Bush and Blair tried for War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR. The prosecution counsel at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal closed its case against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair on a charge of war crimes.

Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal yesterday. - MOHD YUSNI ARIFFIN

The prosecution, in continuing with its case from Saturday, said the US had acted unilaterally and bypassed the United Nations Security Council in launching an attack on Iraq.

The tribunal heard that the United Kingdom and the US had advanced the viewpoint that regime change could be the basis for the use of force against Iraq and that this view was expressed as far back as 1998.

Blair was quoted in the proceedings as saying that even if there was no threat of weapons of mass destruction, he would still have effected regime change in Iraq despite the UK attorney-general's advice to him on March 7, 2003 that regime change could not be the objective of military action.

The prosecution also said US used dubious and faulty intelligence, which included a cut-and-paste job from a student's doctor of philosophy article written in 1995 and the claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to get uranium from Niger, to effect regime change.

It was also revealed that US Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, in his memoirs, stated that Bush had talked about invading Iraq in the first cabinet meeting after he came into power.

Chief prosecutor Professor Gurdial S. Nijar said the arrogance of both the accused in leading their country to war and committing their soldiers to die and to kill others were incredulous.

He said waging an illegal war could never be anything but a crime.

The prosecution urged the tribunal to deliver a guilty verdict to Bush and Blair.

It also called on the tribunal to submit its findings to the International Criminal Court and to include the names of the guilty two in the Register of War Criminals.

The tribunal granted a request by the defence counsel for time to respond to the prosecution's case.

The hearing, which was held in an open court at Yayasan Al-Bukhary in Jalan Perdana, will end on Nov 22.

Read more: Prosecutors wrap up Bush, Blair hearing - General - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/local/general/prosecutors-wrap-up-bush-blair-hearing-1.8741#ixzz1eNsIAAfV

The Prosecution of Tony Blair and George W Bush: Day 2 of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

by Cynthia McKinney

Day Two Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal: PNAC, Downing Street Documents; Bush Book Feature as Smoking Guns
KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL: SMOKING GUNS PRESENTED
PNAC, Downing Street Documents; Bush Book all Smoking Guns on Conspiracy to go to War Against Iraq

20 November 2011 - On Day Two of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, the Prosecution presented its evidence of the Bush, Blair decisions to go to war on falsified "intelligence" of Iraqi manufacture and possession of weapons of mass destruction. In the official setting of the Tribunal courtroom, Lead Prosecutor Gurdial Singh Nijar skillfully walked the Judges through all of the decision points that led up to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom. Using publicly available government and think tank documents; books written by the principals, themselves, and others involved in the scandal; and transcripts of governmental inquiries, the Prosecution made it clear that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1991, but chose to go to war, anyway.

Winding us from Secretary Powell's dramatic, but deceitful, United Nations testimony, and through the various memoirs of Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, Plame, and more, the Prosecution led us ultimately to think tank pronouncements of the need for a war against Iraq and regime change there that pre-dated the September 11, 2001 tragedies (The Project for a New American Century), that were skillfully used as an excuse for military aggression. Professor Francis Boyle added to the official record the case of Lieutenant Ehren Watada who was court-martialed because of his refusal to go to Iraq and fight because in Watada's view, the war against Iraq was a war of aggression and violated U.S. and international law. Lt. Watada court-martial ended with an Honorable Discharge after the legality of the Iraq War was argued in the military court. Professor Boyle, continuing for the Prosecution, reminded the Court that this verdict should serve as a precedent for their consideration, although they are not bound by that decision as they are by the International Court of Justice decision against the United States and in favor of Nicaragua where the court ruled that regime change was illegal.

The Prosecution used Prime Minister Blair's book, "A Journey," Valerie Plame's book, Fair Game," (in which she describes how she was outed as a Central Intelligence Agency asset by her own government), Donald Rumsfeld's "known and Unknown," and President Bush's "Decision Points" to indict both Blair and Bush. Lead Prosecutor Nijar also noted the contrition of the protagonists in these volumes: Powell is sick, Bush is in pain, but millions of Iraqi people are dead and millions more lead shattered lives as their country is still being destroyed.

The Prosecution concluded that the war against Iraq was engaged with arrogance and audacity, committing U.S. and British soldiers to an area to kill or be killed, and in complete disregard for international law. The Prosecution concluded:

"We trust that we have presented beyond a reasonable doubt how Bush and Blair connived and conspired to go to war." The Prosecution asked that the Tribunal's findings be sent to the International Criminal Court for their information and action and urged individual states to exercise universal jurisdiction "if ever these war criminals appear on their shores; include the names of these two accused in the Commission's register of war criminals, and inscribe them in the publications of this Tribunal should they be found guilty."

Cynthia McKinney

KUALA LUMPUR, 21 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its third day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

With the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Defence opened the proceedings to argue that there is no case to answer. The Tribunal will decide if there is a prima facie case established against the accused. Some of the points submitted and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Defence responded to the Prosecution’s case. War crimes are difficult to comprehend especially in a distant land. Persons accuse of war crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Some of the documents tendered fall under the hearsay rule. And the Tribunal assured counsels that it had taken note of that and was aware of the same and would take into account the relevant credibility and weight to be attached to such documents.

