Bush’s Anti-Terror Chief: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Can Be Tried at the Hague for War Crimes They Committed In Iraq

Obama Has Also Committed War Crimes

Bush’s top counter-terrorism official for his first year as president – Richard Clarke – tells Democracy Now that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed war crimes in Iraq … and that they can be tried at the Hague:

(Clarke retired in protest at the start of the Iraq war.)

Clarke is right:

  • Indeed, it is not too late to charge Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld for war crimes even under American law

And – as odd as it may sound – it’s not too late to impeach Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld … even though they are no longer in office.

Of course, Obama is also committing war crimes. For example, the Obama administration has ordered numerous indiscriminate drone strikes … which are war crimes (more here and here). And torture is also apparently continuing under Obama. See this and this.

And Obama should also be impeached.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dee

    If any of this was even remotely true, then why doesn’t somebody file charges or introduce a bill of impeachment? Surely CNN needs a story to replace flight 370?

    • not authorized

      It is called “Fox Guarding the Henhouse”. Remember, all of the politicians are Attorney-Lawyers. You need to find a way to make it happen too. They certainly won’t do it for you.

      • Dee

        You should probably get on that.. I wonder if the Secretary general of the UN would be guilty as well, The UN assigned the US and Great Britain as occupying powers in Iraq http://www.uncc.ch/resolutio/res1483.pdf and authorized the invasion under numerous UNSCR’s .

        • not authorized

          Dear Dee,

          I am on that. Part of pointing out the obvious oligarchical crimes against humanity, is enlightening you and others, on how corrupted the legal system has become. It has become a tool of the oligarchy, used to further enslave you. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to the black letter of the law.

          It was not always like this. The purpose of the law, is to promote a free and democratic society. Based upon the dignity of the individual, through his/her capacity to do so through reason and enlightened self-government.

          Lawyers, were to be guardians of the law. Are they today? Did they do a good job? Or did they take advantage?

          As for the the Sec-Gen. How did he feel about the Iraq war….? “From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.” – Secretary General Kofi Annan.

          You can read that, including more of his thoughts on that very topic here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

          As for the controversies surrounding the Iraq War, you can refresh your memory here:

          History 1000 years from now will not agree with your assessment of the Iraq invasion being blessed by the UN. Indeed, history, will not reflect or be so kind to the United States for this century or the last.

          Invading Iraq, and the current wars, just happened to be one of the plans all along. The US steamrolled the UN, doing an “allow this or ELSE” meeting for the Iraq invasion. Do you not remember Colin Powel sitting in the Security Council with a vial of Anthrax, acting up a masterful display of doom porn for them?


          I noticed quite a few familiar names and countries we are actively screwing with, in that article. Did you?

          • michel

            Go, American jurists, go ! Most people in the world support you. And even though I agree with what thorhasgardson posted, such a procedure would send a strong signal to the world. The signal would even be stronger than the outcome. The door would open. And more freedom and future for the world would result.

          • Dee

            You think History in 1000 years will mention or care about Iraq or any of the Current wars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century

            There is a pattern here on Washington’s Blog of citing individuals and their individual opinions .. Like Kofi Annan , who is a very respectable person, somebody who’s opinion, I think matters, but he is not the person who decides if war is legal or Illegal.. That is the UNSC and the International Court they have not issued an opinion, but if they did, it would be binding, and if they didn’t the current interpretations of Charters and Treaties that nations actually act upon, and the acts they commit are either legal, or not of enough consequence to rise to the need of an actually legally binding ruling.

            the Washington Blog model , individuals with opinions , but no support from organizations they represent or that have actual standing to make official rulings supporting them and no explanation of the disconnect other than some vague conspiracy or the conflation of morality with law.

            International Law is by definition whatever multiple nations will agree to. national law is whatever representatives of the nation agree to, almost always by some political process, and in International law, adjudication of legality and illegality is almost always a political decision among many different kinds of political systems and many different philosophies and moral codes.

