(Raven) wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote
in message . ..
(Raven) wrote:

:http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00215.htm:
:
:Judgement In The People Vs George Walker
Bush
:Tuesday, 16 March 2004, 10:21 am
:Press Release: International Criminal Tribunal
For Afghanistan
:
:NOTE: A report on this judgement was published
in the Japan Times

[snip]

Take a look at their web site at
http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/

Note the following little tidbit - they PRESUPPOSE
that war crimes
have been committed

That's not what the page you cite says. Direct
quote:

We conducted investigations into war damage
three times in Afghanistan.
We are convinced from evidence we collected
there that the "anti-terrorism
attacks" in Afghanistan resulted in obvious
war crimes and clearly violated
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the
UN Charters.

That's not a presupposition.

So much for your first point.

[snip]

Here's your agenda, in their own words -

If every news item I ever quoted was "my" agenda,
what a contradictory
set of agenda I must have -- since I have also
quoted news items about
Bush Administration actions and declarations,
those must be "mine" too?

Do these sorts of fruit loops really think
they do anything other than
make themselves look silly?

They think they've cited what are generally
called the laws of war,
and they have.

They think they've cited precedents established
in previous war crime trials,
and they have.

They think they've cited specific instances
where Bush violated those laws
and would by those precedents be found liable
in such a war crime trial,
and you yourself have not given any reason to
doubt that they have.

That this "tribunal" has no power to *enforce*
its ruling is not the issue;
they've claimed no such power. In fact, Bush
has made very clear that he
will not acknowledge the authority of *any*
international tribunal, even
the new International Criminal Court, over U.S.
gov't/military personnel --
putting the USA on record as a rogue nation,
heedless of international law.
Oh? The U.S. sure isn't going to let ANY Kangaroo Court, whether it's the
ICC or some loony court that is a front from Ramsey Clark's WWP crowd, stand
in the way of what needs to be done. Interesting to note that the folks who
really need to be put in front of a tribunal were not even mentioned: Osama
Bin Laden, Ayman-Al Zwhari, or Mullah Omar (the first two for 9-11, the latter
for aiding and abetting, and providing sanctuary for a pair of mass murderers).
And if you think that the WWP's fronts are "objective" then I have beachfront
property for sale: in Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and New Mexico. And a bridge
in Brooklyn thrown in.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!