LOOKING FARTHER BACK AT INTERNATIONAL CRIMES 1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.
2. The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.
3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.
4. In April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)
5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.
6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.
7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.
8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),
9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.
10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001
11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa
12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.
13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).
14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.
15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).
16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.
Professor Nan Fandel teaches communications in Iowa. She is also a journalist who has been an op-ed columnist for theIowa City Press-Citizennewspaper. Also a poet and a Jellaludin Rumi scholar, Professor Fandel lectures throughout the world on the words, teachings, and life of this 13th-century Sufi mystic poet, who today is among the most popular poets. She has co-authored a book in honor of Rumi titled Mystery Box, which will be available in mid-2008.
Professor Fandel's goal as a teacher and journalist is to tell the truth about what is happening in our world. Oftentimes, as she writes or communicates with young students who are just learning about the world, she breaks their hearts with these truths. But in the end, most understand that if they don't act to right the wrongs, to live a life of benefit to all, they will become spiritually impoverished in a world of hatred. "Not on my watch," she says!
...for now is the time when the worst things happen. These crimes and acts of hubris by the Bush/Cheney gang that have escalated to the level of "the genocide of a nation," the destruction of World peace, must NOT be allowed to fade into history unnoticed by the people of the World...not one of them.
The time to act is always, and evermore will be, NOW, for every breath we take in and exhale becomes the past, too late, if we do nothing.
Breathe the truth; inhale and exhale justice, and we will certainly change for the better, for we will stop these people from EVER doing this massive harm again, regardless of whether they hold public offices.
Please join me in working to arrest them, indict them, and convict them in the World court.
Nan
by
Professor Fandel (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 4:17:18 PM
9/11 was their most wicked criminal activity as it paved the way for wars of agression that brought destruction upon millions worldwide. The crime itself was horrendous and abominable. They murdered 3000 innocents in plain sight and outrageouly blamed it on Muslims who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Why accusing Muslims? Because Muslims happen to be sitting on oil reserves of the Mid-East that Bush/Cheney covet and crave for.
Not mentionning 9/11 and not putting it on top of the list is tantamount to cover-up. You are shamelessly turning our attention away from the main issue and this is dishonest, Sir.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 4:45:35 PM
What's "dishonest" is claiming that it's all about "oil".
Obviously, "oil" is not the primary motivation for Bush's atrocities.
BTW, as important as "9/11" was, the people of Iraq have suffered the equivalent of over 300 "9/11s" in 5 years; that's about one "9/11" every 5.5 days or so. Compared to the suffering that the U.S. has brought to Iraq (and Afghanistan too) our 9/11, as bad as it was, was a drop in the bucket.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 5:41:14 PM
...when whether 9/11 was perpetrated by Bush/Cheney is speculative? That's a whole other op-ed piece, though I'm not saying it wasn't (I actually believe it might have been); I'm just saying where is the proof?
This article is all about shedding light on evidence, the points in history, the Bush/Cheney actions that allow me to be able to say with confidence that what we are witnessing is the genocide of a nation and a world by the outrageous acts of the ersatz leaders of the US. What have they done? What have they not done that they should have? That's what I want people to know about. And...that they should be brought before a World court AFTER they leave office as a result of these aggressions. I do not know for sure that they caused 9/11; if you do, and you have hard evidence, please enlighten me and I will include it in my list, gladly!
And by the way, I am not a "Sir," I am a "Ma'am." But how would you know?
All the best to you...fight the good fight.
Nan
by
Professor Fandel (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 6:12:35 PM
That Oil is the #1 reason for the war the atrocities and the on going nightmare America faces.
It isn't about consumption of oil, or even oil in and of itself ,but rather it is about the sale of oil ,Which currency is used in the sale of it.
Will it be sold in US dollars or in euros.
Oil has been sold in US dollars for a long while now it has made America impervious to the amount of dollars it can print up.But if the sale of oil is switched to Euros then what becomes of the Us dollar?It has been printed far beyond it's capacity to be a stable money source for America .