The Defence submitted that there is no case to answer and argued their stand. The argument raised was one on the doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’ raises the moral and legal obligation to protect people facing aggression. In 1999, US and NATO intervention in Kosovo was to prevent genocide was carried out without UN approval. The circumstances required such an action.

The Defence also raised the argument of self-defence. Anticipatory self-defence is permissible under the UN Charter Article 51. The Defence argued that pre-emptive strikes are permissible once a state is certain and believes that another state is about to attack it militarily. Examples cited in support of the use of this doctrine are when Israel attacked on Egypt in 1967 and the attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981.

Anticipatory self-defence arises when war is unavoidable, the response must be proportional and the threat must be immediate. Bush had fulfilled these preconditions as stated in his memoirs where he said that the use of force against Iraq was the last option and that all diplomatic measures must be exhausted. And cited Iraqi acts of hostility including the firing at US planes enforcing the no fly zone in 2002. The non-compliance with the UN resolutions on weapons inspection and the immediate threat of WMD that was believed that Iraq possessed.

Saddam Hussein had inflicted acts of aggression and violation against his own people. UN Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678 (pertaining to the invasion of Kuwait) were for Iraq to comply with its international obligations. The failure of Iraq to comply with these resolutions was the background for the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

That Iraq had attacked its own people such as the Kurds and Shiites including the use of chemical weapons is well documented. And humanitarian intervention is justified.

The Defence argued that the attack on Iraq is justified based on the UN Security Resolution 1368 and 1373 that were passed after the 9/11 attacks. These resolutions affirmed the right of nations to defend against acts of terrorists and combat with any means the threat of terrorists’ acts. It was submitted based on US government documents that Iraq had a link with terrorism through terrorist operations in Kurdish areas and against Western nations including the US.

In 1998 there were mass killings in Kosovo by the state. There was no UN support for the intervention. The US unilaterally launched an intervention on humanitarian grounds. The UN did not condemn this intervention. That is a tacit approval of the humanitarian intervention doctrine.

The Saddam Hussein regime had used murder as a tool of terror and control. The UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (23 May 2003) was tacit approval of the invasion of Iraq.

The Prosecution responded that all the issues raised by the Defence in no way justified the actions of the accused. Authorities or documents relied upon were essentially, US government agencies.

There is no doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’. These supposed doctrines go against the UN Charter and are therefore, unlawful. The entire conduct of both the accused was one of illegally waging war to effect regime change. And this is a Crime against Peace. The evidence submitted by the prosecution clearly shows a policy and planning dating years before the 2003 invasion. There is no issue of any humanitarian intervention. And both the accused had participated in this planning and ordering action.

There is no issue of self-defence where the right to strike pre-emptively arises. There was no issue of anticipatory self-defence. Iraq was not about to wage war nor was it threatening to wage war. This is a groundless assertion. 9/11 was used as a pretext to wage war against Iraq after Afghanistan. The plans to attack Iraq were drawn before 9/11. Bush and Blair continued to further their agenda of effecting regime change.

Saddam Hussein had carried out killings of his people in the 1980s through the use of chemical weapons. There was no action on these matters at the relevant time on grounds of humanitarian intervention. And there was real immediacy in 1988. Instead the invasion in 2003 resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. This certainly was not about protecting the Iraqis’ human rights.

There is no link between terrorism with Iraq. There is no evidence submitted on this.
The Prosecution had submitted that not only have they established a prima facie but have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

After deliberating, the Tribunal made a unanimous finding that a prima facie case has been made out against both the accused. The accused are now to enter their Defence.

The matter was adjourned till the following morning at 9.00am.

The trial is being held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

KUALA LUMPUR, 20 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its second day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Prosecution is only proceeding with the first charge, Crimes against Peace, in the interest of justice as the duration of the trial for this session has been set for four days. The Tribunal will subsequently set another date to hear the second charge of Crime of Torture and War Crimes.

Today, the Prosecution continued presenting its case with the tendering of public documents and legal arguments supported by international case law authorities and precedents. The arguments were extensive with questions from the Tribunal posed to the Prosecution seeking clarification and dealing with objections from the Defence. Some of the points raised and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Tribunal heard that the UK Attorney General (AG) had reservations, at the relevant time that the UN Resolution 1441 did not permit the use of force against Iraq for non compliance with the said resolution in his advice to the Prime Minister on 7 March 2003. And the AG maintained his stand even years later at the Chilcot Enquiry in January 2011.

However, two days before the invasion of Iraq on 17 March 2003, the AG justified the use of force based on the ‘revival of the authorisation to use force under the earlier UN resolutions 678, 687 read together with 1441. The 678 and 687 resolutions pertain to the use of force for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. These resolutions in no way authorise the use of force to effect disarmament or regime change in Iraq. And there is no accepted doctrine of revival that allows the authorisation in Security Council resolutions.

