Bush, Blair for 'War Crimes'

Ray · 03-03-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Seeks to Try Bush, Blair for 'War Crimes'
Graham Lees | Bio | 01 Mar 2007
World Politics Watch Exclusive

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia -- In the coffee shops and tea houses of this modernized, stylish city, the hushed talk is of a faltering economy, rising racial tensions, and the man Malaysians either love or loathe.

Old political warhorse Mahathir Mohamad, now 81 and recovering from a recent heart attack, has yet again demonstrated his refusal to retire gracefully with the mantle of respected elder statesman.

After antagonizing his anointed successor as prime minister on a range of issues -- even accusing the Abdullah Badawi government of presiding over a police state -- and recently wading in on the side of Thailand in its political row with his old enemy Singapore, Mahathir now plans to conduct a "war crimes" tribunal.

The former prime minister of 22 years, who handed over the reins of power to Abdullah nearly four years ago, will re-stamp Kuala Lumpur on the global map by holding to account U.S. President George W. Bush, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair and "the pocket Bush of the bushlands" -- Australia's Prime Minister John Howard -- for perceived atrocities in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

In his self-styled indictment, Mahathir is particularly distressed about the execution of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad: "If we support human rights and justice, we must condemn this barbaric lynching of President Saddam Hussein. There can be no excuse whatsoever for this injustice under any circumstances. War criminal Bush and the puppet regime in Iraq have made a mockery of the rule of law."

Human rights advocates in Malaysia have been swift to allege that Mahathir was a serial abuser of rights at home, routinely using the country's draconian Internal Security Act to indefinitely lock up troublesome critics without trial.

"If the government permits this group headed by Mahathir to proceed in the setting of this tribunal a dangerous precedent will be set," said Param Cumaraswamy, a Malaysian former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in a strongly worded statement against the tribunal.

Cumaraswamy said the tribunal plan is a farce that would not only make Malaysia an international laughing stock but "could deter respectable and credible foreign investors from investing in this country."

Mahathir says the tribunal is a necessary alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which he accuses of bias in its selection of cases.

Curiously pre-judging the outcome of his own tribunal, the former prime minister says of the "accused": "We cannot arrest them, we cannot detain them, and we cannot hang them the way they hanged Saddam Hussein, but we can label them as war criminals."

Cumaraswamy points out that the Mahathir government never signed the Rome Statute convening the International Criminal Court in 1998.

His castigation of Mahathir concludes: "What if tomorrow an NGO in Malaysia decides to set up a similar tribunal to try Mahathir for human rights violations, assault of the independent judiciary in 1988, corruption, abuse of power, nepotism and cronyism during his 22 years as Prime Minister?"

The Kuala Lumpur government has quietly distanced itself from Mahathir's plans but is unlikely to intervene, say political observers. Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Mahathir is acting independently -- "a reflection of democracy in the country" -- and it would not hurt Malaysia's ties with the United States and other countries whose leaders seem likely to be pilloried by the tribunal.

Mahathir's plans are being actively supported by the Perdana Leadership Foundation, a Malaysian non-government organization whose objectives include advocating "greater understanding and cooperation between the world's cultures, religions and ways of life." Its honorary president just happens to be Mahathir.

The tribunal's panel is to include a former Malaysian chief judge, Siti Norma Yaakob, and ex-U.S. attorney-general Ramsay Clark, a civil rights activist who was for a time part of Saddam Hussein's defense team.

Ironically, during the final period of his long premiership, Mahathir enthusiastically supported the U.S.-led war on terror. His government arrested and detained without trial under the internal security act at least 40 people alleged to have links with a Malaysian pro-al-Qaida group, the KMM. In 2002, Mahathir made his first visit to the United States in eight years -- after a long cool period between the two countries -- when he spent three days in Washington meeting Bush and other senior White House officials.
Some anti-Mahathir wags claimed he paid large sums of money to a U.S. lobbying group to ensure a meeting with Bush.

Malaysia's fettered press has had little to say on the tribunal issue, but on blogger Web sites, where Malaysians feel free to vent their feelings, there is unconcealed anger -- as well as support for Mahathir.

One of the domestic news Web sites that have sprung up in recent years, and which provides a bloggers' platform, is Malaysia Today, founded by Raja Petra Kamarudin, who was detained under the security act for 50 days in 2001, allegedly for plotting to overthrow Mahathir. No evidence was ever presented. Some of the ten others who were arrested with Kamarudin were held for over two years without charge or trial.

Kamarudin had led a campaign to secure the release from prison of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who fell foul of Mahathir and suddenly found himself facing a variety of charges, subsequently overturned, and years in prison.

One NGO campaigning for an end to the security act, Suara Rakyat Malaysia, publishes an annual human rights report on Malaysia.

"In 2006, the government continued to deprive individuals a right to justice with laws allowing for detention without trial, including the Internal Security Act, the Emergency Ordinance and the Dangerous Drugs Act," says the current report.