In the event of the American dollar losing the hegemony it has world wide for the sale of oil which is very likely unless America is willing to go to war with Russia,Iran,Venezuela. Iraq already had it's oil sales switched to Euros,we can see today the outcome of that.
At any rate the back door that America is working on in the event they lose the dollar hegemony ( which I predict will happen this decade) is the North American Union and the Amero. The only option left for America should they lose U.S. dollar hegemony.
by
dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 7:35:10 PM
Notwithstanding the breathtaking irrationality of the approach, the notion that Bush's wars are primarily about propping up the petrodollar implies that Bush and his bloodthirsty Neocon handlers "care" about the U.S. in some misguided sense.
"We only did it because we love you America, and we care about you, and we don't want your dollars to be worthless and your economy in ruins blah blah blah...". Do you really believe that? I certainly don't.
The economic disaster that America might have had to eventually face, years down the road, had America not come to its senses, Bush has made almost a near-term certainty.
No, the PNACers that are pulling Bush's strings are hardly concerned about anything but their genocidal geopolitical agenda.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 532 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 8:46:11 PM
Also, later this month an Iranian Oil Bourse is set to open where oil, petrochemicals and gas will be traded in various non-dollar currencies.
And earlier this week Israelis were told to prepare 'rocket rooms' as protection against a rain of missiles expected to be fired at the Jewish state in any future conflict.
Saddam Hussein’s decision to sell Iraqi oil in euros was perhaps one of the reasons the US wanted ‘regime change ? Oh, I forgot, he had weapons he was hiding and that is why we invaded. How silly of me.
by
Munich (0 articles, 74 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 914 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 10:43:28 PM
Please show the relevant section in the relevant act
When the US Congress was still under Republican oversight, a bill was passed that exempted the Bush/Cheney gang from being punished for war crimes committed against "detainees."
I think you are correct in what you are asserting. I think you are referring to the Military Commissions Act 2006. But I'd like to see the actual section from you because there is a chance that I am looking at the wrong section. I'm looking at section 7. Habeus coprus matters.
There is another piece of legislation that is worth being aware of because it also may enable warcriminals in the Bush/Cheney administration to avoid prosecution. It is colloqially called the Hague Invasion Act.
All Presidential candidates running for office should be asked to give a commitment not to use the powers of the Presidency to give pardons or to override international laws to protect members of the Bush administration from prosecution from war crimes.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 9:09:01 PM
...that is what I am referring to. Specifically, in Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the underlined part below) and any and all relevant parts of Section 8, noting the underlined part below. Here is the actual language, as you requested:
From Section 7:
‘‘(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. ‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’’. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.
SEC. 8. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. (a) COUNSEL AND INVESTIGATIONS.—Section 1004(b) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd–1(b)) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘may provide’’ and inserting ‘‘shall provide’’; (2) by inserting ‘‘or investigation’’ after ‘‘criminal prosecution’’; and (3) by inserting ‘‘whether before United States courts or agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or agencies,’’ after ‘‘described in that subsection’’. (b) PROTECTION OF PERSONNEL.—Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd–1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that— (1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section; (2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and (3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005."
Thanks for asking.
Nan
by
Professor Fandel (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM
I have a hard copy of the Military Commissions Act 2006 in front of me.
From time to time I've thought to myself if only more people knew what steps are being taken by the current administration to evade justice and to evade the consequences of them having broken the laws against war crimes then more people would see how important it is to use the remaining available means to stop them - like impeachment.
Unfortunately the Military Commissions Act is written in a confusing way, and I suspect deliberately so. I don't think the President and his administration wanted to draw the publics attention to all the exceptions and softenings of consequences they were making for themselves.
Section 5 is about Treaty Obligations NOT being able to be used to establish grounds for certain claims - a person is not allowed to invoke the Geneva Convention as part of their appeal to be granted habeus corpus, or to pursue other actions like suing those guilty of harming them unjustly.
Section 6. Seems to be about giving the President the power to make words in treaties mean whatever the heck he wants them to mean - humpty dumpty fashion.
