Mon Mar 8 02:16:00 2004


Criminal Intent, Illegal Wars, Gangsta Plots:
Why the Bush/Blair Gang will be tried for war crimes


Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith will travel to
Romania, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Italy this week.In Romania, Mr.
Feith will meet with President Ion Iliescu, Prime Minister Adrian
Nastase, Foreign Minister Mircea Dan Geoana and Minister of Defense
Ioan Mircea Pascu. The visit to Romania presents an opportunity to
convey the U.S. government's appreciation for Romania's contributions
to the War on Terrorism and for Romania's conclusion of a bilateral
Article 98 agreement with the U.S. dealing with the International
Criminal Court. Romania is the first country to conclude this
important agreement with the U.S. Feith will also discuss U.S.-Romania
defense cooperation and Romania's NATO candidacyIn Romania, the group
will meet with national leaders. They will discuss the country's NATO
candidacy, and the U.S. delegation will thank Romania for its help in
the war on terrorism and for supporting the U.S. position on the
International Criminal Court.”
Press Release, September 23rd 2002 US Embassy RomaniaAt their August
meeting 2002 Bush gave Blair his instructions about invading Iraq.
These plans were settled in detail by Rumsfeld a week later in New
York when Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon (with, we now know, a very
unhappy bunch of MOD stars including Dr David Kelly ). After he and
his military men got their marching orders, the leaden lawyer Hoon,
with a delightful sense of irony, addressed his old American alma
mater, Louisville U. in the appropriately named Muhammed Ali Peace
Hall.The above little noticed visit by one of the self confessed
neo-cons, whose mission and vision were still a guilty little secret
unknown outside the Beltway, was doing his best to drum up support for
US refusal to recognise the International Criminal Court.Few criminals
decide they don't recognise the courts jurisidiction in advance of
committing the crime. Proof, if it were needed, of the wicked and
criminal intention to illegally invade and occupy Iraq.Crime cannot be
justifiedIn launching the imperial invasion and shock and awe
inspiring blitzkrieg on March 8th 2003, the UK and US are
unquestionably in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and
other international agreements by which the US and Britain as
signatories are bound. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly said
before the invasion that a unilateral attack would be in violation of
the UN Charter.This violent and aggressive invasion, unleashing over
30,000 bombs, napalm, and all the terrors of aerial bombing against a
civilian population, was a Hobbesian, "War of each against all". Raw
power, military might, not morality, not legitimacy was the only
currency. The Bush Administration and Parliament were well aware this
attack had no legal basis. The legal justifications offered then, and
over which much squalid sophistry is being used and cyinically offered
are transparently fraudulent.Simply put. The invasion of Iraq was
illegal. It's authors are criminals and should be tried as such.The
White House Legal BriefOn March 13th 2002 at a Press Briefing in the
White House, Ari Fleischer, then but now, ex- Presidential spokesman,
was asked about the legality of a war on Iraq.He read, from an
obviously prepared statement, “The UN Security Council
Resolution 678 authorised use of all means to uphold UN Security
Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area.” In fact 678
authorised the use of force only to remove Iraqi military forces from
Kuwait, not to invade Iraq.“Thereafter,” Fleischer
stridently continued, “687 declared a cease fire …. And
provides then legal grounds for the use of force.”The UN
CharterThe 1945 UN Charter Article 2 , states, “must
refrain..from the use of force against or the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state”…except under certain
narrowly defined circumstances.”“Member states must seek a
solution to disputes through the Security Council (Art 33) and the
Security Council, which will determine what action to take” (Art
39)It is only the Security Council that can decide upon the use of
force :“Plans for the application of force shall be made by the
Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff
Committee..” (Art 48)“Member states may use force but only
the Security Council is empowered to provide the authority to use
force.” (Art 48)An exception is the attack by another state (Art
51), this includes an imminent attack. There is no suggestion either
before, during or after the invasion that there was any prospect of
such an attack on any member state. Although of course the Murdoch
press had given a lot of the people who look at the headlines on the
front page before the tits on Page 3, the idea that Cyprus was under
imminent threat from missiles, and remotely controlled planes spraying
God knows what.So when the Bush / Blair gang invaded Iraq, it was not
simply “by-passing” the Security Council, it was
flagrantly ignoring it.That's what criminals do.Nuremburg Trials. A
precedentLaunching an aggressive war is a violation of the Charter of
the Nuremberg Tribunal, to which both the UK and US are bound as
signatories and whose principles were adopted by the UN General
assembly in 1950.The four power agreement creating the Military
Tribunal for Germany, included “a) Crimes against peace –
planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances,
or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of the foregoing”It is little wonder then that Ms Wilmshurst,
the Treasury brief with 26 years experience was unwilling to accept
that any such planned invasion of Iraq had no legal basis and resigned
rather than supportsuch national illegal action..What is an Aggressive
war?Should Mr Bush and Mr Blair and their friendly and obedient
lawyer, Mr Goldsmith (although evidently a somewhat frightened man)
require a definition of what an aggressive war is, they need look no
further than the 1974 UN General Assembly definition –
“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the
sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of
another State, or in any manner inconsistent with the Charter of the
United Nations “… which includes,” the invasion or
attack by armed forces of a State of the territory of another State,
or any military occupation,” which gave legitimacy to Resolution
678 which gave the US authority to remove Saddam and his army from
Kuwait.Resolution 678, to which Mr Fleischer's neo-cons, and other
apologists on both sides of the Atlantic and their Antipodean
side-kicks cling to, to fraudulently justify their unleashing
Armageddon.Warren Austin the Chief Delegate of the US to the UN told
the UN General Assembly on October 30th, 1946, that the US was bound
by the principles of law encompassed by the Nuremberg Charter, as well
as by the UN Charter. He said, “The Charter…makes planning
or waging a war of aggression a crime against humanity for which
individuals as well as nations can be brought before the bar of
international justice, tried, and punished.”Douglas J Feith /
The Life and Times and quotable quotes
From March 1984 until September 1986, Mr. Feith served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy to Defense
Secretary Perle..
Strategy and the Idea of Freedom / by Douglas J. Feith, Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Heritage Lecture #OL1 November 24th
2003. "My association with The Heritage Foundation goes back a ways,
twenty-six years, to 1977, when you were still located on Stanton Park
at 5th and C, Northeast. That was a time when we neo-cons, of which I
was a junior member, and the folks we called the paleo-cons, made
common cause:"November 26, 2003 US Embassy Press release Sofia,
President Bush on November 21, The provision of military assistance
projects in Bulgaria. He approved similar assistance to Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, all NATO invitees.In
Bulgaria, the President's approval will permit a number of U.S.
military assistance programs (with a total value of $11.3 million) to
go forward: These approvals override a prohibition that had been
placed on U.S. military assistance to Bulgaria, among other countries,
as a result of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, passed by
the U.S. Congress in 2002. This act required the administration to
freeze U.S. military assistance to non-NATO countries that would not
enter into bilateral agreements under Article 98 of the statute
establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). The agreements
seek a pledge from co-signing governments that U.S. persons would not
be surrendered to the ICC for prosecution or turned over to third
countries that intend to do so. The U.S. continues to have major
reservations about the ICC, especially regarding the ICC's power to
disregard national court decisions. December 9th, 2003 US Embassy
Press release Sofia, Bulgaria
“The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith will
lead a delegation of Defense and State Department officials on an
official visit to Sofia for consultations with senior Bulgarian
government officials.”
See My Alternative News Links References & Resources Pages:


Main Page -03/08/04

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)