leading over 1,600 patrols
>> a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids
>a week...."
>>
>> Explaining his aggression, President Bush
>stated:
>> " ...After the chaos and carnage of September
>the 11th, it is not
>> enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.
>The terrorists and
>> their supporters declared war on the United
>States and war is what
>> they got."
>>
>> Forget law. No more legal papers, or rights.
>Forget truth. The claim
>> that either Afghanistan, or Iraq declared
>war on the U.S. is absurd.
>> The U.S. chose to attack both nations, from
>one end to the other,
>> violating their sovereignty and changing their
>"regimes", summarily
>> executing thousands of men, women and children
>in the process. At
>> least 40,000 defenseless people in Iraq have
>been killed by U.S.
>> violence since the latest aggression began
>in earnest in March 2003
>> starting with its celebrated, high tech, terrorist
>"Shock and Awe" and
>> continuing until now with 25, or more, U.S.
>raids daily causing
>> mounting deaths and injuries.
>>
>> All this death-dealing aggression has occurred
>during a period, Mr.
>> Bush boasts, of "over two years without an
>attack on American soil".
>> The U.S. is guilty of pure aggression, arbitrary
>repression and false
>> portrayal of the nature and purpose of its
>violence.
>>
>> President Bush's brutish mentality is revealed
>in his condemnations of
>> the "killers" and "thugs in Iraq" "who ran
>away from our troops in
>> battle". U.S. military expenditures and technology
>threaten and
>> impoverish life on the planet. Any army that
>sought to stand up
>> against U.S. air power and weapons of mass
>destruction in open battle
>> would be annihilated. This is what President
>Bush seeks when he says
>> "Bring 'em on."
>>
>> President Bush declared his intention to change
>the "Middle East" by
>> force.
>> " As long as the Middle East remains a place
>of tyranny and despair
>> and anger, it will continue to produce men
>and movements that threaten
>> the safety of America and our friends. So
>America is pursuing a
>> forward strategy of freedom in the greater
>Middle East. We will
>> challenge the enemies of reform, confront
>the allies of terror, and
>> expect a higher standard from our friends."
>>
>> "...America is a nation with a mission...
>we understand our special
>> calling: This great republic will lead the
>cause of freedom."
>>
>> He extended his threat to any nation he may
>choose:
>> " As part of the offensive against terror,
>we are also confronting the
>> regimes that harbor and support terrorists,
>and could supply them with
>> nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The
>United States and our
>> allies are determined: We refuse to live in
>the shadow of this
>> ultimate danger."
>>
>> President Bush's utter contempt for the United
>Nations is revealed in
>> his assertion that the United States and other
>countries "have
>> enforced the demands of the United Nations",
>ignoring the refusal of
>> the U.N. to approve a war of aggression against
>Iraq and implying the
>> U.N. had neither the courage nor the capacity
>to pursue its own
>> "demands".
>>
>> His total commitment to unilateral U.S. action,
>was asserted by
>> President Bush when he sarcastically referred
>to the "permission slip"
>> a school child needs to leave a classroom:
>> " America will never seek a permission slip
>to defend the security of
>> our people".
>>
>> President Bush intends to go it alone, because
>his interest is
>> American power and wealth alone, though he
>prefers to use the youth of
>> NATO countries and others as cannon folder
>in his wars.
>>
>> President Bush believes might makes right
>and that the end justifies
>> the means. He declares:
>> " ...the world without Saddam Husseins regime
>is a better and safer
>> place".
>>
>> So U.S. military technology which is omnicidal-
>capable of destroying
>> all life on the planet-will be ordered by
>President Bush to make the
>> world "a better and safer place" by destroying
>nations and individuals
>> he designates.
>>
>> President Bush presided over 152 executions
>in Texas, far more than
>> any other U.S. governor since World War II.
>Included were women,
>> minors, retarded persons, aliens in violation
>of the Vienna Convention
>> on Diplomatic Relations and innocent persons.