But the constitution says that treaties made are part of the supreme law of the land. The constitution requires 2/3 of the senate be involved in the making of a treaty because the founders didn't want to put too much trust in one bribe-able person who would only be in office for a short period and might be tempted to effectively sell favours whilst he was there in order to benefit himself afterwards. The founders had good sense about sharing risk around. Giving the President the power to interpret the meaning of words in treaties alone seems to fly in the face of that good sense.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 5:56:51 PM
...but, then, the US Congress also needs to declare war, not the president, and this has not occurred either...and the beat goes on. This group will do anything they want to the last day of their terms...and it appears that Congress will let them.
A $3.1 Trillion budget????? Uh huh. Sink the ship.
By the way, see my comments below to you and Dale.
Nan
by
Professor Fandel (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 9:30:21 AM
Because no one is going to hold these criminals accountable they have nothing stopping them from committing crimes that will make the fore mentioned look like misdemeanors.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 18 diaries, 1762 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 9:24:24 PM
Our Founders Gave 2 Civil Ways to Hold Governors Accountable
Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections. If you want to find out the other civil check on government abuse of power that our Founders provided for us, then read What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back? If you care about the safety of your family, read this article now, and send it to all of your contacts today. Now is the time for action! http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm
by
Mark Adams (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 9:41:34 PM
Yes, I would like to see all these alleged crimes investigated in the criminal justice system, after they leave office, since impeachment doesn't seem to be likely. (Btw: love the sexism lesson here in the comments section.)
by
Amy Fried (40 articles, 113 quicklinks, 64 diaries, 213 comments)
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 9:22:42 AM
Paroxysm, the tantrum of the weak mind. This country in 1990s got afraid of itself. Diversity, human rights, energy, waste of Cold war, immigration, etc. It did seem that everything was to be reexamined. So, the elite concocted Clinton to calm the masses and destroy the Demparty and Bush to lead the paroxysm. It is not Bush who does all that. He is just a symbol. It is us. If in the country which sits on war for 5 years, killed about a million and bleeds to death they have the usual entertainment- then it is us. Bush is an evil moron. But evil morons are common nowadays. It is us. Now we have a deal between GOP and dems to get McCain as Pres and no one gives a damn. It is us.
by
Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3594 comments)
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM
It is important to acknowledge who is behind these men and
what are their goals.
I feel it is a disservice to others to focus the blame on Bush and Cheney as they are just doing the bidding of their masters. The public needs to know the truth, not part of the truth. These men will be out of office and we will assume that all is well? Their goal is to convince us that we are free. Our belief that is about Bush and Cheney and oil serves the ends of the men who are behind all of this.
These wars are not about oil and if you believe that, then, you are "buying their story."
Our country today is not about Bush and Cheney being bad guys or republicans or democrats or liberals or conservatives fighting over beliefs.
We must all research to see who and what are behind the hijacking of many governments and media. Not, just our own.
Please leave Bush and Cheney alone. Putting all the blame for our troubles on them is what the people in power want.
by
tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments)
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM
...read carefully, please. I am not targeting Bush and Cheney alone, and I am saying AFTER they leave office.
A big P.S. here: if they are, as you say, "doing the bidding of their masters," then, I say they have heaped a bigger crime on top of their obvious aggregious crimes: not saying "no" to people who may be telling them what to do when what they are asking them to do is illegal, unjust, or harmful in ANY way to any part of humanity and the planet. It is important to note that it is criminal for anyone (in this country, anyway) to perpetrate an illegal act in the name of "my boss told me to do it" in ANY way. If you did it, you did it.
Lemme put it this way...we'd all be in jail if we committed even lesser crimes. There are World sanctions in place to deal with leaders of countries who do commit crimes that rise to the level of those committed by Bush, Cheney, and/or ANY person inside or outside of their administration who upholds those crimes and perpetuates them on their behalf.
Enough said...you get the point, I hope. We all know there's people "behind the curtain" but that is not justification for criminal and corrupt actions. And I for one will continue to fight for them to be held accountable. The person who sits in the getaway car, waiting for the person who actually wields the sword of death to get finished with his crime, is just