            I humbly submit that offering any one persons or even a handful of individuals opinions , none f which actually have standing to actually make an official ruling representing a consensus that represents 175 different nations, political systems, moral systems ,cultural systems , and philosophies, none of which chose that particular person as their spokeman. And by the UN Charter Secretary General , however influential , is not the spokesman for international security concerns .. that is strictly the purview of the UN Security Council for the UN and the International Court for the Hague and Geneva Conventions .. just as SCOTUS is for the USA. And if you support or even just want to use the UN Charter or the Conventions or Treaties to support your case, you have to accept their processes and rulings.

            we both agree that a lot of this war stuff is wrong, immoral, and very evil. You would like it to be illegal, as would I, but it is not illegal or at least it hasn’t been ruled as such yet.

            I think war is Immoral and evil .. I would dearly like to turn to the teachings of Jesus or The God of the Jew’s , Moslem’s, and Christian’s but..

            and this is a big BUT even as I read the Holy Books as messages and advocates of Peace, I find the official representatives here on earth that have the authority to interpret the Holy words and commandments finding a lot of exceptions or interpretations that authorize, glorify , and encourage war.

            So whatever you may think anything says, however High and Holy or Idealistic .. when push comes to shove the official interpreters can find a way to justify war.. and this isn’t some modern conspiracy.. it was true even before the New Gods were born or the Old Gods died.

            If you really want to know what you can do.. read this http://www.plough.com/en/articles/2011/july/blessing-the-bombs

          • not authorized

            Dear Dee,

            Please, stop trying to misdirect. I know what can be done. I remind you, that you brought up the Sec-Gen by hinting that he too should be an accessory after the fact, not me.

            Why are you purposefully evading and addressing what a Grand Jury is? Seems to me that you are guilty of the very same thing you just claimed WB is guilty of. You just wrote a whole bunch of text elaborating your opinion, with no backing at all. WB Backs his claims with the law.

            Lets strictly talk facts and stick to 18 USC 3332, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, etc. Shall we? Can you do that for this conversation? Can you please tell me how those laws no longer apply? Can you tell me how international law, the UN Charter, and the United States, being IPSO FACTO parties of the ICJ (UN Charter, Articles 92-96) somehow does not apply too?

            Do you know what ISPO FACTO means? Can you tell us?

            You are acting just like my tax attorney during my “discussion” of Grand Juries with him. Just babbling a lot of words hoping something will stick to deflect from that topic.

            The MAGNA CARTA was clear what the purpose of a Grand Jury was for, and still is for. Is not the Magna Carta a part Common Law? What does it say the purpose of a Grand Jury is? Is the United States a Common Law nation? See, in this nation, you are more than a Baron, you are Sovereign. It is your right to form, and participate, in a Grand Jury and become a runaway jury using those very same USC codes above. It’s a guaranteed right under the 5th amendment.

            A runaway Grand Jury is also the DOJ’s greatest fear. I draw my understanding from United States v. Williams – 504 U.S. 36 (1992). What do you stand under?

            Quiz time. What is a Nisi Prius Court? Which courts are the highest court in this land? Which is a court of no record, and which IS a court of record? What are the differences? If you do not know these, then everything you offer to me in your post, is your OPINION, not fact. Your opinion is in conflict with the written law, and I reject it.

            In summary, stop wasting my time. I’m trying to enlighten you, and others, on how to restore this nation. Not only removing the shackles of the Oligarchy, but, re-starting the great wheel of JUSTICE.


            That’s just *3* websites on Grand Juries. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them, all with their own little pieces of the puzzle that they too have pieced together via reading the law and court rulings.

            Before you continue with this conversation with me, know/ask these three things:

            1.) I am currently reading Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition. Yep, I went there. I know what the law is for. In fact, i paraphrased the first two preamble paragraphs in my last post. Just because we are not following it, does not negate it’s purpose. Return to it’s purpose, and watch our government begin to follow it.
            2.) Read Senate Report 93-549 and tell us your conclusions.
            3.) If it is against the black letter of the law (get it, black’s law dictionary?), then you are in error, and I have the law behind me.

