Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes -** 03-17-04

dont shoot the messenge...

Quote:

DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS DECRIED
Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes

The Japan Times
By NAO SHIMOYACHI, Staff writer
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Refer: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20040314a5.htm

A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

The tribunal also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium shells and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people, compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations in light of its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.

The tribunal participants spent two years examining Bush's role as the top commander in the war, making eight field trips to Afghanistan and holding nearly 20 public hearings.

"Bush said that military presence in Afghanistan is self-defense," said Robert Akroyd, a British lawyer who served as one of the five judges.

"But under international law," he said, "a defendant must pay great care to discriminate (between) legitimate objects and civilians" in claiming that one's act is self-defense, said Akroyd, former head of legal studies at Aston University in Britain.

Bush failed to do so with the U.S. military's use of "indiscriminate weapons such as the Daisy Cutter (a huge conventional bomb), cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells," he said.

Civilians and experts who have supported the tribunal movement agreed to work for creation of an international treaty that would prohibit the production, stockpile and use of depleted uranium rounds, like the Ottawa process that succeeded in 1997 in outlawing antipersonnel land mines.

Organizers said the tribunal on Afghanistan was the latest attempt to try a head of state by the efforts of citizens.

The history of citizens' tribunals dates back to the 1960s, when the British philosopher Bertrand Russell and others tried to examine the acts of the U.S. government during the Vietnam War.

More information refer: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00215.htm

About time the ICC actually served some purpose, above and beyond that of the UN.

SirVLCIV · 03-17-04

Anyone can be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. My professor could have nominated me if he wanted to.

John Preston · 03-17-04

It's the Gulf War all over again.

John Preston · 03-17-04

I was actually commenting in reference to the fact that the President is guilty of war crimes.
But yeah..we'll go with the term "success".

John Preston · 03-17-04

So you don't believe that Bush has been found guilty of war crimes?

John Preston · 03-17-04

But found guilty nonetheless.
Thus negating your previous statement.

John Preston · 03-18-04

Commie court?
Wow...you actually complimented people.

John Preston · 03-18-04

So you're saying that you meant the commie comment as an insult?

Corporate Pig · 03-18-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

Nope, your fantasy is that your commie court actually matters.

And the only problem with your fantasy is, that the 'court' isn't Communist...

that is of course, unless your now claiming that Japan is Communist, JLB?
And in which case - please provide your evidence to prove that Japan is communist...

in case you couldn't read the ORIGINAL article JLB, (because we all know you can't read the dictionary)...

Quote:

Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes

A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons

Refer: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20040314a5.htm

of course, the entire "concept" of a "citizens tribunal", is counter-productive in the "ideals" of a "democratic" society, isn't it, JLB...

and to help your reading skills..

Quote:

de·moc·ra·cy
n.

1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2) A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

John Preston · 03-18-04

The US is a Representative Democracy.
Anyone who's gone through Middle School should know that, since it's what is taught.

John Preston · 03-18-04

So you disagree with the fact that the people elect representatives who in turn make decisions pertaining to the laws?

John Preston · 03-18-04

...
What do you think the Representative in Representative Democracy stands for?

03-19-04

Can the side-bickering please stop already and not get carried away with semantics. JLB you're not the superior possessor of supreme knowledge, if you were what are you doing wasting your time on an internet site? People are entitled to their opinions, it doesn't mean it's an opportunity for you to degrade them and blow smoke up your own arse. I think you deliberately bait people to break DF rules and push them to lose their cool. That to me is not indicative of someone who boasts to have such a superior intellect, but rather someone who simply likes to piss people off for the sake of it.

If people disagree with your opinion they have every right to, and you have no right to make anyone feel inferior to you, because they're not. You're not here to teach anyone anything, because as far as I know we didn't hire you for the job.

Whoever bites when JLB baits just plays along with the stupid games, try and ignore that and rather stick to discussing the issues at hand.

It amazes me how much people can twist views to suit their own sense of reality. I consider Bush a murderer but then he's just a puppet. And Blair is his goofy sidekick.

SirVLCIV · 03-19-04

'would' and 'volunteer'

Jordyn · 03-20-04

de·moc·ra·cy
n.

1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2) A political or social unit that has such a government.

The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

ahhh...by that defintions, america is no longer a democracy? i see no..."power" for the people here, only bush and his...borderline attempt at a dicatorship. Fortunately there are more americans that would rather fight than lay down for bush's...actions towards, world domination....thank goodness, he would need less intelligent and more...protected countrymen for that...

aren't some states currently "dumbing" down their students by removing certain aspects of an education...and how much of american media is governmentally influenced?

John Preston · 03-20-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

We never have been a democracy.

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2)

You do realize that's also the definition of a Representative Democracy?
Or even just a straight up Democracy if you took Jordyn's definitions to heart.

Of course you don't. You choose to ignore that which disrupts what you wish to believe in. You probably are a Republican due to the fact that it has Republic in it's name, and as such you think that America is a Republic and Republicans have all the rights to America, what with the word republic being in the whatever not.

However a Republic and a Democracy ARE THE SAME EXACT THING.
Yay!

John Preston · 03-20-04

And my previous statement stands proven.

thefr0g · 03-20-04

JLB is right, I completely agree with him.