|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Man Host, your tone of self-righteousness just really puts me off to anything you have to say, needless to say none of your articles there refute the fact that the man is actively operating in Iraq. Are you trying to assert that he is a fabrication of the US government? We sure are going through a lot of trouble to keep this lie afloat, I mean hurling grenades at voters and beheading people is tiring work.
You hit on the Zarqawi thing, but you failed to address the historical relevance of Saddam giving aid and support to Aiyam Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in their operations in Somalia after the soviet defeat in Afghanistan. You know about that right host? You know right after Osama got expelled from Saudi Arabia and he took refuge in Khartorum were countries such as Iran and Iraq were training logistically and tactically and aiding finacially the beginnings of Al Qaeda in response to America's presence in the horn of Africa. Or is that all a "Bushco" fabrication too? I mean I didn't know that Bush has a time machine at his disposal where he gets the DOJ and PBS frontline to put out documents and evidence attesting to such. Hell Osama himself attests to it, but he is a figment of Bushco's imagination right?
Your blind hatred makes you willingly ignorant to reality.
|
If you perceived disturbing parallels to the excerpts that I intend to quote,
perpetrated in your own country, by those who represent themselves as
the lawfully elected office holders of the federal executive branch, how
would you react? You mistake my outrage and incredulity for "self-rightousness and "blind hatred".
Quote:
............The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the BUSH regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to
goosestep the NEOCONS across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.
We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives, hopes, or frustrations which may have led AMERICA to resort to aggressive war as an
instrument of policy. The law, unlike politics, does not concern itself with the good or evil in the status quo, nor with the merits of the grievances
against it. It merely requires that the status quo be not attacked by violent means and that policies be not advanced by war. We may admit that overlapping ethnological and cultural groups, economic barriers, and conflicting national ambitions created in the 1990's, as they will continue to create, grave problems for AMERICA as well as for the other peoples of THE WORLD. We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, in the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime prior to 2003, illegal and criminal for AMERICA or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war...........
..............The Crimes of the BUSH Regime.
The strength of the case against these defendants under the conspiracy Count, which it is the duty of the INTERNATIONAL COURT to argue, is in its simplicity.
It involves but three ultimate inquiries: First, have the acts defined by the Charter as crimes been committed; second, were they committed pursuant to a Common Plan or Conspiracy; third, are these defendants among those who are criminally responsible?
The charge requires examination of a criminal policy, not of a multitude of isolated, unplanned, or disputed crimes. The substantive crimes upon which we rely, either as goals of a common plan or as means for its accomplishment, are admitted. The pillars which uphold the conspiracy charge may be found in five groups of overt acts, whose character and magnitude are important considerations in appraising the proof of conspiracy. ..................
................. Laws were enacted of such ambiguity that they could be used to punish almost any innocent act. It was, for example, made a crime to provoke "any act contrary to the public welfare" (PATRIOT ACT I).
The doctrine of punishment by analogy was-introduced to enable conviction for acts which no statute forbade (PATRIOT ACT I). ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT explained that THE BUSH ADMIN. considered every violation of the goals of life which the community set up for itself to be a wrong per se, and that the acts could be punished even though it was not contrary to existing "formal law" (PATRIOT ACT I).
The JUSTICE DEPT> and the DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY were instrumentalities of an espionage system which penetrated public and private life (PATRIOT ACT I).
ASHCROFT controlled a personal wire-tapping unit. All privacy of communication was abolished (PATRIOT ACT I). HOMELAND SECURITY appointed over every 50 householders spied continuously on all within their ken (TIPS PROGRAM).
Upon the strength of this spying individuals were dragged off to "protective custody" and to DETENTION camps without legal proceedings of any kind (JOSE PADILLA) and without statement of any reason therefor (PATRIOT ACT I). The BUSH APPOINTED SECURITY Police were exempted from effective legal responsibility for their acts (PATRIOT ACT I).
With all administrative offices in BUSH's control and with the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS reduced to BEING BUSH's RUBBER STAMP, the judiciary remained the last obstacle to this reign of terror (PATRIOT ACT I). But its independence was soon overcome and it was reorganized to dispense a venal justice () Judges were ousted for political or racial reasons and were spied upon and put under pressure to join the REPUBLICAN Party (). After the Supreme Court had acquitted three of the four men whom the BUSHCO accused of BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS, its jurisdiction over treason cases was transferred to a newly established "MILITARY TRIBUNALS" consisting of MILITARY OFFICERS (). The film of this "MILITARY Court" in operation, which we showed in this chamber, revealed its presiding judge pouring partisan abuse on speechless defendants (). Special courts were created to try political crimes, only REPUBLICANS were appointed judges (), and "judges' letters" instructed the puppet judges as to the "general lines" they must follow (MANDATORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES).
The result was the removal of all peaceable means either to resist or to change the Government...............
.....................The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we established the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?
Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question. First is the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is admitted that from the moment the BUSHCO came to power, every one of them and every one of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The question therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did occur, or were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is probably true that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what year war would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether its first impact would be IRAQ, IRAN, or NORTH KOREA. But I submit that the defendants either knew or were chargeable with knowledge that the war for which they were making ready would be a war of AMERICAN aggression. This is partly because there was no real expectation that any power or combination of powers would attack AMERICA. But it is chiefly because the inherent nature of the BUSHCO plans was such that they were certain sooner or later to meet resistance and that they could then be accomplished only by aggression. ............................