>He never acted to
>> prevent a single execution. He has publicly
>proclaimed the right to
>> assassinate foreign leaders and repeatedly
>boasted of summary
>> executions and indiscriminate killing in State
>of the Union messages
>> and elsewhere.
>>
>> The danger of Bush unilateralism is further
>revealed when he states:
>> " Colonel Qaddafi correctly judged that his
>country would be better
>> off, and far more secure without weapons of
>mass murder. Nine months
>> of intense negotiations involving the United
>States and Great Britain
>> succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy
>with Iraq did not."
>>
>> Forget diplomacy, use "intense negotiations".
>If President Bush
>> believed it was "diplomacy", which maintained
>genocidal sanctions
>> against Iraq for twelve years that failed,
>rather than an effort to
>> crush Iraq to submission, then why didn't
>he use "nine months of
>> intense negotiations" to avoid a war of aggression
>against Iraq? He
>> was President for nearly twenty seven months
>before the criminal
>> assault on Iraq, he apparently intended all
>along. Iraq was no threat
>> to anyone.
>>
>> What President Bush means by "intense negotiations"
>includes a threat
>> of military aggression with the example of
>Iraq to show this in no
>> bluff. The Nuremberg Judgment held Goerings
>threat to destroy Prague
>> unless Czechoslovakia surrendered Bohemia
>and Moravia to be an act of
>> aggression.
>>
>> If Qaddafi "correctly judged his country would
>be better off, and far
>> more secure, without weapons of mass murder",
>why would the United
>> States not be better off, and far more secure,
>if it eliminated all
>> its vast stores of nuclear weapons? Is not
>the greatest danger from
>> nuclear proliferation today without question
>President Bush's
>> violations of the Non Proliferation (NPT),
>ABM and Nuclear Test Ban
>> treaties by continuing programs for strategic
>nuclear weapons, failing
>> to negotiate in good faith to achieve "nuclear
>disarmament" after more
>> than thirty years and development of a new
>generation of nuclear
>> weapons, small "tactical" weapons of mass
>murder, which he would use
>> in a minute? Has he not threatened to use
>existing strategic nuclear
>> weapons? The failure of the "nuclear weapon
>State Party(s)" to the NPT
>> to work in good faith to achieve "nuclear
>disarmament these past 36
>> years is the reason the world is still confronted
>with the threat of
>> nuclear war and proliferation.
>>
>> None of the many and changing explanations,
>excuses, or evasions
>> offered by President Bush to justify his war
>of aggression can erase
>> the crimes he has committed. Among the less
>invidious misleading
>> statements, President Bush made on January
>20, 2004 was:
>> " Already the Kay Report identified dozens
>of weapons of mass
>> destruction-related program activities and
>significant amounts of
>> equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>Nations."
>>
>> Three days later, Dr. Kay told Reuters he
>thought Iraq had illicit
>> weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf
>War, but that by a
>> combination of U.N. inspections and Iraq's
>own decisions, "it got rid
>> of them". He further said it "is correct"
>to say Iraq does not have
>> any large stockpiles of chemical or biological
>weapons in the country.
>> He has added that no evidence of any chemical
>or biological weapons
>> have been found in Iraq.
>>
>> Iraq did not use illicit weapons in the 1991
>Gulf war. The U.S. did -
>> 900 tons plus of depleted uranium, fuel air
>explosives, super bombs,,
>> cluster bombs with civilians and civilian
>facilities the "direct
>> object of attack". The U.S. claimed to destroy
>80% of Iraq's military
>> armor. It dropped 88,500 tons of explosives,
>7 1/2 Hiroshima's, on the
>> country in 42 days. Iraq was essentially defenseless.
>Tens of
>> thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians
>perished. The U.S. reported
>> 157 casualties, 1/3 from friendly fire, the
>remainder non combat.