Using the latest available government statistics, Suara Rakyat Malaysia calculates there are 1,960 people held indefinitely in the country without charge or prospect of trial. Somewhat tongue in cheek, the NGO's 2006 report adds: "The Prime Minister, upon receiving news that there were allegedly two Malaysians held at Guantanamo Bay, called for fair trials for them."

Mahathir, once accused by Malaysia's first post-independence prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, of running a police state, has meanwhile been nominated by several Muslim groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

A Malaysian broadcast commentator who is also a lawyer told World Politics Watch the consensus view is that the tribunal would have no legal standing. "Suffice to say that the tribunal is perceived to be more of a political or social initiative," said Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob.

But he thinks the majority of Malaysians "grudgingly prefer the perceived sense of security that the ISA [Internal Security Act] ensures" in the face of what he calls brittle race relations and "the undercurrent of discontent in Malaysia."

The security act was introduced by the British during the colonial period, when they were fighting a communist insurgency in the 1950s, but was never rescinded after independence.

"Chauvinism and entrenched prejudices are part of the Malaysian socio-political landscape," says Imran Imtiaz.

Around 53 percent of Malaysia's 24 million people are Muslim Malays, but ethnic Chinese make up 30 percent and people of Indian origin 8 percent.

No dates have been set for the tribunal, which is expected to invite "victims" to give evidence against the accused, but when it does get under way it promises to provide entertainment and irritation in equal measures within Malaysia and abroad.

Graham Lees is a Bangkok-based British journalist who has worked in several countries in East Asia over the last ten years covering regional business and political affairs.
World Politics Watch | Former Malaysian Prime Minister Seeks to Try Bush, Blair for 'War Crimes'

Mahatir appears to have lost his balance.

He is the architect of turning a placid Malaysia into a Islamic hotbed which was thwarted by the Chinese since they control the Malaysian economy.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-03-2007, 09:02 AM

If war crimes now means to pursue a war to the fullest in hopes of makin your country/alliance victorious, then Bush and Blair are indeed guilty of war crimes. But if it still means deliberately targeting civilians, making war on non-military targets, and the use of terror, than I say we should go after putin (no capital) next.

Firral · 03-03-2007, 10:17 AM

Who is ' War Crimes' depends only on the point of view and who has won. If Bush or Blair have lost and were taken prisoner (

) the court then would follow, and all world was has learned about their brutality. And then them would hang up.
But as have won Bush and Blair all happens on the contrary.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-03-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

Who is ' War Crimes' depends only on the point of view and who has won. If Bush or Blair have lost and were taken prisoner (

) the court then would follow, and all world was has learned about their brutality. And then them would hang up.
But as have won Bush and Blair all happens on the contrary.

Well said, sir. It is the will of the conquerers. However, by international definition, Bush and Blair have NOT commited any war crimes. Why does the world accuse them of commiting war crimes? Take a guess. I have some good ones...

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-03-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Well said, sir. It is the will of the conquerers. However, by international definition, Bush and Blair have NOT commited any war crimes.

Quote:

Why does the world accuse them of commiting war crimes? Take a guess.

I have some good ones...

Because they dont like us .....heavens

ExNavyAmerican · 03-03-2007, 13:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

Because they dont like us .....heavens

I think we're of one mind.

T_igger_cs_30 · 03-03-2007, 13:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

I think we're of one mind.

What ever you do do not tell Bluesman

leib10 · 03-03-2007, 13:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firral

Who is ' War Crimes' depends only on the point of view and who has won. If Bush or Blair have lost and were taken prisoner (

) the court then would follow, and all world was has learned about their brutality. And then them would hang up.
But as have won Bush and Blair all happens on the contrary.

Victor's justice is a biatch.

Ray · 03-03-2007, 14:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Well said, sir. It is the will of the conquerers. However, by international definition, Bush and Blair have NOT commited any war crimes. Why does the world accuse them of commiting war crimes? Take a guess. I have some good ones...

Though Mahatir is a coot, yet I sure am interested in the international definitions that you speak of.

Could you quote those international definitions?

aviator · 03-03-2007, 16:46 PM

It doesn't matters what some malaysian PM says, fact is that US is superpower and UK has a strong voice than malaysia , so nothing os going to be done against Bush and Blair.

Also agreed with person above that Bush and Blair have not committed any war crimes , though iraq war was an intelligence failure but bush is not responsible for people being killed in iraq between sunni's and shia's. US would have moved out of iraq much before than now had there been no sectarian violence.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-04-2007, 00:52 AM

War crimes are defined as deliberately making war on civilians, targeting civilian targets, and pillaging (i.e. murder, rape, ect.). The people we're fighting dictates we go down to their level, or they'll win. They are the war criminals because they target civilians. And, just for the icing, because of all this we're not obligated to capture them according to the Hague conventions. We have not done anything I have laid out. We are fighting in a civilian environment, but most wars are fought in civilian environments.