The Prosecution argued that UK along with the US had also advanced the viewpoint that regime change could be the basis for the use of force. This viewpoint had been expressed as far back as 1998 when president Clinton suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be removed to end his threat. The Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998 declared that goal of US policy should be to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power. This then became the official US policy. Bush and Blair had on various occasions since then expressed this viewpoint. Two months after 9/11, Bush had asked Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, to review existing battle plans for Iraq. On September 15, 2001 Bush stated ‘once Afghanistan has been dealt with, it will be Iraq’s turn’

Blair had also stated after the invasion of Iraq, that even if there were no threat of weapons of mass destruction, he would still have effected regime change in Iraq. The AG had advised Blair on 7 March 2003 that regime change could not be the objective of military action.

The planning and preparation continued with the use of dubious or faulty intelligence to achieve the objective to effect regime change. This intelligence centred on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that was shown to be false after the invasion. The intelligence was being doctored around the plan and policy of effecting regime change.

The Tribunal heard that the US and UK had commenced a ‘secret air war’ against Iraq in the later half of 2002 and early 2003 wherein 21,736 air sorties resulting in 253,000 pounds of bombs being dropped in Southern Iraq to degrade the Iraqi air defences. This was the beginning of the war.

Such plans and actions continued unhindered while publicly both the accused presented to the world that they were seeking a resolution of the alleged threat Iraq posed with its weapons of mass destruction. The process culminated in the passing of the UN Resolution 1441 to provide a pretext to launch a full invasion.

The conduct of both accused indicated a clear intention to invade Iraq to effect regime change that was never authorised by UN Resolution 1441.

The Doctrine of regime change and doctrine of humanitarian intervention were declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v US [1986]. The US by passing the Iraq Liberation Act went against the decision in the Nicaragua case.

Accountability of individuals including heads of state for war crimes has been well established since the Nuremberg trials after World War Two. The more recent case of Ex parte Pinochet (No 3) (1999) enforces this principal wherein a head of state will be liable to be called to account if he authorised or perpetrated serious international crimes. Waging an illegal war can never be anything but a crime.

The arrogance of both the accused is incredulous in leading their country to war and committing their soldiers to die and to kill others. As of May 2011 1.4 million Iraqis, 4,770 US soldiers and 2,445 personnel from other coalition forces have lost their lives as result of the invasion of Iraq.

The Prosecution asked the Tribunal to return a verdict of guilty against both the accused George W Bush and Anthony L Blair. And for the Tribunal to exercise its powers under Article 31 of the Charter of the KL War Crimes Commission and submit the Tribunal’s findings to the International Criminal Court and other bodies as they deem fit for their further action. And also to include the names of the guilty persons, namely Bush and Blair, in the Register of War Criminals and publicise the same. The Prosecution closed its case.

The Defence requested for time to respond to the Prosecution’s case and the Tribunal granted the request. The matter adjourned till the following morning at 9.30 am.

The trial is being held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

KUALA LUMPUR, 19 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) commenced hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time, a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Tribunal hearing was marked with the recusing of two judges and with the better part of the day spent on dealing with preliminary objections from the Defence team.

The Tribunal inquired in detail on the service of the charges (charges served on accused) against the two accused. The Prosecution referred to the Affidavit of Service filed and affirmed by the then registrar of the Tribunal, that the charges were served on 19 September 2011 to known addresses of the both accused and in addition, also served on the US Embassy and the UK High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. The service of the charges was in accordance with the rules of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Charter).

Mr Jason Kay, appointed as Amicus Curiae (‘Defence’) under Article 15 of the Charter raised two preliminary objections:
1. on the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the case
2. that Judge Niloufer Bhagwat withdraw from hearing the case on the grounds of potential bias.

On the issue of bias, the Defence submitted that judge Niloufer Bhagwat was involved as a judge in the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At Tokyo where George W Bush was found guilty for crimes in Afghanistan. And she had appeared as a prosecutor in the World Tribunal on Iraq against the same accused in Istanbul.

The Prosecution responded that the Iraq tribunal was a NGO session and not a court and the Tokyo tribunal and the Iraq tribunal were held in the absence of Bush. And the most important fact is that each case is decided on a case-by-case basis based on facts and law. In addition, the Iraq war and its atrocities, has caused everyone to have their own views. The Tribunal adjourned the sitting to deliberate on the matter.

Judge Niloufer Bhagwat made a statement that she had at all times fully disclosed to the Commission about her role in the previous tribunals. She highlighted that the Nuremburg trials where the judges were all from the Allied powers, NO ISSUE Of BIAS was raised. Although she had no vested interest in the matter of the present hearing, she would voluntarily recuse herself in the interest that ‘justice must be seen to be done’ (withdraw from the Tribunal panel for this hearing) so as not to cast even a shadow of impartiality on the proceedings.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Defence submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction, as it has not been sanctioned by the United Nations. Nor is it under the Rome Statute as Iraq and Afghanistan are not signatories of the Rome Statute. Extensive submission was made in support of these points.

The Prosecution submitted that the tribunal is a Tribunal of conscience. The Prosecution submitted that no action has been taken despite numerous complaints of war crimes against the two accused by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United Nations also failed to take any action to recommend criminal trials. It must be noted that the United States and the United Kingdom have veto powers in the UN Security Council.