>>
>> U.N. inspectors over more than 6 years of
>highly intrusive physical
>> inspections found and destroyed 90% of the
>materials required to
>> manufacture nuclear, chemical and biological
>weapons. U.N. sanctions
>> imposed August 6, 1990 had caused the deaths
>of 567,000 children under
>> age five by October 1996, the U.N. FAO reported.
>Twenty four percent
>> of the infants born live in Iraq in 2002 had
>a dangerously low birth
>> weight below 2 kilos, symbolizing the condition
>of the whole
>> population.
>>
>> In March 2003 Iraq was incapable of carrying
>out a threat against the
>> U.S., or any other country, and would have
>been pulverized by U.S.
>> forces in place in the Gulf had it tried.
>>
>> More than thirty five nations admit the possession
>of nuclear,
>> chemical and/or biological weapons. Are these
>nations, caput lupinum,
>> lawfully subject to destruction because of
>their mere possession of
>> WMDs? The U.S. possesses more of each of these
>impermissible weapons
>> than all other nations combined, and infinitely
>greater capacity for
>> their delivery anywhere on earth within hours.
>Meanwhile the U.S.
>> increases its military expenditures, which
>already exceed those of all
>> other nations on earth combined, and its technology
>which is
>> exponentially more dangerous.
>>
>> The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the
>Definition of Aggression
>> of December 14, 1974 provides in part:
>> Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed
>force by a State against the
>> sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
>independence of
>> another State;
>>
>> Article 2: The first use of armed force by
>a State in contravention of
>> the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence
>of an act of
>> aggression;
>>
>> Article 3: Any of the following acts ... qualify
>as an act of
>> aggression:
>>
>> (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces
>of a State of the
>> territory of another State, or any military
>occupation, however
>> temporary, resulting from such invasion or
>attack;
>>
>> (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State
>against the territory
>> of another State or the use of any weapons
>by a State against the
>> territory of another State;
>>
>> (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of
>a State by the armed forces
>> of another State;
>>
>> (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State
>on the land, sea or air
>> forces, or marine and air fleets of another
>State.
>>
>> If the U.S. assault on Iraq is not a War of
>Aggression under
>> international law, then there is no longer
>such a crime as War of
>> Aggression. A huge, all powerful nation has
>assaulted a small
>> prostrate, defenseless people half way around
>the world with "Shock
>> and Awe" terror and destruction, occupied
>it and continues daily
>> assaults. President Bush praises U.S. soldiers'
>"...skill and their
>> courage in armored charges, and midnight raids."
>which terrorize and
>> kill innocent Iraqis, women, children, families,
>nearly every day and
>> average 180 attacks each week.
>>
>> The first crime defined in the Constitution
>annexed to the Charter of
>> the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)
>under Crimes Against
>> Peace is War of Aggression. II.6.a. The Nuremberg
>Judgment proclaimed:
>> " The charges in the indictment that the defendants
>planned and waged
>> aggressive war 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...
>>
>> The "seizure" of Austria in March 1938 and
>of Bohemia and Moravia from
>> Czechoslovakia in March 1939 following the
>threat to destroy Prague
>> were judged to be acts of aggression by the
>Tribunal even in the
>> absence of actual war and after Britain, France,
>Italy and Germany had
>> agreed at Munich to cede Czechoslovakia's
>Sudetenland to Germany.
>>
>> The first conduct judged to be a war of aggression
>by Nazi Germany was
>> its invasion of Poland in September 1939.
>There followed a long list,
>> Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium,
>Holland, Luxemburg,
>> Yugoslavia, Greece. The attack on the USSR,
>together with Finland,
>> Romania and Hungary, was adjudged as follows:
>>
>> It was contended for the defendants that the
>attack upon the U.S.S.R.
>> was justified because the Soviet Union was
>contemplating an attack
>> upon Germany, and making preparations to that
>end. It is impossible to
>> believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.
>>
>> The plans for the economic exploitation of
>the U.S.S.R., for the
>> removal of masses of the population, for the
>murder of Commissars and
>> political leaders, were all part of the carefully
>prepared scheme
>> launched on 22 June without warning of any
>kind, and without the
>> shadow of legal excuses. It was plain aggression.
