Posted on 09/22/2004 8:50:14 PM PDT by ExSoldier
International Criminal Tribunal findings: George W. Bush guilty of war crimes
In the final opinion of the court, Judge Niloufer Bhagwat, rules against Bush.
Citing: George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander -in-Chief of US military forces for serious crimes; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction, against the people of Afghanistan; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States, UK and other forces deployed; and on countries, in and around the region.
In a court action not seen since Nuremburg, 1946, the court issued its ruling in no uncertain terms that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, protracting an illegal military conflict, and crimes against humanity. Very serious allegations indeed.
The entire ruling can be found at: RULING
Bush has never acknowledged this ruling, nor were the American people ever informed of it. Is the concealment an effort by Bush to keep the American people in the dark about what is really happening in the world?
In the final findings, the court said: "The Defendant [George Walker Bush] is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration; including military orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed".
The court has also faulted the US for using weapons of mass destruction; something the US invaded Iraq for in an effort to halt the creation of WMDs. The UN inspectors have said that Iraq did not have WMDs, the US can show no evidence that Iraq even had WMDs.
The court has also introduced a new word into the vocabulary of court proceedings and that is: "omnicide" - in relationship to the US's use of depleted uranium that retains it's radioactive threat for approximately 4.5 billion years. Not only are the present victims of American hostilities directly suffering the after effects of radioactive poisoning, but future generations will suffer equally.
This just reinforces the absurd notion that we are accountable to any world organization that operates outside the boundaries of our own Constitution. Never will any world body or individual nation (including allies) operate in the best interests of our country. This is FACT, not hyperbole.
I'm glad this is satire. For a moment I was thinking the President was indicted. Tell me, is Travis County D.A Ronnie Earle behind this? ;-)
Yo, Judge Bagwat, or Bagbarf, whatever - I got sumptin' yas can acknowledge - RIGHT HERE!
Yet another reason not to allow the ICC any jurdistiction on our people or soldiers.
To them it probably wouldn't matter if a terrorist managed to somehow murder everyone in our country. If we fight back, then of course we are the ones at fault.
Who are these RFs?
You are absolutely right! The world court, the un, etc. do not wish us well.
Of course, a few millions of us might have something to discuss with you regarding this matter upon your arrival.
Okay. I'll take your word for it.
Afghanistan, it I remembe was mostly a SF and AF battle without tanks. Thus the Bagwahm's opinion is flawed. Depleted Uranium was not used in Afghanistan as a primary shell.
Of course I could be wrong, but Judge Bagwahm's ruling is still a bagwahm full of @@@@.
Of course I expect the dems to start running commericials tomorrow with the bagwahm's ruling.
I believe Kim Jong Il presided over this case, so I am viewing this with a bit of skepticism.
I'm a tanker or I was anyway. Yes, you're correct that the main gun round is often DU (Depleted Uranium) but I'm pretty sure that it's also used in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25mm gun to pierce enemy armor. Also, remember that yes the initial stages in Afghanistan were SF troops, but then the 10th Mountain came in and some other units. There may have been some armor assets used in that stage. Of course, you can't fight effectively in Afghanistan using conventional troops, tactics and equipment. Ask the Soviets. Our own conventional guys (Gen Tommy Franks for one) almost totally screwed the operation up by insisting on a change of tactic from SF (which Franks LOATHES) to a heavy force structure.
During that time I took my tank to east berlin, recieved three covert purple hearts and numerous other medals of distinction. But its all hush hush you know....
May I be so bold as to if you where Army or Marine and what tank(s) you had the pleasure of operating?
Think your right on the 25 mm cannon shells. Also we did
have some B52 drops using cluster bombs over a few Iraqi
cities, early on. Might have been Ramadi. Can't keep track of all the articles I followed for since March 03. And
I distincly remember reading articles about people complaining about spent uranium pellets from the cluster bombs that did not explode, on landing splitting open and spilling out the pellets. Complaint was........we where
going to poison their people! What S#@T.
"Weapons of mass destruction" and "depleted uranium" (hinting at nuclear weapons without actually making an accusation) are just buzzwords to get the attention of the media. These people are using fearmongering tactics to scare the ignorant.
JOHN F'N KERRY IS AN ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL. GET YOURSELF EDUCATED!
Right on. POP Weavels as Chuck Yeager used to call them.
Wonder if he lived today what he would call them. Ha ha!
Damn weak liberal cowards hiding behind their pencil pads and Zoom lens. We live in a world of buzz words because the world is full of idiots. I'll leave it go at that.
What the hells going on here. I tried to send last message to you, not to whom it went to. So I repeat, I agree with your statments about the what depleted uranium is.
MSM! Parents spend their hard earned money to send their
kids to college to become journalist, and they turn them
into morons at best! Sickning.
For those that are not sure what ExSoldier was talking about. We use depleted uranium U238 (a spent fuel from
nuclear reactors for generating power primarily but not
limited to those type reactors. Bottom line is the uranium is alloyed in with other metals to form shells such as is
used in our main line Abram A1 tank, and smaller caliber weapons, and certain type cluster bombs.....whatever...
Bottom line is there is hardly any radition given off from these various shells. Many areas of the US and elsewhere have higher natural uranium in the soils and rocks, that emit higher levels of radiation then these shells.
The International community has made a huge fuzz over our use of these type delivery systems. They make it sound like we are poisoning innocent people which is mostly horse droppings. Our tanks choppers, gun ships, and for instance A10 Warthog jet attack aircraft that use this type ammo mostly shot at things such as moving tanks and other vehicles in the desert areas etc.. Only in a few cases did we drop cluster bombs with depleted uranium in them that did not explode but just spilled the pellets into where a lot of civilians where at. So as usual the press and found
out and makes it look like the USA is poisoning the Iraqi and Afgany poeples. Just wanted to clear the matter up for those not sure what is going on.
The M-1 tank actually has steel encased depleated uranium armor.
Good point. Would our military, could our military make that outer shell with a deadly poisonous metal? Funny you did not add some humor as far as the poor Iraqi tankmen finding out the hard way when they got a some chances to hit one of our M1's before getting blown apart, that older tanks like the T57 could not punch through the M1's belt.
I still remember in OIF when we lost perhaps a dozen tanks in the whole campaign as apposed to some 1000 on their side.
Now if that didn't show the Arabs that we did not want to take them out, when we stopped on the road to Basra, instead of marching into Iraq and removing them all.......
They are just too proud, and to stupid. It is so sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.