The UN Charter starts with ‘We the peoples…’ The KL Charter is based on the peoples’ right. Today, People are making power accountable. In addition, this Tribunal is not usurping the authority of any organisation such as the UN. As a people, we have the right as humanity to act against war crimes. War crimes are universal in that there is no geographical limitation. God given conscience cannot be silenced. There are also views that this Tribunal has no purpose. The World Court can take into account judicial decisions of other judicial bodies. The Tribunal is made out of eminent people, which can set precedents in the legal authority of international law against war crimes.

After deliberation, the sittings resumed with the Tribunal president informing parties that Judge Zakaria Yatim had been taken ill and would not be able to continue serving on the panel. The coram of five judges is permitted under the Charter of the Commission.

The Tribunal also unanimously overruled the preliminary objection and ruled that that it has the jurisdiction on the following grounds that:
· The Tribunal is constituted under the Charter of the Commission, which is a legally constituted body.
· By virtue of Article 7 (1) of the Charter the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the charges before the Tribunal.
· The Tribunal is a tribunal of conscience guided by the principal of natural justice.
· The Commission’s Charter is inspired by the Rome Statute
· Guided by previous tribunals of conscience such as the Russell Bertrand Tribunal for the Vietnam War and the Tokyo Tribunal for Afghanistan.
· The Tribunal is complementary to the UN, which has thus far not acted on the complaints of war crimes against these 2 accused.

The prosecution made an application to the Tribunal to only hear the first charge, Crimes Against Peace, which the Tribunal permitted.

The Prosecution opened their case by outlining why this charge of Crimes Against Peace have been brought against the two accused:
· To signal that no country, however powerful can arrogate to itself the right to commit the Crime against Peace, in this case attack another country in violation of international law.
· To signal that there is culpability for such crimes by individuals, including heads of states, who authorise or acquiesce in the commission of such a crime.
· To hold liable heads of states and not just punish petty minions.
·To preserve the integrity of international law as it evolves and is now evolving. This can be done by consigning to the dustbin of history, the crude and naked arrogance and cruelty of power as demonstrated by the acts of these two accused - leaders supposedly of the free and civilised world.
·These 2 accused had deceived their own country and the international community in furtherance of their evil and criminal design and objectives.

The Prosecution commenced their case through the tendering of public documents showing that the attack on Iraq was planned prior to 9/11 and was an ongoing plan until the actual attack on Iraq in 2003. The UN Resolution 1441, which was relied upon by the US and UK to launch the attack was also scrutinised to show that there was no authority to use force under the said resolution. There was a need for the UN to actually authorise the use of force by way of a second resolution. This was evidenced by the history of negotiation of UN Resolution 1441 wherein there was clear indication that the resolution did not authorise the use of force.

The hearing proceeded till the end of the evening and will continue on 20 November 2011.

The trial is being held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

KUALA LUMPUR, 18 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) will be hearing war crimes charges against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) from November 19-22, 2011 in Kuala Lumpur. This is the first time that war crimes charges will be heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

In 2009, war victims had testified before the Commission in 2009, revealing details that were shocking. A few of these are as follows:

·      A complainant was detained for over 6 years in Guantanamo Bay on mistaken identity, a fact the United States military had realised days after detaining him. He was subjected to inhuman treatment and endured untold mental suffering.

·      The testimony of a woman complainant from Iraq was equally shocking. She was detained and while being transported on a helicopter was used as human shield by being placed near the open doors in the event of resistance fighters shooting at the helicopter.

·     Another victim revealed how he was threatened that if he did not confess to being a terrorist his wife would be killed in the next cell. He endured untold humiliation throughout his 3-year detention.

The Commission also noted that none of these victims were charged for any actual offences and all legal representation was denied to them. No due process of international law was complied with.

The experiences of other detainees in Abu Gharib in Baghdad and Bagram in Afghanistan were similar. The systematic methods employed in these illegal detention centres revealed a deeper complicity instead of the ‘acts of a few rogue soldiers’ as claimed by the United States military.

The Commission was satisfied that a case had been made out for further investigation to be carried out. The complaints were duly accepted.

In October 2009, after the Commission had received the complaints of the war victims, the Commission, sought an Advisory Opinion from the Tribunal on the following issues:

a.             Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the cases of war crimes?

b.            Can a head of state or government exempt itself from the any international treaty or convention (such as the Geneva Convention) duly ratified by the state without first abrogating the relevant treaty or convention?

After hearing the submissions, the Tribunal ruled unanimously on both issues.

On the first issue, the Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to hear cases on war crimes by virtue of Article 7 (1) of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

On the second issue, the Tribunal was also unanimous in holding that over the last 50 years international humanitarian law has developed to the point that no head of state or nation can unilaterally renounce it. If there is a treaty, it is binding. Even if a nation is not a signatory to a treaty or claims to revoke it, it is still bound by a customary international law.

The Tribunal held that in relation to crimes against humanitarian law, the status of a head of state does not constitute a defence. Nor is it a defence to submit that one was acting under the orders of a superior; this is the law since the Nuremberg Trials.