>>
>> The United Nations cannot permit U.S. power
>to justify its wars of
>> aggression if it is to survive as a viable
>institution for ending the
>> scourges of war, exploitation, hunger, sickness
>and poverty.
>> Comparatively minor acts and wars of aggression
>by the United States
>> in the last 20 years, deadly enough for their
>victims, in Grenada,
>> Libya, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic,
>Sudan, Yugoslavia, Cuba,
>> Yemen with many other nations threatened,
>sanctioned, or attacked,
>> some with U.N. complicity and all without
>effective United Nations
>> resistance, made the major deadly wars of
>aggression against
>> Afghanistan and Iraq possible.
>>
>> Failure to condemn the massive U.S. war of
>aggression and illegal
>> occupation of Iraq and any U.N. act providing
>colorable legitimacy to
>> the U.S. occupation will open wide the gate
>to further, greater
>> aggression. The line must be drawn now.
>>
>> The United Nations must recognize and declare
>the U.S. attack and
>> occupation of Iraq to be the war of aggression
>it is. It must refuse
>> absolutely to justify, or condone the aggression,
>the illegal
>> occupation and the continuing U.S. assaults
>in Iraq. The U.N. must
>> insist that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq as
>it insisted Iraq withdraw
>> from Kuwait in 1990.
>>
>> There must be no impunity or profit for wars
>of aggression.
>> The U.S. and U.S. companies must surrender
>all profits and terminate
>> all contracts involving Iraq.
>>
>> There must be strict accountability by U.S.
>leaders and others for
>> crimes they have committed against Iraq and
>compensation by the U.S.
>> government for the damage its aggression has
>inflicted on Afghanistan
>> and Iraq, the peoples injured there and stability
>and harm done to
>> world peace.
>>
>> This must be done with care to prevent the
>eruption of internal
>> divisions, or violence and any foreign domination
>or exploitation in
>> Iraq. The governance of a united Iraq must
>be returned to the diverse
>> peoples who live there, acting together consensually
>in peace for
>> their common good as soon as possible.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ramsey Clark
>>
>> The identical letter has been sent to:
>> Members of the UN Security Council
>> The President of the UN General Assembly
>> The Secretary General of the UN
>> The President of the United States
>
>
>> (Please post this open letter from Ramsey
>Clark widely. On March 20
>> join Ramsey Clark and thousands of others
>in the mass protest at Times
>> Square in New York City to demand "Impeach
>Bush" and "Bring the troops
>> home now," and more. There is more information
>on the March 20
>> demonstration in New York City and those being
>held around the
>> country: http:/unitedforpeace.org/)
>--
>
>"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
>neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
>nor for that matter in Germany.
>That is understood. But, after all, it is the
>leaders
>of the country who determine the policy and
>it is always a simple matter to drag the people
>along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
>dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
>dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
>can
>always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
>That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
>they are being attacked and denounce the
>pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
>the country to danger. It works the same way
>in any country."
>
> - Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
heavily suspect. He even offered to defend the Butcher of Baghdad at his
upcoming trial. Mr. Clark would be advised to collect his fee in advance.
And get ready to defend himself on charges of aid and comfort to the enemy,
embargo violations, and (hopefully) treason. Oh, and Mr. Clark ignores the
fact that the Taliban harbored and Sheltered Al-Queda; they refused to kick
OBL and his thugs out, and paid the price. Saddam's removal did the world
a favor. Picking up the pieces is messy, but when a dictatorship is tossed
out by force, democracy takes time to take root. Hard to stomach for someone
using a bunch of Stalinsts as his supporters.
"=> Vox Populi ©" > wrote:
wrote:
>> OPEN LETTER FROM RAMSEY CLARK - to UN Secretary
>General Kofi Annan,
>> members of the UN Security Council, and Our
>'Fear and War' President
>> George Walker Bush
>>
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> January, 29, 2004
>>
>> Dear Secretary General Annan,
>>
>> U.S. President George W. Bush again confirmed
>his intention to
>> continue waging wars of aggression in his
>State of the Union message
>> on January 20, 2004.