            It is my opinion that future historians WILL discuss it. All the Internets information, will be moved to the Quantum Internet when it becomes available. The internet is a digital archive, of everything we have learned/discovered so far. It is a digital Library of Alexandria, and should be protected and nurtured as such.

            Nations will learn from our war mistakes, watching it via digital video. Video cameras, storing information digitally, did not exist 1000 years ago. It does today.

            With respect.

    • You’re kidding, right? Why doesn’t somebody file charges? You think courts aren’t rigged?

    • You’re kidding, right? Why doesn’t somebody file charges? You think courts aren’t rigged?

  • thorhasgardson

    NO world body has jurisdiction over American leaders.

    • Pablo Proline

      But American leaders have jurisdiction over everybody else in a can of democracy?

    • 1) Not true; under treaties ratified by the Senate and operationalized by acts of Congress, U.S. leaders are as answerable as leaders of any other country for crimes against humanity. 2) Even if your claim were true, the parties in question also are guilty of violating *U.S.* statutes.

  • Arnold Lockshin

    Absolutely nothing punitive will happen to Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

    The US mass murder machine doesn’t work that way.

    Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow

  • D.C. (District of Corruption) is rotten to the core and so are the political parties as they wage war around the world for corporate profits.

    Kerry’s son is on the Chevron board and wanting to get into the Ukraine so now we see why D.C. wants war there. Reid’s son is making millions on the land in Nevada. Pelosi has millions of dollars in Comcast. See the conflict of interest and yet they still vote for these corporations to send our children to foreign wars in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’.

    Time for the Revolution.

  • that1irishmate

    ….this isn’t exactly new news. We as the American people along with EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows they committed a war crime, and yet still they walk freely running and laughing towards the BANK. Meanwhile, Obama is replacing troops with drones doing god knows what, and still we are supporting/creating terrorist networks across the world. All that I ask for is the bare minimum, hold these bastards accountable for their actions and start hold ourselves responsible for our own actions for once.
    Bush = Obama

  • King Kung

    what is the word for a previously great nation that now drags itself through the mud and behaves exactly like the countries it abhors, despises and vilifies ???

    • MURCA!

      My father, a lifelong Republican, cast the last presidential ballot of his life for John Kerry because of U.S. torture. Having served as an infantry officer in Korea, he, unlike Bush et al., had no trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

  • Joel Stephen Gehrke

    It is legally impossible to impeach a former president. Impeachment is in the nature of an bill in equity, analogous to an indictment, except that it seeks an equitable remedy. Equity does not operate when the remedy is moot.

    • Not true. See my post elsewhere in this thread on this subject.

  • Joel Stephen Gehrke

    Henry Kissinger and all the centralized government types can CLAIM that Snowden is a threat to national security but they have never supplied a shred of evidence to support that claim. This is a nazi argument.

  • I’m — well, not proud, exactly, but satisfied that I did what needed to be done when I called in *January 2010* for Obama to be impeached for conspiring to extrajudicially assassinate a U.S. citizen (that assassination was, in fact, later carried out). But I’ve been calling for YEARS for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo, Haynes, et al. to be held legally accountable for their crimes. I don’t ever expect it to happen, but the point seems to need making all the same.

    And for those who wonder why it isn’t too late to impeach people already out of office: If you are convicted in the Senate, you lose all current and future federal benefits (retirement, Secret Service protection, et al.) AND still remain as open to criminal prosecution as you otherwise would.

  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

    Bush Cheney Rove Rice Rumsfeld and plenty more Obama
    building 7 truth & 5 dancing Israelis & death of real Osama

  • johndough

    What about the crime of plotting against and killing 3,000
    of their own American people on 9/11?? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld – the mass murders by these three slime buckets?