Ethiopia, Tanzania & Zambia: Arrest Former President Bush for Torture

Protest Bush Canada

Activists protest former President Bush's visit to Canada

Yesterday, Amnesty International urged the governments of Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia to arrest former US President George W. Bush for crimes under international law, including torture, when he visits this week. (Amnesty International has made the same request of Switzerland and Canada during the former President’s trips to those countries.)

Now I know what you’re thinking: it’s not gonna happen. If the US government won’t arrest former President Bush for torture—President Obama has said he wants to look forward, not backward—why would some other country stick its neck out? Well, there is precedent for such an arrest (read: Chilean General Augusto Pinochet); it’s up to regular people like us to demand it.

No person, however high the office they may have held, should be above the law. We seek to hold former President Bush only to the same standard as any other person accused of similar crimes, from whatever country they may come. You do the crime, you do the time.

The former President’s stated aim is to raise awareness about health issues in Africa, but per Amnesty’s statement today,

“this cannot lessen the damage to the fight against torture caused by allowing someone who has admitted to authorizing water-boarding to travel without facing the consequences prescribed by law.”

Of course, some people think waterboarding isn’t torture. Earlier this week we heard from Newt Gingrich that:

“Waterboarding is by every technical rule not torture. [Applause] Waterboarding is actually something we’ve done with our own pilots in order to get them used to the idea to what interrogation is like. It’s not — I’m not saying it’s not bad, and it’s not difficult, it’s not frightening. I’m just saying that under the normal rules internationally it’s not torture.”

It’s stunning how wrong he is. Andrew Sullivan explains why here, pointing out that the US Supreme Court has considered waterboarding torture at least since 1926. (More details on the legal basis for arresting former President Bush here: Amnesty International: International Obligations of States to which Former President George W. Bush May Travel.)

So why the applause?  Waterboarding has become a touchstone in the current culture war, and in that battle, politicians and their supporters don’t actually care whether it’s legal or whether it works or whether it’s moral–they just want to hit the other side over the head and whip up their own followers. And in that atmosphere, rational decision making about crucial security issues goes out the window.

This has disastrous implications for all of us. Right now in Congress, our elected officials are on the verge of passing legislation that would expand the use of indefinite detention, open the door to drone strikes and targeted killings in the US and—if Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has her way—return to the days of waterboarding—potentially even for US citizens.

I don’t know about you, but that makes me feel a lot less safe.

It’s well past time to bring sanity to US interrogation and detention policy. And to do that we should not only follow our consciences and abide by our laws, but also listen to the actual experts in countering terrorism: real interrogators. From Ali Soufan (former FBI) to Glenn Carle (former CIA) to Matthew Alexander (former US military), professional interrogators say waterboarding and other human rights violations don’t work and are counterproductive to US security.

Luckily more and more voices across the political spectrum are speaking out against the false choice between security and human rights. Just yesterday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote about why the war on terror doesn’t justify retreat on rights.

You can speak out too:  sign up for the National Day of Action Against Guantanamo on January 11, 2012—the 10th anniversary of the Guantanamo prison. In Washington DC, we’ll form a human chain between the White House and Capitol. Join us!

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

84 thoughts on “Ethiopia, Tanzania & Zambia: Arrest Former President Bush for Torture

  1. Also of interest is a judgment by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which in an international-national joint court set up by agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia to judge those responsible for crimes under international (and national law) in Cambodia committed during the late 70s.
    In July 2010 they issued a judgment convicting someone for responsible for torture in a detention centre for which he had been responsible, and specifically included "waterboarding" as among the crimes of torture in question (the judgment is currently under appeal on other grounds, I believe). http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/kaing-guek-eav

    See paragraph 241 describing some of the "Torture Techniques" on which the conviction was based "The Accused acknowledged that detainees were subjected to waterboarding, which entailed pouring water into their nose to induce a sensation of suffocation and drowning." and paras 352-360, including "The Chamber finds that the following interrogation techniques, as applied at S-21, inflicted severe physical pain or mental suffering for the purpose of obtaining a confession or of punishment, and constituted torture: … water-boarding…"

  2. Also of interest is a judgment by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which in an international-national joint court set up by agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia to judge those responsible for crimes under international (and national law) in Cambodia committed during the late 70s.
    In July 2010 they issued a judgment convicting someone for responsible for torture in a detention centre for which he had been responsible, and specifically included "waterboarding" as among the crimes of torture in question (the judgment is currently under appeal on other grounds, I believe). http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/kaing-guek-eav