>>
>> He began his address:
>> " As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands
>of American service men
>> and women are deployed across the world in
>the war on terror. By
>> bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering
>justice to the violent,
>> they are making America more secure."
>>
>> He proclaimed:
>> " Our greatest responsibility is the active
>defense of the American
>> people... America is on the offensive against
>the terrorists..."
>>
>> Continuing, he said:
>> " ...our coalition is leading aggressive raids
>against the surviving
>> members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.... Men
>who ran away from our
>> troops in battle are now dispersed and attack
>from the shadows."
>>
>> In Iraq, he reported:
>> " Of the top 55 officials of the former regime,
>we have captured or
>> killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive,
>leading over 1,600 patrols
>> a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids
>a week...."
>>
>> Explaining his aggression, President Bush
>stated:
>> " ...After the chaos and carnage of September
>the 11th, it is not
>> enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.
>The terrorists and
>> their supporters declared war on the United
>States and war is what
>> they got."
>>
>> Forget law. No more legal papers, or rights.
>Forget truth. The claim
>> that either Afghanistan, or Iraq declared
>war on the U.S. is absurd.
>> The U.S. chose to attack both nations, from
>one end to the other,
>> violating their sovereignty and changing their
>"regimes", summarily
>> executing thousands of men, women and children
>in the process. At
>> least 40,000 defenseless people in Iraq have
>been killed by U.S.
>> violence since the latest aggression began
>in earnest in March 2003
>> starting with its celebrated, high tech, terrorist
>"Shock and Awe" and
>> continuing until now with 25, or more, U.S.
>raids daily causing
>> mounting deaths and injuries.
>>
>> All this death-dealing aggression has occurred
>during a period, Mr.
>> Bush boasts, of "over two years without an
>attack on American soil".
>> The U.S. is guilty of pure aggression, arbitrary
>repression and false
>> portrayal of the nature and purpose of its
>violence.
>>
>> President Bush's brutish mentality is revealed
>in his condemnations of
>> the "killers" and "thugs in Iraq" "who ran
>away from our troops in
>> battle". U.S. military expenditures and technology
>threaten and
>> impoverish life on the planet. Any army that
>sought to stand up
>> against U.S. air power and weapons of mass
>destruction in open battle
>> would be annihilated. This is what President
>Bush seeks when he says
>> "Bring 'em on."
>>
>> President Bush declared his intention to change
>the "Middle East" by
>> force.
>> " As long as the Middle East remains a place
>of tyranny and despair
>> and anger, it will continue to produce men
>and movements that threaten
>> the safety of America and our friends. So
>America is pursuing a
>> forward strategy of freedom in the greater
>Middle East. We will
>> challenge the enemies of reform, confront
>the allies of terror, and
>> expect a higher standard from our friends."
>>
>> "...America is a nation with a mission...
>we understand our special
>> calling: This great republic will lead the
>cause of freedom."
>>
>> He extended his threat to any nation he may
>choose:
>> " As part of the offensive against terror,
>we are also confronting the
>> regimes that harbor and support terrorists,
>and could supply them with
>> nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The
>United States and our
>> allies are determined: We refuse to live in
>the shadow of this
>> ultimate danger."
>>
>> President Bush's utter contempt for the United
>Nations is revealed in
>> his assertion that the United States and other
>countries "have
>> enforced the demands of the United Nations",
>ignoring the refusal of
>> the U.N. to approve a war of aggression against
>Iraq and implying the
>> U.N. had neither the courage nor the capacity
>to pursue its own
>> "demands".
>>
>> His total commitment to unilateral U.S. action,
>was asserted by
>> President Bush when he sarcastically referred
>to the "permission slip"
>> a school child needs to leave a classroom:
>> " America will never seek a permission slip
>to defend the security of
>> our people".
