American war crimes prosecution

Pat if your theory is correct then Winston Churchill, FDR and Truman should of all been put on tried as war criminals.

ckc1996 As well as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and John Edwards and most of the current congress. In antiquity the victors got to write the history of a conflict. Now its academics and journalists that dont know the stakes and are protected by others that have given their lives.

Perhaps all of us are war criminals not only because we allow liars to set the agenda, but because we pay taxes to help fund these hegemonic wars for natural resources and the demonic, psychopathic notion of empire building. We sacrifice young blood to do this. We destroy a country such as Iraq for their oil and to keep a certain dictator from demanding only euros for his crude oil. We are speaking about violations of the Geneva Convention, and the condoning of torture. Not only do people like Gonzalez and Rumsfeld condone torture, they advocate it, then deny it by going after their sadistic hirelings at places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. People such as Bush Sr.,Cheney, and Rice, to name several who represent a small fraction of the ruling elite, openly violate international law, and the American Constitution. Their crimes are of an international scope. I would rather hear historians and journalists write the histories of conflict than the victors, don't you? There is also something else involved, and that is the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus--which basically means I can lock you up at an undisclosed location, deny you a lawyer, call you a terrorist, deprive you of sleep and food and let you rot until you'll confess to killing Julius Caesar and Socrates.

Ms. LaMarche is reporting about an event that took place last week in Andover, Massachusetts. Part of her job is to listen, take notes, and make intelligent assessments based on facts. There is no theory involved here. We have been involved in state sponsored Red Flag terrorism since the founding of this Republic. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing new. The imperial power creates an incident, wraps itself in the flag, and calls you unpatriotic if you don’t support its genocidal wars. Shame on the American Press, kudos to Ms. LaMarche once again for speaking her mind without some TV producer telling her what to say. Even if George W. Bush were deaf and dumb (which may be the case) all of this happened on his watch. He should be tried for crimes against humanity.

"marccreate"...Habeas Corpus or Habeas Corpus ad Sujjiciendum simply means to bring the body (the person suited for a court hearing), or a writ requiring a person detaining a prisoner to produce him and bring him to the court's hearing, is obviously not in the context you so inappropriately outlined in your narrative. If you are even attempting to spell Latin words and legal terms, at least you should look up the words if you do not know how to spell them and know their meaning (and obviously you did not do either) before you entered them to a worldwide website. I knew them, anyway. If Bush were to face criminal charges for murder, then he faces an assumption of risk and other delict factors, however laws in the US prevent and shelter a President from charges only when that President creates a genocidal or human rights violations. Within Pat's statement, also she outlines the US policies on "torture" to caught terrorists...or those allegedly accused of "torture"...but never proposed incarceration in time of declared war (on terrorism) procedures to get information from these accused individuals to determine the strategic and tatical methods and whereabouts of their leaders, etc...and the current laws advocating such techniques, and I guess someone also forgot about the "torture" the mass of people who went to their deaths aboard the four aircraft and in the World Trade Center buildings and many others that died as a result of the 9-11-01 holocaust - or their families continuing "torture" of not having their loved ones around anymore. Please, Pat...get real for a change...stop attending casino meetings and to be so hopeful that you will become a part of Nevada's expanding big-business operators somehow and going to subversive seminars such as this one by Bugliosi turned out to be. True, Weiss is an international law expert, but to put any sitting US president into the same slot as a Chilean dictator, and others, is ludicrous. Who handles this hearing...the US or the International Court of Justice in the Hague...according to the expert, himself? No, Weiss never tortured a German POW...the Germans were not of the same religious break-off, screaming, fanatical and self-destructive people now being bred by "terrorism" groups. Someone is not paying attention (much) to historical details and personalities here. This article and the response by "marccreate" simply sounds like someone had been absent of mind when these narratives were written.

Journalists lie and have and the American people know thats the case. According to polling data journalists have a 10% approval rating. Congress is at 17%Even Bush can muster a 34%. I am still not sure how a foreign group that you are at war with has habeas corpus rights. All thats been said here can be boiled down to "Bush is bad". OK I am with you on that. My point is that Congress supported this every step of the way until it became politically expedient not to. No commision run by politically motivated people can be fair and impartial. Or do you have a verdict before a trail. If they go forward with any sort of prosecution then they are as bad as the accused. In the words of sixties musician that I had the honor to meet. "One is guilty and the other gets to point the blame." Its a nasty deadly game they are playing. Are you sure you want to go down that road? You did say you were a socialist at one point didnt you. So truth doesn't really matter anyway. Does it?

Read what Habeas corpus means below, and tell me I'm wrong.

My, we get so angry don't us!

Johnin Philippines: Habeas corpus (IPA: /?he?bi?s ?k??p?s/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body)[1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

I am delighted you disagree with me so violently. That's a good sign. I am speaking about REAL journalists like Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken , Nelson Algren, Helen Thomas and Pat LaMarche, not the talking heads who broadcast the fake news the power elite wants you to injest. Open your mouth, and swallow!

Ah... The man knows the real news when he sees it as opposed to the fake news.... and then puts the verbal terrorist hypocrite Lamarche in the same sentence wth Mencken. Har! Har! Har! .....You just got on my ignore list.