    See paragraph 241 describing some of the "Torture Techniques" on which the conviction was based "The Accused acknowledged that detainees were subjected to waterboarding, which entailed pouring water into their nose to induce a sensation of suffocation and drowning." and paras 352-360, including "The Chamber finds that the following interrogation techniques, as applied at S-21, inflicted severe physical pain or mental suffering for the purpose of obtaining a confession or of punishment, and constituted torture: … water-boarding…"

  3. Also of interest is a judgment by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which in an international-national joint court set up by agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia to judge those responsible for crimes under international (and national law) in Cambodia committed during the late 70s.
    In July 2010 they issued a judgment convicting someone for responsible for torture in a detention centre for which he had been responsible, and specifically included "waterboarding" as among the crimes of torture in question (the judgment is currently under appeal on other grounds, I believe). http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/kaing-guek-eav

    See paragraph 241 describing some of the "Torture Techniques" on which the conviction was based "The Accused acknowledged that detainees were subjected to waterboarding, which entailed pouring water into their nose to induce a sensation of suffocation and drowning." and paras 352-360, including "The Chamber finds that the following interrogation techniques, as applied at S-21, inflicted severe physical pain or mental suffering for the purpose of obtaining a confession or of punishment, and constituted torture: … water-boarding…"

  4. I just heard that Amnesty international is calling for the arrest of George Bush for 'torture' of the Al Quaeda murderers.

    I am sad that I gave money to Amnesty International in the past, but would never in the future. I have participated in campaigns in the past, but never again. I cannot believe you would justify such an outrageous request and negative the tremendous amount of humanitarian effort that Pres. Bush has done. Women in Afghanistan are grateful, AIDS victims in Africa are grateful, and he brought a huge spotlight on sex slavery and was mocked by the US media for it.

    Apparently, your current leadership is too hateful to see the impact such ludicrous acts do to the good causes that you normally fight for. Until your leadership changes, do not contact me for anything. Other organizations do great work without adding to the hate in the world.
    I

  5. Hi Sharyn,

    The fact is that the former President authorized waterboarding, and waterboarding is a crime.

    Under the UN Convention Against Torture, which President Regan signed for the USA, torture and other abuse is never permitted, under any circumstances, and all those responsible must be held accountable.

    If we don't hold people accountable for crimes, then the rule of law–and with it the fabric of our society–falls apart.

    Good deeds are good. But they don't let you can get away with crimes.

    Best,
    Zeke

  6. Also of interest is a judgment by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), which in an international-national joint court set up by agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia to judge those responsible for crimes under international (and national law) in Cambodia committed during the late 70s.
    In July 2010 they issued a judgment convicting someone for responsible for torture in a detention centre for which he had been responsible, and specifically included “waterboarding” as among the crimes of torture in question (the judgment is currently under appeal on other grounds, I believe). http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/kaing-guek-eav-convicted-crimes-against-humanity-and-grave-breaches-geneva-conventions-1949

    See paragraph 241 describing some of the “Torture Techniques” on which the conviction was based “The Accused acknowledged that detainees were subjected to waterboarding, which entailed pouring water into their nose to induce a sensation of suffocation and drowning.” and paras 352-360, including “The Chamber finds that the following interrogation techniques, as applied at S-21, inflicted severe physical pain or mental suffering for the purpose of obtaining a confession or of punishment, and constituted torture: … water-boarding…”

  7. Hi Zeke,

    I wonder if you would apply this same standard to say the OWS movement or to the millions of illegal aliens in the country? How about Bradley Manning?

    Will the same standard be used for President Obama with regards to drone attacks?

    Just wondering?

    Best,
    Doug

  8. Hi Doug,

    Amnesty calls for anyone who violates international human rights law to be held accountable. Anyone!

    We also call for all people to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in international human rights law, including the right to peaceful protest, the right to freedom of movement, the right to a standard of living that ensures dignity and the right of civilians to be free from attacks by states or armed groups.

    That's the core of what we're all about: one standard, for everyone.

    Best,
    Zeke

  9. I just heard that Amnesty international is calling for the arrest of George Bush for ‘torture’ of the Al Quaeda murderers.