>>
>> President Bush intends to go it alone, because
>his interest is
>> American power and wealth alone, though he
>prefers to use the youth of
>> NATO countries and others as cannon folder
>in his wars.
>>
>> President Bush believes might makes right
>and that the end justifies
>> the means. He declares:
>> " ...the world without Saddam Husseins regime
>is a better and safer
>> place".
>>
>> So U.S. military technology which is omnicidal-
>capable of destroying
>> all life on the planet-will be ordered by
>President Bush to make the
>> world "a better and safer place" by destroying
>nations and individuals
>> he designates.
>>
>> President Bush presided over 152 executions
>in Texas, far more than
>> any other U.S. governor since World War II.
>Included were women,
>> minors, retarded persons, aliens in violation
>of the Vienna Convention
>> on Diplomatic Relations and innocent persons.
>He never acted to
>> prevent a single execution. He has publicly
>proclaimed the right to
>> assassinate foreign leaders and repeatedly
>boasted of summary
>> executions and indiscriminate killing in State
>of the Union messages
>> and elsewhere.
>>
>> The danger of Bush unilateralism is further
>revealed when he states:
>> " Colonel Qaddafi correctly judged that his
>country would be better
>> off, and far more secure without weapons of
>mass murder. Nine months
>> of intense negotiations involving the United
>States and Great Britain
>> succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy
>with Iraq did not."
>>
>> Forget diplomacy, use "intense negotiations".
>If President Bush
>> believed it was "diplomacy", which maintained
>genocidal sanctions
>> against Iraq for twelve years that failed,
>rather than an effort to
>> crush Iraq to submission, then why didn't
>he use "nine months of
>> intense negotiations" to avoid a war of aggression
>against Iraq? He
>> was President for nearly twenty seven months
>before the criminal
>> assault on Iraq, he apparently intended all
>along. Iraq was no threat
>> to anyone.
>>
>> What President Bush means by "intense negotiations"
>includes a threat
>> of military aggression with the example of
>Iraq to show this in no
>> bluff. The Nuremberg Judgment held Goerings
>threat to destroy Prague
>> unless Czechoslovakia surrendered Bohemia
>and Moravia to be an act of
>> aggression.
>>
>> If Qaddafi "correctly judged his country would
>be better off, and far
>> more secure, without weapons of mass murder",
>why would the United
>> States not be better off, and far more secure,
>if it eliminated all
>> its vast stores of nuclear weapons? Is not
>the greatest danger from
>> nuclear proliferation today without question
>President Bush's
>> violations of the Non Proliferation (NPT),
>ABM and Nuclear Test Ban
>> treaties by continuing programs for strategic
>nuclear weapons, failing
>> to negotiate in good faith to achieve "nuclear
>disarmament" after more
>> than thirty years and development of a new
>generation of nuclear
>> weapons, small "tactical" weapons of mass
>murder, which he would use
>> in a minute? Has he not threatened to use
>existing strategic nuclear
>> weapons? The failure of the "nuclear weapon
>State Party(s)" to the NPT
>> to work in good faith to achieve "nuclear
>disarmament these past 36
>> years is the reason the world is still confronted
>with the threat of
>> nuclear war and proliferation.
>>
>> None of the many and changing explanations,
>excuses, or evasions
>> offered by President Bush to justify his war
>of aggression can erase
>> the crimes he has committed. Among the less
>invidious misleading
>> statements, President Bush made on January
>20, 2004 was:
>> " Already the Kay Report identified dozens
>of weapons of mass
>> destruction-related program activities and
>significant amounts of
>> equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
>Nations."
>>
>> Three days later, Dr. Kay told Reuters he
>thought Iraq had illicit
>> weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf
>War, but that by a
>> combination of U.N. inspections and Iraq's
>own decisions, "it got rid
>> of them". He further said it "is correct"
>to say Iraq does not have
>> any large stockpiles of chemical or biological
>weapons in the country.
