Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia

open quoteKuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.close quote (Read more)

One comment

  1. So where is Roman’s comment on this?

    Where is the moral clarity?

    Here is Brian Crenshaw’s comments:

    Moral Clarity by Bryan Chenshaw

    We want to protect the environment but meet
    needs of industry. There is conflict in needs for
    public services and exercising responsibility in
    taxation.

    When we move to the personal level we find the
    same type of conflict. Every day we are called
    upon to make choices about the moral issues of
    life, about right and wrong. How do we make
    such choices?

    Of course we have the classic guidelines — the
    Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount,
    the Golden Rule. But even with these we sometimes
    find ourselves confused as we deal with gray areas,
    and have difficulty in decision making.

    Let me suggest a series of questions which might
    be helpful as we seek to make decisions about
    right and wrong.

    Ask first, “Does it have to be concealed?” Evil loves
    darkness, goodness loves light. When something is
    wrong it likes to slip around in dark corners. When
    something is good it can stand the scrutiny of broad
    daylight.

    A second question: “Where does it lead?” The
    person who chooses a path also chooses where
    that path comes out. Therefore, one needs to think
    not only about a specific act but the direction in
    which that act leads. If the direction is wrong the
    destination can never be right.

    Young people should be especially sensitive in this
    area. So many wrongs are lightly accepted by
    society, and it is easy to drift into situations which
    bring disaster.

    A third question: “How does this affect other people?”
    We like to think we live alone and what we do is our
    business and no one else’s. This is simply not true.
    Almost everything we do has an effect on many other
    people.

    Each of us can recall many instances where one
    person’s wrongdoing has brought disastrous
    consequences upon others — effect which could
    have been easily foreseen if the person had
    stopped to think.

    The next question: “Would it be all right, and would
    the world be just as happy and well off if everyone
    did this; or am I trying to give myself special privilege?”

    We remember Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
    which asked, “What would be the result if everyone
    did as I do?” And Paul’s admonition, “love does not
    purse selfish advantage.”

    To be aware of these questions is not enough. For
    them to be effective there needs to be three additional
    things.

    First, a moral sensitivity which remembers to ask the
    right questions at the right time.°

    Second, a moral decisiveness, to know what is good is
    not enough. There is a difference between waking up
    and getting up. There must be specific decision for the
    right.

    Finally, there needs to be a moral stamina. To be
    sensitive and aware is good. To make proper decisions
    is better. To be aware of economic truths is not enough.

    There has to be a willingness to state the truth in the face
    of disbelief and derision. There must be specific decision
    for the right. To be sensitive and aware is good. To make
    proper decisions is better. The way of victory is to maintain
    a moral stamina which continues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*