President George W. Bush is a war criminal.
Bob Fitrakis
President George W. Bush is a war criminal.
Sat Jan 3 16:32:28 2004
Why Bush must be captured and tried alongside Saddam Hussein

Bob Fitrakis

December 31, 2003: ( As the new year unfolds, one
unmistakable fact remains unreported in America's submissive mainstream
media: our President George W. Bush is a war criminal. Any attempt to
state this obvious fact is ignored and any Democratic Presidential
hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush doctrine of American
imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is dismissed as a
"vanity" candidate and told to drop out of the race.

The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American
Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars, has laid
out the case against the President in article after article in a
dispassionate fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the
United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United
States and Britain attempted to comply with international law. When
Operation Enduring Freedom, the massive military assault on Afghanistan,
began on October 7, 2001, both countries adhered to the United Nations
Charter Article 51 by notifying the Security Council that they were
attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine of individual and collective
self-defense. Most international law scholars accepted the United States
' right to self-defense against terrorist bases in Afghanistan.

From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly
resurrected the discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive war" with Bush
and his collaborators arguing that in the battle of "good" versus "evil"
the United States had the right to attack any country that might pose a
future threat to our nation.

The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein
for propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against
Iraq. Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of
the "Bush doctrine" without pointing out its illegal and criminal
nature. For example, Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in
a news analysis piece the day Saddam was captured, that: "By striking at
a country that was not threatening to attack the United States and
without hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction or links to
al-Qaeda officials hope to show the length to which the United States
would go to protect itself."

The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown's analysis on its front page. Still
there was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.

Let's start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that
pre-emptive self-defense is unlawful under international law - from
Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter. In fact, the
United States was the guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and
the establishment of the United Nations. At the end of the second world
war, with the Nazis defeated and discredited, the United Nations
Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S., prohibited nations using
preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the Security Council has
the authority to take measures against "threats to the peace, breaches
of the peace, and acts of aggression."

The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective
self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The
key, of course, is that you has to be attacked or that an enemy must be
in the process of attacking you. Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply
say here's a list of "rogue nations" who may at some undefined time in
the near future pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of
mass destruction, which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed
to have. Nor is there anything under international law that says simply
developing a weapons program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If
this were true, every country on Earth would be justified in attacking
the U.S., the country with the greatest number of WMD's, at any time.

A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to
raise substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the
mainstream media is obsessed with its "politics as horse race" mentality
focusing mostly on who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads
analyze the post-Saddam capture "Bush bounce" and predict that no
President with a favorable rating over 60% going into a presidential
election year has ever lost, they miss the point that if they actually
reported that world consensus holds their president to be a war
criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn't be so high.

Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence
debate on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who
suggested that peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol
Mosley-Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton should drop out of the debate. When
Kucinich directly challenged Koppel suggesting that it wasn't the media'
s role to define who should be in or out of a presidential race prior to
the people casting votes, ABC retaliated by pulling the fulltime
reporter covering the Kucinich campaign.

Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is
illegal. Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from
Kucinich and put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush
doctrine and its eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on

And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in
its December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through
Kuwait looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press
(  ), a political science professor, and author of
numerous articles and books.

Main Page - Tuesday, 01/06/04

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)