>> He has added that no evidence of any chemical
>or biological weapons
>> have been found in Iraq.
>>
>> Iraq did not use illicit weapons in the 1991
>Gulf war. The U.S. did -
>> 900 tons plus of depleted uranium, fuel air
>explosives, super bombs,,
>> cluster bombs with civilians and civilian
>facilities the "direct
>> object of attack". The U.S. claimed to destroy
>80% of Iraq's military
>> armor. It dropped 88,500 tons of explosives,
>7 1/2 Hiroshima's, on the
>> country in 42 days. Iraq was essentially defenseless.
>Tens of
>> thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians
>perished. The U.S. reported
>> 157 casualties, 1/3 from friendly fire, the
>remainder non combat.
>>
>> U.N. inspectors over more than 6 years of
>highly intrusive physical
>> inspections found and destroyed 90% of the
>materials required to
>> manufacture nuclear, chemical and biological
>weapons. U.N. sanctions
>> imposed August 6, 1990 had caused the deaths
>of 567,000 children under
>> age five by October 1996, the U.N. FAO reported.
>Twenty four percent
>> of the infants born live in Iraq in 2002 had
>a dangerously low birth
>> weight below 2 kilos, symbolizing the condition
>of the whole
>> population.
>>
>> In March 2003 Iraq was incapable of carrying
>out a threat against the
>> U.S., or any other country, and would have
>been pulverized by U.S.
>> forces in place in the Gulf had it tried.
>>
>> More than thirty five nations admit the possession
>of nuclear,
>> chemical and/or biological weapons. Are these
>nations, caput lupinum,
>> lawfully subject to destruction because of
>their mere possession of
>> WMDs? The U.S. possesses more of each of these
>impermissible weapons
>> than all other nations combined, and infinitely
>greater capacity for
>> their delivery anywhere on earth within hours.
>Meanwhile the U.S.
>> increases its military expenditures, which
>already exceed those of all
>> other nations on earth combined, and its technology
>which is
>> exponentially more dangerous.
>>
>> The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the
>Definition of Aggression
>> of December 14, 1974 provides in part:
>> Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed
>force by a State against the
>> sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
>independence of
>> another State;
>>
>> Article 2: The first use of armed force by
>a State in contravention of
>> the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence
>of an act of
>> aggression;
>>
>> Article 3: Any of the following acts ... qualify
>as an act of
>> aggression:
>>
>> (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces
>of a State of the
>> territory of another State, or any military
>occupation, however
>> temporary, resulting from such invasion or
>attack;
>>
>> (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State
>against the territory
>> of another State or the use of any weapons
>by a State against the
>> territory of another State;
>>
>> (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of
>a State by the armed forces
>> of another State;
>>
>> (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State
>on the land, sea or air
>> forces, or marine and air fleets of another
>State.
>>
>> If the U.S. assault on Iraq is not a War of
>Aggression under
>> international law, then there is no longer
>such a crime as War of
>> Aggression. A huge, all powerful nation has
>assaulted a small
>> prostrate, defenseless people half way around
>the world with "Shock
>> and Awe" terror and destruction, occupied
>it and continues daily
>> assaults. President Bush praises U.S. soldiers'
>"...skill and their
>> courage in armored charges, and midnight raids."
>which terrorize and
>> kill innocent Iraqis, women, children, families,
>nearly every day and
>> average 180 attacks each week.
>>
>> The first crime defined in the Constitution
>annexed to the Charter of
>> the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)
>under Crimes Against
>> Peace is War of Aggression. II.6.a. The Nuremberg
>Judgment proclaimed:
>> " The charges in the indictment that the defendants
>planned and waged
>> aggressive war 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...
>>
>> The "seizure" of Austria in March 1938 and
>of Bohemia and Moravia from
>> Czechoslovakia in March 1939 following the
>threat to destroy Prague
>> were judged to be acts of aggression by the
>Tribunal even in the
>> absence of actual war and after Britain, France,
>Italy and Germany had
>> agreed at Munich to cede Czechoslovakia's
>Sudetenland to Germany.
