A Letter to the International Criminal Court

Here is a letter I recently wrote to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court asking that criminal charges be brought against George W Bush and Richard Cheney:

Sirs:

I write to you as a concerned citizen of the United States of America. Our republic and the world at large have been and continue to be endangered by the administrations of George W Bush and Richard Cheney.

According the recent report by the International Red Cross, the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' practiced by the CIA and the US military and approved at the highest levels of the Bush government make them subject to prosecution as war criminals.

In direct violation of the United Nation Charter and International Law, the US government under the leadership of George W Bush and Richard Cheney invaded a member nation of the UN, Iraq, under the most dubious of pretexts, over-threw the recognized government and continues to occupy the country after 5 years and with violent, brutal force subjugate the populace. The war has devastated the country in every category of assessment and left upward of one million Iraqi men, women and children dead. (Based on the estimate reported in the Lancet last year. http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf )

These are just two of what many believe to be among numerous criminal acts for which George W Bush, Richard Cheney and other top-ranking members of their administration should rightfully be charged as war criminals.

In the name of justice and for the good of the world, I beseech the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to bring charges against the people who are serving or have served in the Bush/Cheney administrations - including George W Bush and Richard Cheney - who are responsible for the kidnapping and torture of individuals and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people as reported and documented by innumerable, verifiable sources.

In my most humble opinion, to fail to do so will undermine and irreparably damage the noble concept of rule of law and serve to encourage endless war.

Most Respectfully,

etc, etc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

Technorati Profile

Parsing McCain's Call for Action Against Iran

“It’s time for action. And it’s time to make the Iranians understand that this kind of violation of international treaties, this kind of threatening of their neighbors, this kind of continued military activity, is not without cost."

Senator John McCain, July, 2008.

It is truly amazing that a presidential candidate, one who touts his foreign policy expertise, would make such tactless remarks in public. To anyone living outside of the vast ‘cone of silence’ that shields the American people from actually comprehending what their leaders spout, it must be nearly incomprehensibly impolitic. Let us take the time to parse the Senator’s statement in hopes of uncovering some semblance of truth.

Violation of treaties?

These are charges against a country which hasn’t invaded another in centuries. These charges are against the only nation to agree to the proposition by the International Atomic Energy Agency to a single-source control of enriched uranium for peaceful purposes.

Threatening their neighbors?

These charges are made by a man who sang ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ at one of his campaign rallies. More pointedly, these charges are made within a statement that asserts the necessity of military action against a UN member state.

Military activity?

These charges are made by a man whose comments about 100 years of an American military presence in Iraq are all too well-known.

Moreover, to assert that a nation does not have to right to hold military exercises or conduct military tests within its own borders is ludicrous to the extreme. Imagine any other country in the world challenging the US military’s use of White Sands Testing Grounds. This man is severely out of touch with a reality shared by much of the world.

That this does not come as a surprise to this writer and that Senator McCain’s supporters might not think twice about their candidate openly stating such an absurdity (because it so starkly reflects accepted, traditional US foreign policy) should be of great cause for concern for anyone who shares the reality in which rule of law – when right and just – is an ideal to be upheld and peace is the preferred state of international affairs.

As a further test, let’s replace ‘Iranians’ with ‘Americans’ in that list of charges intoned by McCain:

“It’s time for action. And it’s time to make the Americans understand that this kind of violation of international treaties, this kind of threatening of their neighbors, this kind of continued military activity, is not without cost."

‘Violation of International treaties’?

The invasion of a sovereign nation as other than a deterrent to an immediate, obvious threat of attack is a clear and blatant violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremburg principles.

CHECK!

Threatening ‘neighbors’?

Repeated threats by American leaders to attack Iran are multiple violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremburg principles.

CHECK!

‘Continued military activity’?

There are active American military bases and installations on every continent but Antarctica; more than 700 world-wide by several estimates with the likelihood that there are upwards of 1000 if one should be able to count secret, classified ones.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would certainly constitute ‘continued military activity’.

The recently revealed allocation of funds to support covert military action against Iran must be included here. Quite unlike the military activity so absurdly decried by McCain, the aforementioned military actions are most decidedly not within the recognized borders of the United States.

CHECK!

So, of the three charges Senator McCain levels against Iran in his brief statement, all three apply with even greater weight to the USA.

One must wonder with trepidation, what the ultimate cost will be of America’s continuing militaristic foreign policy.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/

Secretary Gates's 2 Cents

Gates Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue Security Conference. Mr Gates announced that Myanmar's obstruction of international efforts to help cyclone victims has cost "tens of thousands of lives."