The lifting of immunity and the principle of individual criminal responsibility are now embodied in a plethora of international laws and decisions. These include the UN General Assembly Resolution 95(1) of Dec 11, 1946; Article 13 of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991); UN Document No. S/25704 (1993); and Article 27 of the Rome Statute.

The Tribunal is inspired by the noble principle that wherever there is a right there must be a remedy. Victims of war crimes in Iraq who have been displaced have no remedy in national or international courts.

In May 2011, The Commission finalised its investigation and filed its report recommending that charges be instituted. The Prosecution division of the Commission filed the following charges:

·     The first charge is Crimes Against Peace filed against George W Bush (former President
of the U.S.) and Anthony L Blair (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) wherein they are charged as follows:
The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The second charge is against eight citizens of the United States and they are namely George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. They have been charged with the Crime of Torture and War Crimes:

The Accused persons had committed the Crime of Torture and War Crimes, in that: The Accused persons had wilfully participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws, namely the Convention against Torture 1984, Geneva Convention III 1949, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter in relation to the war launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan (in 2001) and in Iraq (in March 2003);
Additionally, and/or on the basis and in furtherance thereof, the Accused persons authorised, or connived in, the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment against victims in violation of international law, treaties and conventions including the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Conventions, including Geneva Convention III 1949.

The trial will be held before the Tribunal, which is constituted of eminent persons with legal qualifications.

The judges of the Tribunal, which is headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, also include other notable names such as Tunku Sofiah Jewa, author of an International Law publication, Prof Salleh Buang, former Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General Chambers, Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, an expert in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law, Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, prominent academic and professor of law, Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre, a Yale graduate, who authored several books on politics and Dato' Zakaria Yatim, retired Malaysian Federal Court judge.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented on facts and law as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement. The verdict and the names of the persons found guilty will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide.

The prosecution for the trial will be lead by Prof Gurdial S Nijar, prominent law professor and author of several law publications and Prof Francis Boyle, leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, and assisted by counsel Mr Avtaran Singh.

The trial will be held in an open court on November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

9.30 am Keynote Address by YABhg. Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia & President of Perdana Global Peace Foundation.

10.10 am Introductory Address by YB Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, Deputy Minister of International Trade & Industry; Advisor, Perdana Global Peace Foundation

10. 40 am Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General, United Nations

“Iraq & the Arab spring: It's better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees"

11.20 am Dr Ang Swee Chai, Orthopaedic Consultant & Author of From Beirut to Jerusalem

12.00 noon Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

“The War on Libya and the Broader US-NATO Military Agenda: Towards a World War Three Scenario”

Bush and Blair to be Tried for War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR, 20 October 2011 - On November 19-22, 2011, the trial of George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) will be held in Kuala Lumpur. This is the first time that war crimes charges will be heard against the two former heads of state in compliance with proper legal process.

Charges are being brought against the accused by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) following the due process of the law. The Commission, having received complaints from war victims in Iraq in 2009, proceeded to conduct a painstaking and an in-depth investigation for close to two years and in 2011, constituted formal charges on war crimes against Bush, Blair and their associates.

The Iraq invasion in 2003 and its occupation had resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. Countless others had endured torture and untold hardship. The cries of these victims have thus far gone unheeded by the international community. The fundamental human right to be heard has been denied to them.

As a result, the KLWCC had been established in 2008 to fill this void and act as a peoples’ initiative to provide an avenue for such victims to file their complaints and let them have their day in a court of law.

The first charge against George W Bush and Anthony L Blair is for Crimes Against Peace wherein:

The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The second charge is for Crime of Torture and War Crimes against eight citizens of the United States and they are namely George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. wherein:

The Accused persons had committed the Crime of Torture and War Crimes, in that: The Accused persons had wilfully participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws, namely the Convention against Torture 1984, Geneva Convention III 1949, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter in relation to the war launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan (in 2001) and in Iraq (in March 2003); Additionally, and/or on the basis and in furtherance thereof, the Accused persons authorised, or connived in, the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment against victims in violation of international law, treaties and conventions including the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Conventions, including Geneva Convention III 1949.

The trial will be held before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, which is constituted of imminent persons with legal qualifications.

The judges of the Tribunal, which is headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, also include other notable names such as Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre, a Yale graduate, who authored several books on politics, Dato' Zakaria Yatim, retired Malaysian Federal Court judge, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, practising lawyer and author of numerous publications on International Law, Prof Salleh Buang, former Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General Chambers and prominent author, Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, an expert in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law, and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, prominent academic and professor of law.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement.

In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide. The tribunal is a tribunal of conscience and a peoples’ initiative.

The prosecution for the trial will be lead by Prof Gurdial S Nijar, prominent law professor and author of several law publications and Prof Francis Boyle, leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, and assisted by a team of lawyers.

The trial will be held in an open court on November 19-22, 2011 at the headquarters of the Al- Bukhary Foundation at Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur. KUALA LUMPUR, 20 October 2011 - On November 19-22, 2011, the trial of George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) will be held in Kuala Lumpur. This is the first time that war crimes charges will be heard against the two former heads of state in compliance with proper legal process.