>>
>> The first conduct judged to be a war of aggression
>by Nazi Germany was
>> its invasion of Poland in September 1939.
>There followed a long list,
>> Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium,
>Holland, Luxemburg,
>> Yugoslavia, Greece. The attack on the USSR,
>together with Finland,
>> Romania and Hungary, was adjudged as follows:
>>
>> It was contended for the defendants that the
>attack upon the U.S.S.R.
>> was justified because the Soviet Union was
>contemplating an attack
>> upon Germany, and making preparations to that
>end. It is impossible to
>> believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.
>>
>> The plans for the economic exploitation of
>the U.S.S.R., for the
>> removal of masses of the population, for the
>murder of Commissars and
>> political leaders, were all part of the carefully
>prepared scheme
>> launched on 22 June without warning of any
>kind, and without the
>> shadow of legal excuses. It was plain aggression.
>>
>> The United Nations cannot permit U.S. power
>to justify its wars of
>> aggression if it is to survive as a viable
>institution for ending the
>> scourges of war, exploitation, hunger, sickness
>and poverty.
>> Comparatively minor acts and wars of aggression
>by the United States
>> in the last 20 years, deadly enough for their
>victims, in Grenada,
>> Libya, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic,
>Sudan, Yugoslavia, Cuba,
>> Yemen with many other nations threatened,
>sanctioned, or attacked,
>> some with U.N. complicity and all without
>effective United Nations
>> resistance, made the major deadly wars of
>aggression against
>> Afghanistan and Iraq possible.
>>
>> Failure to condemn the massive U.S. war of
>aggression and illegal
>> occupation of Iraq and any U.N. act providing
>colorable legitimacy to
>> the U.S. occupation will open wide the gate
>to further, greater
>> aggression. The line must be drawn now.
>>
>> The United Nations must recognize and declare
>the U.S. attack and
>> occupation of Iraq to be the war of aggression
>it is. It must refuse
>> absolutely to justify, or condone the aggression,
>the illegal
>> occupation and the continuing U.S. assaults
>in Iraq. The U.N. must
>> insist that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq as
>it insisted Iraq withdraw
>> from Kuwait in 1990.
>>
>> There must be no impunity or profit for wars
>of aggression.
>> The U.S. and U.S. companies must surrender
>all profits and terminate
>> all contracts involving Iraq.
>>
>> There must be strict accountability by U.S.
>leaders and others for
>> crimes they have committed against Iraq and
>compensation by the U.S.
>> government for the damage its aggression has
>inflicted on Afghanistan
>> and Iraq, the peoples injured there and stability
>and harm done to
>> world peace.
>>
>> This must be done with care to prevent the
>eruption of internal
>> divisions, or violence and any foreign domination
>or exploitation in
>> Iraq. The governance of a united Iraq must
>be returned to the diverse
>> peoples who live there, acting together consensually
>in peace for
>> their common good as soon as possible.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ramsey Clark
>>
>> The identical letter has been sent to:
>> Members of the UN Security Council
>> The President of the UN General Assembly
>> The Secretary General of the UN
>> The President of the United States
>
>
>> (Please post this open letter from Ramsey
>Clark widely. On March 20
>> join Ramsey Clark and thousands of others
>in the mass protest at Times
>> Square in New York City to demand "Impeach
>Bush" and "Bring the troops
>> home now," and more. There is more information
>on the March 20
>> demonstration in New York City and those being
>held around the
>> country: http:/unitedforpeace.org/)
>--
>
>"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
>neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
>nor for that matter in Germany.
>That is understood. But, after all, it is the
>leaders
>of the country who determine the policy and
>it is always a simple matter to drag the people
>along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
>dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
>dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
>can
>always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
>That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
>they are being attacked and denounce the
>pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
>the country to danger. It works the same way
>in any country."
>
> - Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
>
>
Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!