Two kinds of people in this world, Winners...Losers

Lindsey Buckingham, the prolific singer/songwriter/producer from the famed Fleetwood Mac band, once wrote "Two kinds of people in this world, Winners...Losers, I lost my power in this world, cause I did not use it. So I go insane"

We, as a country, are riding a very fine line. We are at a tipping point of no return. It feels as if there is an expectation from our populace for Obama to make change, so much, that the people are forgetting that the possibility for Obama to even be in the position to make change came from the voice of the people themselves.

It has come back to us again. Only this time, if we do not succeed, we will find this country slip into a moral and ethical tailspin that it will be hard pressed to find a way out. We must take action as a people! Write your legislators!

I'm talking about the Attorney General position in Obama's cabinet. We must email or call our Senators and legislators and demand that there be a criminal trial to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, for their knowingly allowing torture in their little war on terror. Cheney's proud video moment shows a sincere lack of concern for law. Responses from interviews with Bush show their blatant attempts to mitigate the future prosecutions through legal statements from their own attorney's.

We must remember that attorney's do not make the law. John Yoo, Bush's legal council and who wrote memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions, also stated that waterboarding is not a means of torture, does not a law make.

Waterboarding is torture under the rule of war. These men MUST be tried for war crimes just like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, and numerous others from other countries.

The world needs to see that this country must abide by rules of the world as well. The world must see that this country has a true concern for truth and justice. The world must see that the country demands it and is changing to make the wrongs of the past righted before their eyes. We are the only ones that can demand the actions from Washington as they begin to interview and confirm the new AG into office.

Without this action, all our work to put "Change" into the highest office of the land will be for naught. The moral righteousness of the United States in its actions throughout the world will forever be circumspect due to our neglect to right these legal and moral wrongs from the exiting criminals of Washington.

We must show the world that our leaders must also abide by laws and rules. That the laws and rules apply to them as well. Without this action and retribution we will find ourselves living a professed lie to the world. We can expect the respect to disappear for good.

Any future actions from our country to save this or right that will be shameful as it will show the world that we only pick certain rights and certain battles. And if it doesn't work out, tough, we have more bombs than you do, so piss off!

This is not what our founding fathers worked so hard to create. They were trying diligently to move away from the dictatorial leadership of the kingdom. They were trying hard to show that the little guy has rights, and a voice in this world. This is the very reason that our first President, George Washington, stepped down from the office after his second term. He was feeling the power of dictatorial possibilities to the office and chose to keep the vision that was created and stepped down to make room for another President, rather than create another dictatorship. It could have gone down that other path. We are at that crossroads again, but the President must make the move and we as a people must speak loudly to make sure he has our support to make the rule of law apply. Without this Washington will forever be the haven for power hungry criminals to find solace.

This is the one act that will define Obama's history from this point forward. Without the trial of war crimes to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo and more, we will create a precedent that we will never return from. The statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely will forever tarnish this great country from this point forward.

Let's not go insane, as Lindsey says. Let us use our power and help Obama create the change that this country so desperately needs from its people!

We are on a roll right now, let is bring back and keep the power to the people!






This, the 238th entry in bloggoland! Thanks for reading and coming back. I always enjoy the comments, emails and the banter!!


(c)Copyright 2009 Doug Boggs

What is a war crime?

I found this article to be of interest. Perhaps it is time more people become a bit more educated on the definitions of war crimes in order to find if President Bush is guilty of them. If we are to impeach him we should understand what he has done. His desire for accountability statements show us that there is much room for him to stand and deliver on his promise for this. Only it is he who should be held accountable for the actions in Iraq.

I know this goes against the grain of where I have been heading lately with the previous entries, but as a society should we not close the door of ills such as these in order to heal the wounds to be able to move forward a more learned and civil people?

What is a war crime?

By Tarik Kafala
BBC News

The arrest of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his expected transfer to The Hague throws a renewed spotlight on the prosecution of war crimes.

But what exactly are war crimes? What body of laws do they refer to and who has the right to try a suspect for such crimes?

Radovan Karadzic is set to follow Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague

The concept of war crimes is a recent one. Before World War II, it was generally accepted that the horrors of war were in the nature of war.

But during World War II the murder of several million people - mainly Jews - by Nazi Germany, and the mistreatment of both civilians and prisoners of war by the Japanese, prompted the Allied powers to prosecute the people they believed to be the perpetrators of these crimes.

The Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946 led to 12 Nazi leaders being executed.

A similar process started in Tokyo in 1948. Seven Japanese commanders were hanged, though the Allies decided not to put Emperor Hirohito in the dock.

These trials were essentially the precedents for the cases that the modern-day tribunal in The Hague hears.

In addition, individual governments, feeling that justice has not been done, have acted on their own initiative.

At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers

This happened most famously in 1960, when Adolf Eichmann, a high-profile Nazi closely involved in the organisation of the concentration camps and the policies of the Holocaust, was tracked down in Argentina by Israeli agents.

He was kidnapped and taken to Israel where he was put on trial and subsequently hanged.

A more recent example was the 1987 trial of Klaus Barbie - a leading Nazi during the German occupation of France. Barbie was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Body of laws

At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers.

Prosecutors aim to get justice for the victims of Bosnian war crimes

Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes. Genocide is the most severe of these crimes.

The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

• Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
• Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
• Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
• Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

• Murder
• Extermination
• Enslavement
• Deportation
• Imprisonment
• Torture
• Rape
• Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

Genocide is defined by the tribunal as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

But the law on war crimes is continually evolving.

In February 2001, the tribunal in The Hague delivered a ruling that made mass systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war a crime against humanity.

Mass rape, or rape used as a tool of war, was then elevated from being a violation of the customs of war to one of the most heinous war crimes of all - second only to genocide.

Spotting a war crime

It is not always easy to spot a war crime.

The displacement of civilians from their homes by an enemy army is not necessarily a war crime.

It can be argued that the displacement is being carried out for the protection of the civilians.

It only becomes a war crime if the expulsions can be proven to be part of campaign of ethnic cleansing or designed as a mass punishment of civilians.

Equally, is it a war crime for the air force of one country to bomb an enemy's television station because of the propaganda in the broadcasts?

Under the Geneva Conventions, this is not a war crime. Just about all aspects of a state's infrastructure - roads, bridges, power stations, factories - become legitimate targets if they might be put to military use.

Such attacks only become war crimes if the extent of collateral damage to civilians and civilian interests resulting from the attack would be excessive compared to the military advantage gained from the attack.

International court

International human rights groups have long called for a uniform and global legal system for dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Apart from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, established in May 1993, an international tribunal was established in Arusha, Tanzania, for cases resulting from the atrocities carried out in Rwanda in 1994.

Another is trying former Liberian President Charles Taylor over war crimes committed during the civil war in neighbouring Sierra Leone.

Although these represent significant further steps in bringing those accused of war crimes to justice, they are, like Nuremberg and Tokyo, committed to dealing with war crimes in specific conflicts.

In July 2008, Surinam became the 107th country to join the International Criminal Court, set up in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity.

The United States has refused to sign the treaty, arguing the court could be used to pursue politically motivated prosecutions. Other major powers including Russia, China and India have also refused.

The question of whether international courts of this kind are political - as defendants like Slobodan Milosevic have argued - hangs over all international legal institutions.

In a sense it is true that the tribunals are political since the international political will to establish and fund them has to exist before they can get to work.

Critics of international courts often argue that international justice can only be truly legitimate when all war crimes, committed by any county, come under the jurisdiction of a single international court.