"marccreate"...I know what Habeas Corpus is...and I wonder what law book you have available to explain it to you. Maybe a Webster's...I do not know. However, my law books...and I have plenty of them, from the US and International law books and reviews, state quite a different scope and meaning than what you wrote. It's sometimes in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Yes, and you are correct...if you stick with the perception of your meaning of HC...isn't that the same meaning I spoke of in my web posting? So, I don't understand what the confusion seems to be. If you understand the law, you would look carefully into the meaning in totality of Habeas Corpus. If a country's citizen (s) commits and act of terror (or any other act against international or country law) against another country's citizens,...in reality, Habeas Corpus would be set and instituted upon that individual or individuals to be brought to justice, but only if that person or persons are incarcerated in some country's jail system, for instance, and other eccentric situations and statutes combined. I have acquired, in the eight years since I came to the Philippines in August 2000, a Masters Degree in International Law from a college in Manila. I know what I'am talking about.

Johninphilippines thank you for pointing out that there are major differences between the German soldiers of WWII and the Jihadists we are fighting today. Most of the time during WWII both sides on the Western Front kept in mind the Geneva Convention rules (on the Eastern Front it was the exception). Allied POWs were fairly treated except in specific situations (the Malmedy massacre during the Battle of the Bulge) and German soldiers prayed to be captured by the Americans/Brits because they knew that the Red Army would be merciless. The individual German soldier was mostly following orders and when the tide of war turned he wanted to make it alive and come back home. Our enemies today do not really care about going back home safely. Whoever dies on the battlefield is celebrated and not mourned. Dying as a martyr is the end result and not an unintended result. He is fighting a holy war (Jihad). Anybody watching their subtitled propaganda videos will understand that. Dying while killing Americans is even better for them. We have read so many stories where they would fake surrender just to blow themselves apart when the GIs would get close to them. They do not recognize the Geneva Convention and view our "moral high ground" as a sign of weakness. This is our enemy. "Human rights moralizers" and progressives need to understand that their own ideals will not make them immune from the wrath of our enemies. For them, any one having a different mindset is "to be subdued by the sword".

Many people forget that the Iranian revolution in 1979 was undertaken by Liberals, Progressives, university students and Khomeinists to overthrow the Shah. The unity government lasted only a few months and then the Iranian revolution became the Islamic revolution. All the "useful idiots" ended as cannon fodder or mine clearing teams on the Iraqi front. Our present day liberals should be aware that their fate will not be better.

Finally I would like to ask Mr. Weiss: Why does not he include Clinton in his list since the bombings of Serbia in 1996 and 1999 took place without Congress authorization and outside the framework of the UN? (Russian officials invoked those precedents to justify their invasion of Georgia). While Operation Iraqi Freedom was approved by Congress, Saddam had been breaking UN resolutions all during the 1990s and the genocide against his own people was well documented.

"Universal Jurisdiction"? what a joke! if Britain started arresting all the wanted terrorists leaders roaming (and plotting) freely in Londonistan and extraditing them back to their original countries (some of them are wanted in the US) where they are wanted for terrorism, murder and attempts to overthrow their governments the world would feel much safer. What if their "human rights" were abused? What about the right to justice of their victims?

"northpark18"...your web posting was 100% correct. You get an "A+" for that one! Your accounts of historical facts are perfect. I have so many DVD's and history books on WW II, I manage to watch them; like I plan to do today, as it is rainy, and 96-degrees (at 7:15 in the morning). It's a beer and butter popcorn day today! History is my most important interest. (other than girls). Seriously, when I was employed in Houston, I was employed by a corporation at the Houston Intercontinental Airport, circa 1979. I remember well the FBI agents bringing handcuffed and chained Iranian's up the gangway ladders and put them into the passenger jets (used solely for the purpose of deporting subversive Iranians out of the country to be sent back into Tehran). The went kicking, screaming; some even kicking the fuselage of the aircraft as they were bodily forced into the plane. That's the way to get rid of people who, like these Iranian's at the time (and not the ones who live peaceably, and follow the laws of the US) are outlaws in a country they hate, anyway. We are not going to change the mindset of any of these people, terrorists, subversive, kind; peaceful or warlike; single of family people; in the mideast areas as their culture was always seemingly against the "infidels". One reason for the obvious hatred is simply due to the Crusades. The Muslims never forgot it...and imbedded it into their religious culture. The Crusades, to update people, took place from the 12th through the 18th centuries, where European Christians mounted expeditions against Muslims in the total Middle East. It eventually went around France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Greece, and down through Jerusalem. There were actually 4 crusades in all. These European Christians killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in a genocidal manner back at that time. But, this is no cause to continue the terrorism...keep the hatered...but that should be the end of it. Thanks for your web posting. It enlightened me.

You are very welcome, "northpark18"!

Yes Johninphillipines: You are so right about hay be us corp us. But when you talk about "terrorists" you must mean all those people accused of terrorism without any proof whatsoever. So innocent people rot in cages and get tortured or killed. Proof? All these people at Gitmo have not had any trials. Nothing. They are just kept there for show. And imperialists nations do this all the time. Let's call them gulags. You can't prove a crime without a trial, can you. Let's cut thru legalese and see the issues humanistically. You never know who's knocking on your doorat 3am.

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United Stateswill determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, really, a time of shame this is..."

To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."

Maybe President Lincoln should of been tried as a war criminal since he suspended habeas corpus....

"Maybe President Lincoln should of been tried as a war criminal since he suspended habeas corpus.... " Maybe, but a war that pits brother against brother is a tougher call than empire against innocent people. I would not let Roosevelt off either for the shameless deportation of Americans to camps on the West Coast. When those people came back to their homes, they were occupied and illegally sold.

If my grandson comes to me and says, "Grandpa, when I grow up I want to beat people to death for a living," I'm going to tell him to join the U.S. Army.

Pereroflonetree, I hope there arn't many who think the way you do...