Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

[bigtree]

Friday, August 25

Aaron Glantz, OneWorld US

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.

Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court . . .

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20060825/wl_oneworld/45361383191156511966

[leftyladyfrommo]

1. Interesting take on things.

[Kagemusha]

2. Only because what was true in his time is long obsolete now

If anyone who wasn't personally involved in the Nuremburg trials said this the result would be open laughter.

[HereSince1628]

7. Yeah, Nuremburg trials were a quaint solution...

IMHO avoiding war crimes trials drove much of Gonzales and other's involved in early legal efforts by the WH.

I'm not convinced war crimes are obsolete.

[malaise]

9. Bingo n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. I wonder if they were unaware that among the war crimes

defendents were Nazi judges who had ruled that the crimes were legal.

Hitler did not complete his bid for power until he had the courts under his thumb, giving him the semblance of legitimacy. The judges claimed they were merely following the law, as laid down by the legislature, but they did have the option of declaring those laws unconstitutional and they didn't.

As much as I would like to see * and cheyey in the dock at The Hague, it would be a travesty if Scalia, Thomas and Alito were not there with them. They are the ones undermining the constitution.

On edit - And Gonzales. How could I forget Gonzales, who dreamed up these things to begin with?

[HereSince1628]

24. True. Very true.

I'd love to see Yoo in the dock as well.

[leftyladyfrommo]

10. Isn't it amazing how things have changed? And in such a short

period of time.

We used to really care about rights - now no one seems to think losing those rights is any big deal at all. We just shrug our shoulders and go right on.

I don't get it.

[Kagemusha]

13. I think the 'no aggressive war' thing went out of fashion LONG ago.

Not saying that's a good thing, just saying I don't think it got taken very seriously once the Nuremburg trials were over.

[tom_paine]

25. I get it ( I think )

It's the natural progression of a nation, a free nation, or any life form. Birth, young adulthood, middle age, old age, death.

For people and Republics, as well. Ask the Romans. Ask the Germans, who's Republic was strangled in it's crib.

Read Benjamin Franklin's speech to the Constitution Convention for more. The man was a prophet. Now we live his prophecy.

[leesa]

17. Why do you say that? Since when have war crimes become obsolete

This man is absolutely right. Bush withdrew from the ICC specifically because he knew he would be committing war crimes.

[Kagemusha]

19. I'm referring to the "aggressive war" one.

Can you just imagine the horror certain Western leaders would have if they really had to take that aspect of international law seriously? Fortunately, they don't. If a virtuous leader instigates war, the war is moral. Just ask Tony Blair.

No, it's not right, but it's reality.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

3. Amen, Brother Ferenccz!

[nmliberal]

4. Amen nt

[snappyturtle]

5. K&R I not only think Bush signed a new law.....

prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court to protect his a-- in what he knew he was planning but also to cover past administration's "errors". He's a creep who thinks he was selected to be king. :grr:

[Solly Mack]

6. :o)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Solly%20Mack/63

[patricia92243]

8. I believe a person in germany did that - change the law - and then you wil

will not be doing anything illegal.

[bigtree]

20. good point

Bush following in Hitler's footsteps

[flordehinojos]

11. YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES! YES! AND YES!

[mike_c]

12. some of us have been saying this for YEARS now....

Good to hear some agreement from someone who was a principle at Nuremberg.

[DemonFighterLives]

14. I love this guy!

Tell it like it is.
dubby gets to change the quaint laws so all manner of torture and death are ok.
:dem:

[warrens]

15. That sounds about right

Boy, that Bush legacy is really lookin' hot, ain't it. When you're being compared to Nazi criminals by the guy who sent them to the rope, you're really firing on all cylinders, fascist-wise.

[bigtree]

18. definitely, a new low

even for him

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. 4 and 1/2 stars, but only 83 votes- c'mon DUer's! n/t

[bigtree]

23. .

[JackRiddler]

22. k r

!!!

[OneTwentyoNine]

26. Damn RIGHT he should! Keep this bumped.....n/t