    I am sad that I gave money to Amnesty International in the past, but would never in the future. I have participated in campaigns in the past, but never again. I cannot believe you would justify such an outrageous request and negative the tremendous amount of humanitarian effort that Pres. Bush has done. Women in Afghanistan are grateful, AIDS victims in Africa are grateful, and he brought a huge spotlight on sex slavery and was mocked by the US media for it.

    Apparently, your current leadership is too hateful to see the impact such ludicrous acts do to the good causes that you normally fight for. Until your leadership changes, do not contact me for anything. Other organizations do great work without adding to the hate in the world.
    I

  10. Hi Sharyn,

    The fact is that the former President authorized waterboarding, and waterboarding is a crime.

    Under the UN Convention Against Torture, which President Regan signed for the USA, torture and other abuse is never permitted, under any circumstances, and all those responsible must be held accountable.

    If we don’t hold people accountable for crimes, then the rule of law–and with it the fabric of our society–falls apart.

    Good deeds are good. But they don’t let you can get away with crimes.

    Best,
    Zeke

  11. Hi Zeke,

    I wonder if you would apply this same standard to say the OWS movement or to the millions of illegal aliens in the country? How about Bradley Manning?

    Will the same standard be used for President Obama with regards to drone attacks?

    Just wondering?

    Best,
    Doug

  12. Hi Doug,

    Amnesty calls for anyone who violates international human rights law to be held accountable. Anyone!

    We also call for all people to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in international human rights law, including the right to peaceful protest, the right to freedom of movement, the right to a standard of living that ensures dignity and the right of civilians to be free from attacks by states or armed groups.

    That’s the core of what we’re all about: one standard, for everyone.

    Best,
    Zeke

  13. Dear Zeke,
    I must congratulate you on having achieved intergalactic travel. Are you writing from Earth or a nearby galaxy? AI appears to be slowly losing its collective mind. Is there any adult supervision in your organisation?

    The US isn't under ICC jurisdiction and which African country is going to be so moronic as to arrest Bush 2 for his actions?

    If Bush 2 is guilty of war crimes, so is your current President. So, where is your campaign in the US to arrest President Obama? Or are you just posturing ?

    The only logical conclusion is that Amnesty's enemies have infiltrated a once-great organisation and are doing a brilliant job undermining its reputation from within.

  14. When can we see proclamations for the arrest of Al-Qaida leaders such as Ayman al Zawahiri, the man most responsible now for the murder of thousands of innocent people? The same Zawahri who is holding 70 year old Jewish-American Warren Weinstein HOSTAGE? When can we expect to see your cry for his arrest? You people are the biggest hypocrites on earth. The only people who don't realize you are hypocrites is….YOU. Try being a little less obvious next time, ok?

  15. Dear Zeke,
    I must congratulate you on having achieved intergalactic travel. Are you writing from Earth or a nearby galaxy? AI appears to be slowly losing its collective mind. Is there any adult supervision in your organisation?

    The US isn’t under ICC jurisdiction and which African country is going to be so moronic as to arrest Bush 2 for his actions?

    If Bush 2 is guilty of war crimes, so is your current President. So, where is your campaign in the US to arrest President Obama? Or are you just posturing ?

    The only logical conclusion is that Amnesty’s enemies have infiltrated a once-great organisation and are doing a brilliant job undermining its reputation from within.

  16. When can we see proclamations for the arrest of Al-Qaida leaders such as Ayman al Zawahiri, the man most responsible now for the murder of thousands of innocent people? The same Zawahri who is holding 70 year old Jewish-American Warren Weinstein HOSTAGE? When can we expect to see your cry for his arrest? You people are the biggest hypocrites on earth. The only people who don’t realize you are hypocrites is….YOU. Try being a little less obvious next time, ok?

  17. Zeke,

    If an organization seeks to pursue charitable goals, it will stay out of politics.

    Amnesty International used to be regarded as a highly respected advocate of civil liberties, justice and independence around the world. I say "used to" because your organization is becoming more and more political.

    Only a few years back your organization focused on eliminating dictatorships and removing obstacles to democracy. You focused on preventing the abuse of people like Chinese dissident writers whose contribution to the society was clearly in the best interest of their nation.

    Today, you are a different body. In your article on George W. Bush, you defend people whose contribution to the society is dubious at best, and damning at worst. I don't see ideas in your article, and I don't see solutions to the world's problems. In fact, you don't spare a word on how to prevent terrorism. What I do see is your attack on a statesman who is long out of power and beyond return to an influential political position.

