Bush, Cheney, et al found guilty of "war crimes" in absentia

The conviction of former President George W.Bush, VP Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others(including former British PM Tony Blair) in absentia by a Malaysian mock tribunal for war crimes(including torture and aggressive war) may seem fairly ludicrous to some( shades of Bertrand Russell's farcical "War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam which similarly "convicted" LBJ and his Administration), but given Bush's admission that he had approved "waterboarding" and other "enhanced interrogation techniques"(read:torture) for Al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in his memoirs,"Decision Points" his hasty departure from Switzerland in February 2011 lest he be "Pinochet'd"-arrested on charges of crimes against humanity as former Chilean strong man Augusto Pinochet was in October 1998 -and the recent book by CIA Counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez "Harsh Measures" that his unit used torture on Al Qaeda suspects( in violation not just of international law but US domestic law such as the 1996 War Crimes Act which punishes torture by either death or life imprisonment), indicates at the very least that the 45th President of the United States has a credible case to answer- as does "Our Tony" which may explain why Bush was refused entry to the UK in Nov 2010 and why he has been wary of travelling overseas ever since. The Malaysian tribunal has indicated it will present its finding to the UN General Assembly, Security Council and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court( true the US is NOT a signatory or a ratifier of the ICC but given recent indictments of heads of state as different as Sudan(Omar al-Bashir) , Libya(the late Muammar el-Qaddafi) and the Ivory Coast( whose former President is awaiting trial at the Hague ), none of whom signed or ratified the ICC either, this is NOT an insuperable problem). Anybody else think as I do?

Terry

11 Comments
11 Comments
Posted by utotheg38

Now If we can only have one of these for Henry Kissinger.

Posted by Paracelsus

Isn't life full of odd coincidences- just this afternoon I came across "The Prosecution Of George W.Bush For Murder"(Vanguard Press, 2008) by Vincent T.Bugliosi , a former DA and author of "Helter Skelter" in a second hand bookstore- he prosecuted Charles Manson and his acolytes for the murders of Sharon Tate( then wife of Roman Polanski and carrying their unborn child). I must say that Bugliosi makes a compelling case-but who wants to bell this particular cat?

Terry

Posted by jinxuandi

I'm not pro-Bush by ANY means, but a Malaysian mock trial is far from an objective and trustworthy legal authority. Islam is the dominant religion there so the tribunal may have been a bit biased in favor of the prosecution.

Now the ICC or UN is a totally different matter, but it won't get that far. Those institutions aren't going to burn bridges.

Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy

lol

Posted by ssejllenrad

@utotheg38 said:

Now If we can only have one of these for Henry Kissinger.

What did Kissinger do? Everything I hear of him are of good stuff like being instrumental to ending Vietnam war, detente with Soviet, etc. Sorry. I'm not American so I wouldn't know the controversies of your former secretary of state (Am I even right? Was that his position?).

Posted by Stevens61310

Disregarding the fact that it was done by a Malaysian mock tribunal (it is hard to take that seriously) I have stated for years that Bush and Cheney were war criminals and should be treated as such. I have been voting for pretty close to a million years and Bush was and will probably for years to come be one of the most ineffectual, immoral, unethical, destructive Presidents we have ever had.

Posted by jinxuandi

@Stevens61310: There have probably been more immoral presidents (A. Johnson, Grant), presidents who demonstrated less ethics (Harding, Nixon), and presidents whose actions resulted in more destruction (Jackson, Buchanan). But it is hard to think of someone who combines all of those negative qualities.

Posted by jeanlucpicard

aggressive war? how can anyone be charged with aggressive war? what does that even mean? I read that far and stopped cuz that just sounds silly.

Posted by _Black

@jeanlucpicard said:

aggressive war? how can anyone be charged with aggressive war? what does that even mean? I read that far and stopped cuz that just sounds silly.

He was just passive in his efforts to command soldiers to kill people...Lol

Posted by Paracelsus

Apropos of the charge of bias regarding the Malaysian tribunal, Bugliosi suggests that any such trial of Bush, Cheney et al should be conducted by the US Federal Court in Washington DC(where "Dubya" spent his "presidency") rather than the ICC.

Terry

Posted by Shadow_Thief

From my own, strictly personal perspective, W never struck me as being particularly immoral. If anything, he struck me as a guy who really wanted to do the "right" thing (as defined by his own sense of morality, of course), but he just wasn't quite smart enough to grasp what that thing was in a given situation, and he surrounded himself with advisers that A. were selected more on the basis of having a personal connection to him or his family than on actual qualifications for the job, and B. were more interested in promoting their own agendas than anything else. W was unqualified, unprepared, and easily manipulated, but I'd hesitate to call him immoral. If anything, he was the witless figurehead for a cabal of truly despicable individuals.