TheChosenOne · 03-04-2007, 03:05 AM

Sometimes I feel like a nut....must be his theme song :D. Well, if Bush and Blair are indeed guilty of war crimes, then every leader of every nation in the UN that authorized the resolution to invade Iraq is guilty likewise. I'm going to go puke now at this blasphemy.

xerxes · 03-04-2007, 04:00 AM

If GWB goes through the process of Nuremberg trial for inciting war, he would be hanged.

TheChosenOne · 03-04-2007, 04:24 AM

There's a good chance that would be the case.

Ray · 03-04-2007, 08:04 AM

To declare a War, there has to be a cause or a belligerent action action by another country against one. Spreading "Freedom and Democracy" is surely no cause for waging a war.

Other countries are not liable to be charged with war crimes since only the UN Security Council could declare Iraq to be in “material breach” of UNSCR 1441. The UN Security Council did not move any resolution to that effect which could be termed as a reason to embark on a war on Iraq.

Therefore, prima facie, the war on Iraq is illegal!

And the war on Iraq was an unilateral decision.

Judgment of war crimes is a subjective issue. Whether there were war crimes or not, it has always historically been the opinion of the victor.

Thus, Bush and Blair have committed no war crimes. Period.

03-03-2007, 09:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	They're as guilty of war crimes as Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt If war crimes now means to pursue a war to the fullest in hopes of makin your country/alliance victorious, then Bush and Blair are indeed guilty of war crimes. But if it still means deliberately targeting civilians, making war on non-military targets, and the use of terror, than I say we should go after putin (no capital) next. __________________ "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

03-03-2007, 10:17 AM	#3 (permalink)
Firral *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-11-06 Location: The Kola peninsula, Russia Posts: 336 Country:	Who is ' War Crimes' depends only on the point of view and who has won. If Bush or Blair have lost and were taken prisoner ( ) the court then would follow, and all world was has learned about their brutality. And then them would hang up. But as have won Bush and Blair all happens on the contrary. __________________

03-04-2007, 00:52 AM	#11 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	The deffinitions of war crimes... War crimes are defined as deliberately making war on civilians, targeting civilian targets, and pillaging (i.e. murder, rape, ect.). The people we're fighting dictates we go down to their level, or they'll win. They are the war criminals because they target civilians. And, just for the icing, because of all this we're not obligated to capture them according to the Hague conventions. We have not done anything I have laid out. We are fighting in a civilian environment, but most wars are fought in civilian environments.

03-04-2007, 04:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
xerxes Padishah Shahanshah *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-23-07 Location: Canada Posts: 950 Country:	If GWB goes through the process of Nuremberg trial for inciting war, he would be hanged. __________________ If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-03-2007, 16:46 PM	#10 (permalink)
aviator Regular Join Date: 12-18-06 Posts: 40	It doesn't matters what some malaysian PM says, fact is that US is superpower and UK has a strong voice than malaysia , so nothing os going to be done against Bush and Blair. Also agreed with person above that Bush and Blair have not committed any war crimes , though iraq war was an intelligence failure but bush is not responsible for people being killed in iraq between sunni's and shia's. US would have moved out of iraq much before than now had there been no sectarian violence.

03-04-2007, 03:05 AM	#12 (permalink)
TheChosenOne *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-12-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 142	Sometimes I feel like a nut....must be his theme song :D. Well, if Bush and Blair are indeed guilty of war crimes, then every leader of every nation in the UN that authorized the resolution to invade Iraq is guilty likewise. I'm going to go puke now at this blasphemy.

03-04-2007, 04:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
TheChosenOne *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-12-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 142	There's a good chance that would be the case.

03-04-2007, 08:04 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 26,149 Country:	To declare a War, there has to be a cause or a belligerent action action by another country against one. Spreading "Freedom and Democracy" is surely no cause for waging a war. Other countries are not liable to be charged with war crimes since only the UN Security Council could declare Iraq to be in “material breach” of UNSCR 1441. The UN Security Council did not move any resolution to that effect which could be termed as a reason to embark on a war on Iraq. Therefore, prima facie, the war on Iraq is illegal! And the war on Iraq was an unilateral decision. Judgment of war crimes is a subjective issue. Whether there were war crimes or not, it has always historically been the opinion of the victor. Thus, Bush and Blair have committed no war crimes. Period.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bush Orders Domestic Spying.	Bulgaroctonus	Political Discussions	191	02-23-2008 12:08 PM
The Fall of Tony Blair	astralis	Political Discussions	1	09-10-2006 15:36 PM
Why Bush was frosty in Pakistan?	lemontree	South Asian Defense Topics	54	03-13-2006 05:35 AM
Bush, A War Criminal?	Ray	Political Discussions	0	12-17-2004 14:45 PM