...Shall Be The Supreme Law Of The Land
Bush has committed War Crimes in violation of international laws such as the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, and the
Geneva Convention. According to US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "Supreme Law of the Land." There
are enough grounds, therefore, to impeach Bush.
Here, to refresh everyone's memory, is the "Supreme Law of the Land":
Aritcle Four of the US Consitution states that
"This Constitution, and the Laws
of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority
of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land..."
Here are the specific international laws
that Bush and his administration have managed to violate (thereby setting a precedent for any U.S. president and violating
the principles of democracy):
Violation of the United Nations Charter
1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3. All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in
such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All members shall refrain
in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any matter inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Apparently these laws do not exist
for George W. Bush. Even better, by flouting them it sets a dangerous example for the rest of the world, encouraging them
to pursue their own policies regardless of international treaties.
Article 41 states:
The Security Council
may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may
call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance
of diplomatic relations.
Article 42 states:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for
in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as
may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade,
and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Of course, by invading Iraq in
deviance of a vote from the UN Security Council, Bush broke these laws.
Article 51, paragraphas 1, 2, 4 and 5 state:
"The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy
general protection against dangers arising from military operations."
"Civilians shall not be the object of attack.
Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."
"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, including an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian
life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
It is needless to say that Bush is in direct violation of this
agreement, given the over 10,000 civilians that have died as a direct or indirect result of this war since it began.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international
character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to
apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other
cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or
faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited
at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
Of course Bush, by pursuing a policy
of assassination of his political enemies, has managed to break this agreement. There is also evidence that high-ranking military
officials, including members of the National Security Council, knew about the torture and abuse of prisoners and allowed it
A CIA analyst visited Guantanamo in summer 2002 and returned "convinced that we were committing war crimes"
and that "more than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people lying in their own feces," a CIA source told
Seymour Hersh, a veteran journalist.
The analyst submitted a report to Gen. John Gordon, an aide to Condoleezza Rice,
Bush's national security adviser.
Gen. Gordon was troubled, and, one former administration official told Hersh "that if
the actions at Guantanamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the president."
Rice saw the document by autumn
of the same year, and called a high-level meeting at which she asked Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, to deal with the
problem. Of course it was ignored.
Hersh also reports that a secret document signed by Bush in February 2002 stated:
"I determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout
This, of course, is illegal, since no country or foreign leader is permitted to ignore international human
rights laws, regardless of the circumstances.
Violation of the Nuremberg Charter
Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under;
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements, or assurances;
ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i).
By invading the sovereign country of Iraq Bush clearly violated the UN convention, and thereby also the Nuremberg
Charter. There is also evidence that Bush and fellow Neo-conservatives and ultra-hawks such as Wolfowitz prepared and planned
this war long before September 11th, thereby violating Article ii of Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Charter.
as September 2000, the think-tank Project for the New American Century, run by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz,
Rumsfeld's deputy, and Jeb Bush wrote a blueprint for regime change. In the Document "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies,
Forces, and Resources for a New Century", they stated "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role
in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." They wrote that fighting and winning
multiple wars was a "core mission." The memo also talks about "maintaining US global pre-eminence, precluding the rise of
a great-power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."
early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration created memos with such titles as "Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."
A pre-war Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from
40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq.
According to Journalist Bob Woodward, "As early as September 12th,
2001, Rumsfeld argued that the United States should take advantage of the terrorist attacks to go after Iraq's Saddam Hussein
In addition to this, the UN resolutions that do permit the use of force cannot be used to justify this
Article 39 of the U.N. Charter provides the three circumstances for the use of force:
(1) a threat to peace
(2) a breach of peace
(3) an act of aggression
Article 51 states that:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security."
Saddam had not threatened aggression, and never possessed
any weapons of mass destruction that presented a threat to peace. And the premise of self-defence cannot be used to justify
this war, since no links between al-Quaeda and Saddam have ever been found. In fact, Bin Laden described Saddam as an "infidel",
and the Islamist fundamentalists are mortal enemies of the secular Iraqi Bathists.
George W. Bush also stated that
Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1154:
"Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons
inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest
consequences for Iraq."
As well as Security Council Resolution 707:
"Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access."
However, weapons inspectors stated that Iraqi officials granted
completely open access to every site, permitted the questioning of Iraqi scientists, and were otherwise fully in compliance
with UN Resolution 1441.
In fact it was the coalition, according to the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, that
had not given the UN weapons inspectors "any prospect of co-operation."
To summarize, George W. Bush has ignored,
ridiculed, dismissed, or just plain stepped on a whole host of international rights laws. There are of course many more, but
to save time and energy I will just briefly list them:
The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which is a Treaty between the United States and other Powers providing for the renunciation
of war as an instrument of national policy;
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 188, Section 2441 on War Crimes;
The U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on the law of land warfare;
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878;
International Convention against Torture;
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial and Political Discrimination;
And so on. I think this is grounds enough to impeach anybody. Anyone agree?
Submitted 11/08/04, under the original title "War Crimes" to the website "A Voice for Freedom" by Anna, a visitor to
Our special thanks to her for this article and we hope she won't mind our posting it here!
…We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record
on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.
We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as
fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.”
- Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the USA at the Nuremberg Trial
(cite R.H. Jackson, The Case Against the Nazi War Criminals (NY, Knopf, 1946, pp 3-7)