Charges are being brought against the accused by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) following the due process of the law. The Commission, having received complaints from war victims in Iraq in 2009, proceeded to conduct a painstaking and an in-depth investigation for close to two years and in 2011, constituted formal charges on war crimes against Bush, Blair and their associates.

The Iraq invasion in 2003 and its occupation had resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. Countless others had endured torture and untold hardship. The cries of these victims have thus far gone unheeded by the international community. The fundamental human right to be heard has been denied to them.

As a result, the KLWCC had been established in 2008 to fill this void and act as a peoples’ initiative to provide an avenue for such victims to file their complaints and let them have their day in a court of law.

The first charge against George W Bush and Anthony L Blair is for Crimes Against Peace wherein:

The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The second charge is for Crime of Torture and War Crimes against eight citizens of the United States and they are namely George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. wherein:

The Accused persons had committed the Crime of Torture and War Crimes, in that: The Accused persons had wilfully participated in the formulation of executive orders and directives to exclude the applicability of all international conventions and laws, namely the Convention against Torture 1984, Geneva Convention III 1949, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter in relation to the war launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan (in 2001) and in Iraq (in March 2003); Additionally, and/or on the basis and in furtherance thereof, the Accused persons authorised, or connived in, the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment against victims in violation of international law, treaties and conventions including the Convention against Torture 1984 and the Geneva Conventions, including Geneva Convention III 1949.

The trial will be held before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, which is constituted of imminent persons with legal qualifications.

The judges of the Tribunal, which is headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, also include other notable names such as Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre, a Yale graduate, who authored several books on politics, Dato' Zakaria Yatim, retired Malaysian Federal Court judge, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, practising lawyer and author of numerous publications on International Law, Prof Salleh Buang, former Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General Chambers and prominent author, Prof Niloufer Bhagwat, an expert in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law, and Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, prominent academic and professor of law.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charges are proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement.

In the event the tribunal convicts any of the accused, the only sanction is that the name of the guilty person will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide. The tribunal is a tribunal of conscience and a peoples’ initiative.

The prosecution for the trial will be lead by Prof Gurdial S Nijar, prominent law professor and author of several law publications and Prof Francis Boyle, leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law, and assisted by a team of lawyers.

The trial will be held in an open court on November 19-22, 2011 at the headquarters of the Al- Bukhary Foundation at Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty

A war crimes tribunal in Malaysia offers a devastating critique of international criminal law institutions today.

Richard Falk - 28 Nov 2011

In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War.

The proceedings took place over a four-day period from November 19-22, and included an opportunity for court-appointed defense counsel to offer the tribunal arguments and evidence on behalf of the absent defendants. They had been invited to offer their own defense or send a representative, but declined to do so. The prosecution team was headed by two prominent legal personalities with strong professional legal credentials: Gurdeal Singh Nijar and Francis Boyle. The verdict issued on November 22, 2011 happens to coincide with the 48th anniversary of the assassination of John F Kennedy.

The tribunal acknowledged that its verdict was not enforceable in a normal manner associated with a criminal court operating within a sovereign state or as constituted by international agreement, as is the case with the International Criminal Court. But the KLWCT followed a juridical procedure purported to operate in a legally responsible manner. This would endow its findings and recommendations with a legal weight expected to extend beyond a moral condemnation of the defendants, but in a manner that is not entirely evident.

The KLWCT added two "Orders" to its verdict that had been adopted in accordance with the charter of the KLWCC that controlled the operating framework of the tribunal: 1) Report the findings of guilt of the two accused former heads of state to the International Criminal Court in The Hague; and 2) Enter the names of Bush and Blair in the Register of War Criminals maintained by the KLWCC.

The tribunal also added several recommendations to its verdict: 1) Report findings in accord with Part VI (calling for future accountability) of the Nuremberg Judgment of 1945 addressing crimes of surviving political and military leaders of Nazi Germany; 2) File reports of genocide and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in The Hague; 3) Approach the UN General Assembly to pass a resolution demanding that the United States end its occupation of Iraq; 4) Communicate the findings of the tribunal to all members of the Rome Statute (which governs the International Criminal Court) and to all states asserting Universal Jurisdiction that allows for the prosecution of international crimes in national courts; and 5) Urge the UN Security Council to take responsibility to ensure that full sovereign rights are vested in the people of Iraq and that the independence of its government be protected by a UN peacekeeping force.

Mahathir Mohamed's anti-war campaign

These civil society legal initiatives are an outgrowth of a longer-term project undertaken by the controversial former Malaysian head of state, Mahathir Mohamed, to challenge American-led militarism and to mobilise the global South to mount an all-out struggle against the war system.

This vision of a revitalised struggle against war and post-colonial imperialism was comprehensively set forth in Mahathir's remarkable anti-war speech of February 24, 2003, while still prime minister, welcoming the Non-Aligned Movement to Kuala Lumpur for its thirteenth summit.