...................The orders for the treatment of IRAQI prisoners of war were so ruthless that ALBERTO GONZALES, pointing out that they would "result in
arbitrary mistreatments and killing," protested to the BUSHCO against them as breaches of international law. The reply of RUMSFELD was unambiguous. He said:
"The objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous warfare! This is the destruction of an ideology! Therefore, I approve and back the measures" ().
The Geneva Convention would have been thrown overboard openly except that RUMSFELD objected because he wanted the benefits of ENEMY observance of it while it was not being allowed to hamper the U.S. in any way. ........................
...........................The dominant fact which stands out from all the thousands of pages of the record of this Trial is that the central crime of the
whole group of BUSHCO crimes the attack on the peace of the world was clearly and deliberately planned. The beginning of these wars of aggression was not an unprepared and spontaneous springing to arms by a population excited by some current indignation. A week before the invasion of IRAQ, BUSH told his military commanders:
"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting war. Never mind whether it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether we told the
truth or not. In starting and making a war, it is not the right that matters, but victory ().
The propagandist scenarios were duly provided by the BUSHCO incessantly and falsely inferring that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attacks, and posed an imminent threat to America because he possessed large stockpiles of biological weapons and was close to developing nuclear weapons, in order to create the appearance of a credible threat of an impending Iraqi attack on the U.S. or on one of it's allies. ()..................
.................Each of these people made a real contribution to the BUSHCO plan. Each one had a key part. Deprive the BUSHCO regime of the functions
performed by a RUMSFELD, a WOLFOWITZ, a RICE, or a CHENEY and you have a different regime. Look down the rows of fallen men and picture them as the photographic and documentary evidence shows them to have been in their days of power. Is there one who did not substantially advance the conspiracy along its bloody path toward its bloody goal? Can we assume that the great effort of these people's lives was directed toward ends they never suspected?
To escape the implications of their positions and the inference of guilt from their activities, the defendants are almost unanimous in one defense. The
refrain is heard time and again: These officials were without authority, without knowledge, without influence without importance. POWELL summed up the general self-abasement of the dock in his plaintive lament that: "I always, so to speak, came up to the door, but I was not permitted to enter."
In the testimony of each defendant, at some point there was reached the familiar blank wall: Nobody knew anything about what was going on. Time after time we have heard the chorus from the dock: "I only heard about these things here for the first time."
These officials saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their presence. This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But when we put all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the BUSH REGIME, which was to herald the new millenium, is ludicrous. If we combine only the stories of the front bench, this is the ridiculous composite picture of BUSH's Government that emerges. It was composed of:
A Defense Chief who knew nothing of the excesses of the Military Intelligence Units which he created, and never suspected the IRAQI PRISONER TORTURE program although he was the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions of those detainees;
A VICE PRESIDENT who was merely an innocent middleman transmitting BUSH's interest in obtaining definitive IRAQI WMD intelligence from the CIA, like a postman or delivery boy;
A Secretary of State who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of foreign policy;
A Commanding General in IRAQ who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no idea of the results they would have in practice;
A Homeland security chief who was of the impression that the policing functions of his department were somewhat on the order of issuing colorful threat level warnings that were politically motivated.
A Political Advisor and Mastermind who was interested in polling research and had no idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twenty
first century;
A provisional authority governor of who reigned but did not rule; and could not account for nearly $9 billion in funds he controlled that belonged to the
Iraqi citizens.
An NSA director who denied that BUSH saw briefings before 9/11 on the threat of terrorist airliner attacks, but who had no idea that anybody would read them;
A CIA Director who knew not even what went on in the interior of his own office, much less the interior of his own department, and nothing at all about the accurate pre-invasion intelligence about Iraqi WMD's or about Saddam's cooperation with AL Queda;
A president who never failed to create new justification and a new mission for his troops to justify his war of aggression as each previous justification
that he had advanced to the world, wilted under half hearted and delayed media scrutiny and closer inspection on the ground in IRAQ.
And a preparation for the war economy that included huge tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens, guaranteeing huge federal deficits, but with no thought that it had anything to do with war.
This may seem like a fantastic exaggeration, but this is what you would actually be obliged to conclude if you were to acquit these defendants.
They do protest too much. They deny knowing what was common knowledge. They deny knowing plans and programs that were as public as the pronouncements of the
NEOCONS of the PNAC and the Party program. They deny even knowing the contents of documents they received and acted upon. .....................
..............................
It may well be said that BUSHCO's final crime was against the land they had ruled. Like a mad messiah who started the war without cause and prolonged it without reason. If BUSH could not rule he cared not what happened to AMERICA. As RUMSFELD has told us from the stand, BUSH tried to use the defeat of post IRAQ invasion policies for the self-destruction of the IRAQI people. He continued to fight when he knew it could not be won, and continuance meant only ruin.
POWELL, in this courtroom, has described it as follows:
" . . . The sacrifices which were made on both sides after January 2004 were without sense. The dead of this period will be the accusers of the man
responsible for the continuation of that fight, GEORGE BUSH, just as much as the destroyed cities, destroyed in that last phase, who had lost tremendous
cultural values and tremendous numbers of dwellings.... The IRAQI people"he said"remained faithful to the goal of FREEDOM until the end. He has betrayed them knowingly. He has tried to throw them into the abyss. . ."
BUSH ordered everyone in his administration to resist admission of the truth to the last and then retreated into disgrace. But he left political life as he
lived it, a deceiver. This was the man whom these defendants exalted to a Presidency. It was they who conspired to get him absolute authority over all of AMERICA. And in the end he and the system they created for him brought the ruin of them all.
|
In the next post, read the actual quotes that comprised the template for
the preceding parallel contained in the quote box. |