Does anyone else find it ironic in the extreme for the Defense Secretary of the United States to chastise brazenly the leaders of another nation for their inhumane policies when millions have been displaced and brutalized, and hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct result of the criminal wars of aggression waged in those countries by Mr Gates’ own administration?

To further heighten the astonishing level of irony, Mr Gates said the U.S. has not had problems helping other countries in natural disasters while still respecting their sovereignty.

Maybe the people of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan should pray for a natural calamity. That way the US would put the wars on hold long enough at least to send humanitarian aid to the millions in need. As for “respecting their sovereignty”, one can only shake one’s head ruefully that Mr Gates should have the audacity to utter such an outrageous falsehood considering the US invasions of Cuba, the Philippines, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc…

http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-shangri-la-dialogue/shangri-la-dialogue-2007/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgz0bXAym7a1ffyOuvyA-IKvnLIgD910ALNO0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7428916.stm

McCain's Diplomatic Tap-Dance

In the wake of his and Bush’s comments about ‘appeasement’, Johnny Mac attempted to explain his ideas about diplomacy to the students gathered at the University of Denver on May 27, 2008.

“It’s a vision not of the United States acting alone, but building and participating in a community of nations all drawn together in this vital common purpose. It’s a vision of a responsible America, dedicated to an enduring peace based on freedom.”

So, apparently, Mac is willing to meet and share the vision of enduring peace and freedom with anyone except those he perceives as the enemies of America, of course. Before he takes this generous diplomatic tack, he wants to stay engaged in war in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring Iran to heel with a well-placed assault.

Other than that… Peace, freedom and diplomacy for everybody.

Unless somebody disagrees with US policy.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16397864/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news

US & Somalia Tied for Last Place

To hear some, the USA is the champion of the down-trodden, and the oppressed, the Johnny Appleseed of Democracy. The truth precludes such prideful bumptiousness. In fact, the US is one of the last two states out of 192 to ratify the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. (The other is Somalia.)

The United States has, however, signed two optional protocols on trafficking in children and on children in armed conflict. Very noble of us.

Furthermore, having signed the optional protocols of the Convention, the US has expressed its intention to eventually adopt it completely. Eventually.

What’s stopping the Bushites or the Congress from ratifying this convention? This is a no-brainer. Or should be, even for the half-wits running this farcical fiasco.

According to the Unicef site the Convention is summarized as follows:

“The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.”

“The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have:

1. the right to survival;

2. to develop to the fullest;

3. to protection from harmful influences,

4. abuse and exploitation;

5. the right to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.

The four core principles of the Convention are:

1. non-discrimination;

2. devotion to the best interests of the child;

3. the right to life, survival and development;

4. and respect for the views of the child.

Every right spelled out in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity and harmonious development of every child. The Convention protects children's rights by setting standards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services.”

“By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.”

This seems straightforward, proper, just and right. It is the expression of an ideal, one would think, of which all people, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Jew, Animist or Atheist would approve.

Obviously.

190 out 192 nations have ratified it.

What’s stopping the US from ratifying this convention?

Could be that the thousands of youths who have been jailed in US prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo might pose a tough issue to spin-doctor into anything close to resembling sentiments and opinions acceptable to anyone outside the Oval Office or Fox News.

The ‘Real World’, in other words.

Since the March 2003 invasion, the United States has detained 2,400 children under the age of 18 in Iraq, including some as young as 10. Human Rights Watch said as of May 12, U.S. military authorities were holding 513 Iraqi children as "imperative threats to security".

The upside is that youths charged under Iraqi law receive access to legal counsel.

The downside? Read on…

"Those who are not referred to the Iraqi criminal courts do not have legal counsel because they are not charged with a crime," said Major Matthew Morgan, a spokesman for U.S. detention facilities in Iraq.

Not charged with a crime but imprisoned nevertheless.

Sandra Hodgkinson, deputy assistant secretary for Detainee Affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense, told reporters in Geneva "There is nothing in the optional protocol that prevents the detention of individuals under the age of 18, so the United States is in full compliance with its treaty obligations."

So, imprisoning children without charging them with a crime, without the basic legal rights of Habeas Corpus, due process or legal representation is acceptable to the Neo-Con-men in Washington. This is the level to which the United States has sunk under the stewardship of the Bush Administrations.

Tied with Somalia for last place.

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL21923136

http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/C8CDC017719763AE4393C90EEC4E6602.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

The Red, White and Blue Surge

“The ‘Surge’ is working.”