Included in his remarks on this occasion were the following assertions that prefigure the establishment of the KLWCC and KLWCT:

"War must be outlawed. That will have to be our struggle for now. We must struggle for justice and freedom from oppression, from economic hegemony. But we must remove the threat of war first. With this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads we can never succeed in advancing the interests of our countries.?War must therefore be made illegal. The enforcement of this must be by multilateral forces under the control of the United Nations. No single nation should be allowed to police the world, least of all to decide what action to take, [and] when."

Mahathir stated clearly on that occasion that his intention in criminalising the behavior of aggressive warmaking and crimes against humanity was to bring relief to victimised peoples - with special reference to the Iraqis, who were about to be attacked a few weeks later; and the Palestinians, who had long endured mass dispossession and an oppressive occupation. This dedication of Mahathir to a world without war was reaffirmed through the establishment of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War, and his inaugural speech opening a Criminalising War Conference on October 28, 2009.

On February 13, 2007 Mahathir called on the KLWCC to prepare a case against Bush and Blair, whom he held responsible for waging aggressive warfare against Iraq. Mahathir, an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and its aftermath, argued at the time that there existed a need for an alternative judicial forum to the ICC, which was unwilling to indict Western leaders. Mahathir was in effect insisting that no leader should any longer be able to escape accountability for such crimes against nations and peoples. He acknowledged with savage irony the limits of his proposed initiative: "We cannot arrest them, we cannot detain them, and we cannot hang them the way they hanged Saddam Hussein." Mahathir also contended that, "The one punishment that most leaders are afraid of is to go down in history with a certain label attached to them ... In history books they should be written down as war criminals and this is the kind of punishment we can make to them".

With this remark, Mahathir prefigured the KLWCC register of war criminals that has inscribed the names of those convicted by the KLWCT. Will it matter? Does such a listing have traction in our world?

In his 2007 statement, Mahathir promised that a future KLWCT would not, in his words, be "like the 'kangaroo court' that tried Saddam". Truly, the courtroom proceedings against Saddam Hussein was a sham trial excluding much relevant evidence, disallowing any meaningful defense, and culminating in a grotesque and discrediting execution. Saddam Hussein was subject to prosecution for multiple crimes against humanity, as well as crimes against peace, but the formally "correct" trappings of a trial could not obscure the fact that this was a disgraceful instance of victors' justice. Of course, the media, to the extent that it notices civil society initiatives at all, condemns them in precisely the same rhetoric that Mahathir used to attack the Saddam trial, insisting that the KLWCT is a "kangaroo court" or a "circus". The Western media, without exception, has ignored this proceeding against Bush and Blair, presumably considering it as irrelevant and a travesty of the law, while giving considerable attention to the almost concurrent UN-backed Cambodia War Crimes Tribunal prosecuting surviving Khmer Rouge operatives accused of genocidal behavior in the 1970s. For the global media, the auspices make all the difference.

Universal jurisdiction

The KLWCT did not occur entirely in a jurisprudential vacuum. It has long been acknowledged that domestic criminal courts can exercise universal jurisdiction for crimes of state wherever these may occur, although usually only if the accused individuals are physically present in the court. In American law, the Alien Tort Claims Act allows civil actions provided personal jurisdiction of the defendant is obtained for crimes such as torture committed outside of the United States.

The most influential example was the 1980 Filartiga decision awarding damages to a victim of torture in autocratic Paraguay (Filartiga v. Peña 620 F2d 876). That is, there is a sense that national tribunals have the legal authority to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes wherever in the world the alleged criminality took place. The underlying legal theory is based on the recognition of the limited capacity of international criminal trials to impose accountability in a manner that is not entirely dictated by geopolitical priorities and reflective of a logic of impunity. In this regard, universal jurisdiction has the potential to treat equals equally, and is very threatening to the Kissingers and Rumsfelds of this world, who have curtailed their travel schedules. The United States and Israel have used their diplomatic leverage to roll back universal jurisdiction authority in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom and Belgium.

To a certain extent, the KLWCT is taking a parallel path to criminal accountability. It does not purport to have the capacity to exert bodily punishment, and stakes its claims to effectiveness on publicity, education, and symbolic justice. Such initiatives have been undertaken from time to time since the Russell Tribunal of 1967 to address criminal allegations arising out of the Vietnam War, whenever there exists public outrage and an absence of an appropriate response by governments or the institutions of international society.

In 1976, the Lelio Basso Foundation in Rome established a Permanent Peoples Tribunal that generalised on the Russell experience. It believed that there was an urgent need to fill the institutional gap in the administration of justice worldwide that resulted from geopolitical manipulation and resulting formal legal regimes of double standards. Over the next several decades, the PPT addressed a series of issues ranging from allegations of American intervention in Central America and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan to human rights in the Philippines' Marcos dictatorship, the dispossession of Indian communities in Brazil's Amazonia state, and the denial of the right of self-determination to the Puerto Rican people.

The most direct precedent for KLWCT was the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), held in Istanbul in 2005, which culminated a worldwide series of hearings carried on between 2003-2005 on various aspects of the Iraq War. As with KLWCT, it also focussed on the alleged criminality of those who embarked on the Iraq War. WTI proceedings featured many expert witnesses, and produced a judgment that condemned Bush and Blair, among others, and called for a variety of symbolic and societal implementation measures.

