Bush Guilty of War Crimes - International Criminal Tribunal

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Bush Guilty of War Crimes in Afghanistan Says International Criminal Tribunal
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:26:03 -0600
From: Gary Kohls gkohls@cpinternet.com

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan:
Statement of Judges on December 14, 2003 - The Third Session of the Trial
http://afghan-tribunal.3005.net/english/

Presiding Judge Osamu Niikura delivered a statement at the end of
the third session of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.

On behalf of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, we,
panel of judges, would like to express a statement on what the Tribunal
is asked to rule in regard to charges against the Defendant, Mr. George
Walker Bush, President of the United States as well as to
recommendations to the World Public Opinion. The Tribunal has so far
held three sessions of public hearing, during which witnesses and
experts gave to the Tribunal, in person and through video tapes, the
most substantial facts relevant to the charges, while lots of documents
and video records gathered in numerous public hearings held in various
places, as well as numerous reports and statements of state authorities,
have been produced also during these sessions. It is noteworthy that
Amicus Curiae have been willing to let us know the real standpoints of
the United States Government in this regard. The Tribunal is honored to
express our gratitude to every one concerned whose concurring efforts
have been strong pillars of wisdom for such a historical feat as the
International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan.

In our understandings, a judgment of the Tribunal should deal with a
mass of facts in examining evidences and respond to our duty by
clarifying basis of legal findings in a precise and persuasive manner.
Accordingly, the judgment is to be made in the next public session in
Tokyo on March 13th, 2004. It is also in our understandings, however,
that the issue we are dealing with is very serious and urgent. Our
decision or statement is demanded by the public audience in this hall in
particular and by the people throughout the world in general.

It is therefore our duty that the Tribunal is to express a statement in
regard to these charges filed by the indictment and the additional
indictment as well as the Prosecutors� claim for recommendations in so
far as the Tribunal can confirm to date.

The Defendant Mr. George Walker Bush, President of the United States is:

1) Guilty for crime of aggression
2) Guilty for war crimes in regard to military attacks against
civilians, including indiscriminate bombings, use of cluster bombs,
daisy cutter bombs, use of depleted uranium weaponry; guilty for war
crimes in regard to attacks against civilian objects; guilty for war
crimes in regard to treatments of prisoners of war and civil detainees
including abuses against prisoners of war in Qara-i-Jhangi, inhuman and
degrading treatments against prisoner of war in transfer to Guantanamo
Military Base, inhuman and degrading treatments of prisoner of war as
well as civil detainees in Guantanamo Base, while charges of war crimes
in terms with transfer of prisoners of war and civil detainees in
containers as well as inhuman and degrading treatments in Sheberghan
Prison Camp have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to a point that
the Defendant himself committed such crimes.
3) Guilty for crimes against humanity in regard to refugees, use of
depleted uranium weaponry, and inobservance of legal duty to announce
the noxious effects of depleted uranium weaponry as well as negligence
of safety measures for US military personnel.

While the Prosecutors claims recommendations of the Tribunal in three
points, the Tribunal�s competence is not limited to these three points,
but can go further within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal shall make a
ruling on these and other points in its judgment, which will be the
fruit of deliberation in the light of public conscience.
1) The International Community is under the rule of non-military and
peaceful settlement of whatsoever conflicts. This is the golden mean of
the international law. The Tribunal is willing to take stronger
position after much soul-searching. Compulsory conciliation can be one
of possible measures to be taken.
2) It is needless to say that an aggressor should pay the price. Any
effective measures for reparation will be taken into consideration.
3) The Tribunal is in favor of total ban of any production,
stockpile and use of depleted uranium weaponry. While this is a
clear-cut goal, there are possibly many ways to achieve this goal. A
banning treaty is certainly one way, but it would be meaningless if any
State did not ratify it in a hope to continue to produce, stockpile or
use of depleted uranium weaponry, because it has no legal binding force
vis-a-vis non-Member States. Another way is to found its ban on a
clearer basis of international customary law, that is, for example,
Martens clause or newly defined crimes against humanity in the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court.

=====================

Bolton: Bush Gives the UN the Finger
Yahoo News - 2 hours ago
... Bolton is a hawk's hawk in the Bush administration. ... He has led the administration's effort against the International Criminal Court. ...
MORE:>>