Skip to content or view screen version

Campaign:Blair, Bush, Howard to International Criminal Court

gtresd | 10.04.2003 07:47

A campaign has begun to have Blair, Bush and Howard face the International Criminal Court.

A campaign has begun to have those responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent war crimes committed to be taken to the International Criminal Court to explain their actions. Australia is a signatory and therefore John Howard, Alexander Downer and Robert Hill can be taken before the ICC to explain their role in the war crimes committed in Iraq. A campaign has begun in the USA to have George W Bush taken before the ICC though problems may arise as the USA is not a signatory to the ICC (it thinks it is special and should be exempt). In Britain it has been argued that according to legal advice, Tony Blair can be taken to the ICC as Britain is a signatory. Saddam's record of war crimes is extensive and action can also be taken against him and members of his dictatorship.

Letters demanding George W bush appear in the ICC have already been sent to the Court. Momentum is now gathering for a similar campaign for Bush's accomplices, Blair and his ministers, and Howard, Downer and Hill. Saddam and his accomplices also need to be brought to account for their reign of terror in Iraq. All these leaders must be shown that people are not disposable objects to be used in their disputes and for their own agendas. There is sufficient evidence to warrant legal action against all those responsible for the human rights abuses and war crimes commited by the governments of the USA, Iraq, Australia and Britain. The world cannot stand by and allow governments to bomb civilians, kill and maim children, destroy water supplies and use weapons such as cluster bombs.

Letters requesting immediate investigation and legal action against those responsible for the Iraqi massacre can be sent to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands.

International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
2500 CM
The Hague
Netherlands

This campaign is important as it exposes the hypocrisy surrounding the use of terror. The above mentioned governments are willing to use terror, kill civilians including children and destroy a nation in order to achieve their aims. As we head into a new century, leaders must not be allowed to continue committing war crimes and human rights abuses. We cannot accept their excuses and warped logic that what has occurred in Iraq is justified. Killing children can never be justified. We cannot allow govermnents to launch attacks which leave whole families killed, children maimed and millions suffering.

gtresd

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

Hypocrisy?

10.04.2003 08:11

and Saddam?

Robin


And SADDAM side by side with BUSH

10.04.2003 08:22

by the way .. do you know the link of ICC ??

ha ha


Sound action?

10.04.2003 09:14

It may give us a break from their whistle stop visits, Sharon can't visit Belgium for fear of war crimes convictions so he gets his chocolate from a local store, that polish film dirrector doesnt go to the states because (a) his girl friend grew up or (b) the courts have the uncut vidio of the relationship. What ever! neither has to face the court because there is no juristiction.
Sad fact... Gulf war one paused, it did not end, it went on untill this last battle and it still continues, read up! there was a cease fire that was all, a pause in hostilities while the US imposed conditions and Saddam agreed...both sides cheated and no disarmament occured. As disarm was the main condition the war recommenced March 2002 under UN approval and here we go again...Sad Fact... new resolutions do not replace old resolutions creating a catolouge in reserve for almost any contingency...just because it was wrong, unjust and a crime against humanity doe'nt make it illegal, so bollocks to the international court it only exists in the minds of those it can hold accountable...The US not only had a good case for war regardless of its stated objectives, its defense is multilayered and inpregnable plus their not under international legal obligation they all joined a coilition under dirrection from and acknowldged refuser of the treaty...No lawyer would take this one on... although even I would take the money, get a class action Civilians+cheated voters of democracies+Financialy hurt buisnesses the list goes on, pay up front from donations raised in futility to prove a point, win or lose no returns... sure you've got a case and the lawyer wins, thankyou I love the smell of princibles in the morning.

Jon Wood


R U representing the ignorant masses

10.04.2003 09:29

Robin are you representing the ignorant masses ?
You come across as a very usefull sort of person you'd obviously make excellent canon fodder, and your such a pratt you obviously believe in what you read in the newspapers.
British newspapers being what they are your knowledge of world affairs is on a level with that of the Observers book of Pond life. Two weeks ago blair was bleating about Saddams
WMD and how he was a threat to the world, Chemical weapons and loads of other goodies a good part of it from British companies who's suppport foor the labour government comes in hard cash, most of it under the table.
The biggest problem with short sighted wankers like you is that you live foor the present your all full of yourself cos the yankkkees won the war. But what you don't realise is thhat they are already planning way ahead, what doo yoou think that the arms industry takes time off from producing WMD they will be shipping them out of a port near you right now, arming some scum bag dicatator who robs his people to pay the bill and then uses the weapons against them if they try to overthrow him. The british government acts as agents for the arms industry, the example of Blair unloading a few
planes while he was in India on a peace mission is quite the norm. So where will the next war be ?, book early Robin get yourself a grandstand view of innocent woman and children blown to bits in the name of democracy, just send the bill to the british tax payer and the profits to some one who does not put his proffession on the gates of his luxury mansion in the stock broker belt and on into the future with the ignorant masses cheering all the way to the next massacre ..

oppo


IGNORANCE OR SHEER AROGANCE?

10.04.2003 09:45

Part of the problem about the anti war brigade in my opinion is that the majority come across as self rightous. See above posts for example. I am anti war, but perhaps what the difference between me and others is that I am not blinded by anti Western fever and propoganda. Do you really think you are SO superior that you are the only one who can determine what to believe and what not to believe in the media? People can think for themselves... You just don't see your hypocrisy, YES Tony Blair and George Bush should face war crimes proceedings if they have committed war crimes but SO the f*ck should Saddam. Do you only want a war crimes tribunal to proceed just against Western leaders only? Your asking for the War Crimes process to basically stand up and be counted? "Yeah but only against Western leaders" Think about it...

ROBIN


what's your point?

10.04.2003 10:14

Robin - if you take the time to properly read the article above, it does actually state:

"Saddam's record of war crimes is extensive and action can also be taken against him and members of his dictatorship. "

Did you miss this, or did you have another point to make that I am missing?

jm


To the Hague-for awards

07.11.2003 22:58

The British officials and their American counterparts should be sent to the Hague and awarded for their courage in overthrowing a brutal dictatorship while the rest of the world stood by. I suggest NGOs who claim to care about human rights be present at the award ceremony.

K.A. Diamond