It’s the abracadabra mantra of the Bush administration and its adherents. If they say it often enough, they expect we’ll believe them. It’s a tactic that worked well enough for them when they chanted ‘WMDs’ leading up to the war. We can’t blame them for trying. (But we can try them for lying.)

What amazes is the brazen, unabashed arrogance by which they make this specious, perfidious declamation. The most disturbing example of this comes from everybody’s favorite ‘Dick’, the vice-president, Mr Cheney. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC’s Good Morning America:

Cheney: “On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.”

Raddatz: “Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.”

Cheney: “So?”

Raddatz: “So? You don’t care what the American people think?”

Cheney: “No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.”

Funny, maybe I’m being naïve but I’ve been under the impression that the United States of America was a representational democratic republic; ‘of the people by the people for the people’ and all that. Here’s the VP of the nation stating on a national television broadcast that the voice of the people is not something he or the administration needs to heed.

Let’s give ol’ Dick the benefit of the doubt and check what the American people have to say.

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted between March 14 and March 16, 66% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

During roughly the same time period, 59% of respondents in a CBS News poll said they felt the US should have stayed out of Iraq and 65% disapproved of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken between Feb. 28 and March 2, 2008 found that 63% felt the war was not worth fighting.

According to the Pew Research Center survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International Feb. 20-24, 2008, 54% think the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq.

(There may well be polls that found substantial support for the war in Iraq - the student body at Pat Robertson’s Regent University, for instance – but I discovered none.)

Note that these polls were taken after the Bush apparatchiks had been chanting the mantra for months in news reports, press conferences, interviews and the like. Apparently, the majority of the US public polled had not been swayed.

Regardless of the polls, the VP says, “So?”

In a speech given at the Pentagon to mark the fifth anniversary of the illegal US invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq, Dub-ya proclaimed that the US is safer after its invasion of Iraq, adding that the troop 'surge' had succeeded in promoting stability there. "Because we acted the world is better and the United States of America is safer. Because of the troop surge, the level of violence is significantly down. Civilian deaths are down. Sectarian killings are down. Attacks on American forces are down.”

Pardon me, Mr Bush, but are you smoking jimson weed? What bizarro-world are you using as a benchmark if you consider the world and the United States a better, safer place since the invasion? Maybe you should ‘follow your bliss’, don a uniform and stand on the front lines before you spew such nonsense. (ref: this blog, March 17, 2008 ‘Irony #2’) Or how about taking a nice stroll outside the ‘Green Zone’ without a security detachment to discover for yourself how safe the world is for US citizens? Might I suggest Fallujah, Karbala or Tikrit?

Just as detached from reality is Dubya wanna-be, John McCain. Johnny Mac was in London trying on the ‘president’s new clothes’ and sizing up Gordon Brown for a dog collar when he offered his own syntactically fractured version of the party line.”We are now succeeding in Iraq and Americans, at least, I believe, are in significant numbers agreeing that the present strategy of the Surge is succeeding.”

Better check the polls, Mr Candidate.

100 more years. 100 more years.

To be fair, arrogant delusions about this ghastly conflict are not limited to the Neo-cons and Republicans. On the stump in Detroit, Senator Hillary Clinton, outlining her plan to draw down troop levels in Iraq said “… the Iraqi government has to take responsibility for its own future. We have given them the precious gift of freedom and it is up to them to decide whether or not they will use it." (Italics are mine.)

“We have given them the precious gift of freedom…”

Talk about arrogance. One can imagine an Iraqi widow wondering what the return policy is on such a blood-soaked gift.

"When you have at least 200 Iraqis dying every month in attacks on a per capita equivalent ... I don't know how anyone can characterise that as a success.” Hady Amr, a Middle East analyst at the Brookings Institution in Doha, Qatar, told Al Jazeera that the US-led invasion of Iraq was a strategic disaster. Mr Amr said: “The US took a country that had a lot of problems, a totalitarian state, and turned it into a haven for terrorism."

So, by what criteria is the ‘Surge’ working? Granted, the total number of fatal attacks against ‘Coalition Forces’ and sectarian violence is down from the disastrous highs of 2006 and 2007. Much of this reduction of violence, however, is due to the Mehdi Army cease-fire called by Muqtada al-Sadr last August, though that substantial fact is seldom mentioned in the corporate media and only in passing, never fully investigating the implications.

How could any rational individual call a return to the bloody, black days of 2005 ‘progress’? One must assume that the present level of slaughter, mayhem and atrocity is acceptable to the Bushites as long as they breathe deeply and keep chanting.

The ‘Surge’ is working.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/headlines

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The Daily Show video: Iraq , the First Five Years