Re: Tony Blair Headed to Jail

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [apfn-1] Re: Tony Blair Headed to Jail
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:32:18 -0000
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com

Judgment in The People v. George Walker Bush
Tuesday, 16 March 2004, 10:21 am

Press Release: International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/icta.judgment.htm

Note the fate of POWs loaded into cargo containers
without adequate ventilation.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

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

[SNIP]
The Prosecution has presented a formidable Indictment against the Defendant, George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of U.S. military forces for serious crimes; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction, against the people of Afghanistan; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States, UK and other forces deployed; and on countries, in and around the region.

Relevant for the trial, is the profile of the Defendant, elected as the 43rd President of the United States, and sworn in as President in January 2001; the year of the military attack on Afghanistan; after an election which received international focus, in view of the issues involved, resolved by the Supreme Court. The Defendant's past history, of close association, with the Corporate sector in the United States of America, has been highlighted in the indictment by the prosecution, in particular with the Oil and Energy sector; the Defendant formed an oil company, the Arbusto Energy Inc in 1978, which was unsuccessful; after which Spectrum 7 Energy of Ohio was formed in 1984 with the Defendant as CEO; thereafter the Defendant was a Consultant to Harken Energy from 1986, prior to being elected as Governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.

2. Accomplices and Accessories to the Crimes of waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In view of the undisputed facts, that apart from the military forces of the United States, ordered to be deployed by the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief for the war on Afghanistan, military forces of other governments were deployed and leading members of the defendant's administration, participated in the decision making; the prosecution has clarified in the indictment, that other members of the Defendant's administration who were a party to the conspiracy to wage a war on Afghanistan, and those heads of government who have deployed military forces of their countries to assist in the military occupation; are equally accomplices and accessories to the crimes committed by the Defendant; though in this trial it is the Defendant who has been proceeded against.

3. Universal Jurisdiction

The Tribunal being conscious of the basic principle of jurisprudence that ' no one must be condemned unheard ', that ' justice must not only be done but appear to be done '; appointed amicus curiae, a Senior counsel from Japan, to assist with the defense of the Defendant; amicus curiae entered a plea of "not guilty", on behalf of the Defendant and questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as and by way of preliminary objection; the Defendant, though duly served by the Secretariat of the ICTA through the embassy of the United States in Tokyo and directly, failed to appear before the Tribunal and enter a plea.

Professor Willaird B. Cowles in an article titled 'Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes” (California Law Review, Vol. 33 (1945) p.177) emphasized that:

...”all civilized states have a very real interest in the punishment of war crimes"…and that “an offense against the laws of war, as a violation of the laws of nations, is a matter of general interest and concern"...

This was in an academic paper written more than half a century ago, when the principle of ‘Universality of Jurisdiction’, and the personal accountability of individuals for War Crimes, was gaining adherents among jurists, after the Second World War.

The objection raised to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Tribunal on behalf of the Defendant, by amicus curiae; and the United States government claiming "impunity” in various forums, against indictment for war crimes; is best answered by the undertaking given to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, by the Chief Counsel for the government of the United States of America, Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson, who stepped down temporarily, as Judge of the United States of America, to represent the United States before the Nuremberg Tribunal, established pursuant to the Moscow Declaration and the London Agreement of 1945, to which the government of the United States was a signatory. Justice Jackson categorically declared that:

“If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others, which we would not be willing to have invoked against us …."

In view of this position taken before the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Defendant is liable not only before this Tribunal, but the entire claim of ‘impunity’ of the government of the United States is legally untenable; no government can surrender the right vested in its citizens to invoke International Criminal Law, not by a Resolution of the Security Council nor by bilateral treaty.

On the issue raised by amicus curiae, of how authoritative is the verdict of such a Tribunal; it is necessary to restate, that sovereignty is a constitutional and political concept, which resides in the final analysis with the people; who have a right to judge through legal forums created by them; at a critical period of history for serious crimes committed against humanity; in particular, when several governments across continents have abandoned the democratic principle of governance; many being elected in seriously flawed electoral process; on the basis of Corporate support and campaign contributions

4. The World Disorder.

The critical question, among others, posed before this Tribunal by the Prosecution is, how do we challenge this 'world disorder'; this is a juridical question; yet the law is always a reflection of existing economic and political systems; though all legal systems maintain that the purpose and objective of law, is the preservation of the ‘Rule of Law’ within and between nations; this presupposes that there are no privileged individuals, classes, or groups, within and across nations.

5. The Charge of Waging a War of Aggression.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg referring to the charge of waging a war of aggression, highlighted the gravity of this offense in the following words:

“To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes, in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

The legal defense of the Defendant to this charge, is to be found in public statements made by the Defendant, after the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001, on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, by hijacking of aircraft in the United States; which admittedly, destroyed the lives of approximately three thousand (3,000) innocent citizens of the United States; and of other nationalities and religious beliefs.

The defense advanced by amicus curiae is, that the military attack of 7th October 2001 ordered by the Defendant, as President of the United States and its Commander in Chief, was a ‘just war’ or a ‘bellum justum’; a war of self defense, a preventive war; in response to the terrorist attacks of al Qaeda, masterminded by Osama bin Laden, harbored by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had permitted terrorist camps on its territory; who were committing hostile acts against the United States of America.

6. 11th September 2001 attacks in the United States had no connection with Afghanistan.
[SNIP]

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/icta.judgment.htm
===============
New David Ray Griffin DVD Now Available!
We now have available a new 1-hour DVD of David Ray Griffin, Professor and author of The New Pearl Harbor, speaking in Santa Rosa, California, about his newest book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. This "must see" video is one of the best introductions to the topic of 9/11 truth currently available.
http://septembereleventh.org/