The jury Declaration of Conscience included this general language:

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. Much evidence supports the conclusion that a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony… In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair governments blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history."

Unlike KLWCT, the tone and substance of the formal outcome of the WTI was moral and political rather than strictly legal, despite the legal framing of the inquiry. For a full account see Muge Gursoy Sokmen's World Tribunal on Iraq: Making the Case Against War (2008).

Justifying tribunals

Two weeks before the KLWCT, a comparable initiative in South Africa was considering allegations of apartheid directed at Israel in relation to dispossession of Palestinians and the occupation of a portion of historic Palestine (this was the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, South African Session, November 5-7 2011).

All these "juridical" events had one thing in common: The world system of states and institutions was unwilling to look a particular set of facts in the eye, and respond effectively to what many qualified and concerned persons believed to be a gross injustice. In this regard, there was an intense ethical and political motivation behind these civil society initiatives that invoked the authority of law. But do these initiatives really qualify as "law"? A response to such a question depends on whether the formal procedures of sovereign states, and their indirect progeny - international institutions - are given a monopoly over the legal administration of justice. I would side with those that believe that people are the ultimate source of legal authority, and have the right to act on their own when governmental procedures, as in these situations, are so inhibited by geopolitics that they fail to address severe violations of international law.

Beyond this, we should not neglect the documentary record compiled by these civil society initiatives operating with meager resources. Their allegations almost always exhibit an objective understanding of available evidence and applicable law, although unlike governmental procedures, this assessment is effectively made prior to the initiation of the proceeding.

It is this advance assurance of criminality that provides the motivation for making the formidable organisational and fundraising effort needed to bring such an initiative into play. But is this advance knowledge of the outcome so different from war crimes proceedings under governmental auspices? Indictments are made in high-profile war crimes cases only when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and decisive, and the outcome of adjudication is known as a matter of virtual certainty before the proceedings commence.

In both instances, the tribunal is not really trying to determine guilt or innocence, but rather is intent on providing the evidence and reasoning that validates and illuminates a verdict of guilt and resulting recommendations in one instance and criminal punishment in the other. It is, of course, impossible for civil society tribunals to enforce their outcomes in any conventional sense. Their challenge is rather to disseminate the judgment as widely and effectively as possible. A Permanent Peoples Tribunal publication can sometimes prove to be surprisingly influential in book form, given the extensive factual basis it presents in reaching its verdict. This was reportedly the case in generating oppositional activism in the Philippines in the early 1980s during the latter years of the Marcos regime.

The legalism of the KLWCT

The KLWCT has its own distinctive identity. It has the imprint of an influential former head of state in the country where the tribunal was convened, giving the whole undertaking a quasi-governmental character. It also took account of Mahathir's wider campaign against war in general. The assessing body of the tribunal was composed of five distinguished jurists, including judges, from Malaysia, imparting an additional sense of professionalism. The chief judge was Abdel Kadir Salaiman, a former judge on Malaysia's federal court. Two other persons who were announced as judges were recused at the outset of the proceedings, one because of supposed bias associated with prior involvement in a similar proceeding, and another due to illness. There was also a competent defense team that presented arguments intended to exonerate the defendants Bush and Blair, although the quality of the legal arguments offered was not as cogent as the evidence allowed.

The tribunal operated in strict accordance with a charter that had been earlier adopted by the KLWCC, and imparted a legalistic tone to the proceedings. It is this claim of legalism that is the most distinctive feature of the KLWCT - unlike comparable undertakings that rely more on an unprofessional and loose application of law by widely known moral authority personalities and culturally prominent figures, who make no pretense of familiarities with legal procedure and the fine points of substantive law. In this respect, the Iraq War Tribunal (IWT) held in Istanbul in 2005 was more characteristic. It pronounced on the law and offered recommendations on the basis of a politically and morally oriented assessment of evidence by a jury of conscience. The tribunal was presided over by the acclaimed Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy, and composed of a range of persons with notable public achievements, but without claims to expert knowledge of the relevant law, although extensive testimony by experts in international law did give a persuasive backing to the allegations of criminality. Also, unlike KLWCT, the IWT made no pretense of offering a defense to the charges.

Tribunals of 'conscience' or 'law'?

It raises the question for populist jurisprudence as to whether "conscience" or "law" is the preferred and more influential grounding for this kind of non-governmental initiative. In neither case does the statist-oriented mainstream media pause to give attention, even critical attention. In this regard, only populist democratic forces with a cosmopolitan vision will find such outcomes as Kuala Lumpur notable moves toward the establishment of what Derrida called the "democracy to come". Whether such forces will become numerous and vocal enough remains uncertain. One possible road to greater influence would be to make more imaginative uses of social networking potentials to inform, explain, educate, and persuade.

This recent session of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal offers a devastating critique of the persisting failures of international criminal law mechanisms of accountability to administer justice justly, that is, without the filters of impunity provided by existing hierarchies of hard power.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume, International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008). He is an honorary member of the BRussells Tribunal.

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html