    Although the arrests on George W Bush may be technically right from the viewpoint of some national legislature, it is never morally right. There is not an argument you can present which will justify terrorism. No matter how much dirt you attempt to throw at George W Bush and his administration, you will never be able to deny that George W Bush's administration stood for democracy.

    And democracy, Zeke, is exactly what terrorists stand against. I wish that Amnesty International left behind technical arguments and chose a principle-oriented or objectives-focused approach instead.

    Most of all, Zeke, I wish that Amnesty International continue to do what they do best, and that is staying out of politics.

    Sincerely,

    John Stevens

  18. Zeke,

    If an organization seeks to pursue charitable goals, it will stay out of politics.

    Amnesty International used to be regarded as a highly respected advocate of civil liberties, justice and independence around the world. I say “used to” because your organization is becoming more and more political.

    Only a few years back your organization focused on eliminating dictatorships and removing obstacles to democracy. You focused on preventing the abuse of people like Chinese dissident writers whose contribution to the society was clearly in the best interest of their nation.

    Today, you are a different body. In your article on George W. Bush, you defend people whose contribution to the society is dubious at best, and damning at worst. I don’t see ideas in your article, and I don’t see solutions to the world’s problems. In fact, you don’t spare a word on how to prevent terrorism. What I do see is your attack on a statesman who is long out of power and beyond return to an influential political position.

    Although the arrests on George W Bush may be technically right from the viewpoint of some national legislature, it is never morally right. There is not an argument you can present which will justify terrorism. No matter how much dirt you attempt to throw at George W Bush and his administration, you will never be able to deny that George W Bush’s administration stood for democracy.

    And democracy, Zeke, is exactly what terrorists stand against. I wish that Amnesty International left behind technical arguments and chose a principle-oriented or objectives-focused approach instead.

    Most of all, Zeke, I wish that Amnesty International continue to do what they do best, and that is staying out of politics.

    Sincerely,

    John Stevens

  19. John –

    Holding George W. Bush accountable for his actions is doing no less than what was done to the Nazi leaders of the German people at the end of World War II. The biggest difference is that the United States was on the receiving end of waterboarding during World War II, and on the giving end of it during the Global War on Terror (trademark).
    If we are going to declare ourselves the favored people of the world (via the utter claptrap that is American Exceptionalism) then we need to adhere to the legal principles we have espoused in the past. Anything less is a less than honorable stance.

  20. Arrest Bush !

    That's the demand of millions of oppressed around the world.

    Does the US have to be under ICC jurisdiction to validate this call ?

    That's ridiculous !! It's the same as saying a criminal must first recognize a court before he can be tried in it ! Any criminal worth the name would refuse to grant such a recognition !

  21. That's exactly WHY the US didn't put itself within the ICC's orbit in the first place, to escape prosecution by it … while demanding its weak enemies be hauled before the same court !

    Amnesty's stand & demand here is the antidote to just this sort of hypocrisy & double standard !

  22. Note the view given above by a blogger that any African country arresting Bush would have to be "moronic" to do so.

    Such a prospect is so ludicrous to this blogger he says it surely couldn't come from this planet.

    Coudn't escape the feeling that here lay the unspoken thought that an "African country" couldn't dare to do what a Western country could , & has, done ( in Spain's arrest of Pinochet ) !

    & this opinion comes from a nonWestern person …. while Zeke Johnson & Amnesty USA have the courage to demand the (im)possible as much of any African nation as they demanded it of Canada a while back.

    The reality this blogger so swaggeringly presumed to remind us of is not just limited to this geopolitical Earth, as he seems to think …. it's also the reality of the mind & its realms of prejudice & bias in which he's apparently much more smugly & securely anchored than those who are struggling to change them.

  23. No, it's not "posturing" to call for Bush's arrest, & not Obama's.

    It's immature to call for a president's "arrest".You can't call or campaign for a president's prosecution unless he's actually cought in a criminal act or first thrown out of power.

    A president while in power, if i'm not mistaken, is protected from arrest under national & international law, within whose limits Amnesty seeks to abide.

    You'd have to have a coup to arrest him, as happens in south & central American countries for instance .

  24. "Stay out of politics" ??

    That can only apply if you're talking of politics as a career !

    If you speak of politics as the realm of public affairs, every ISSUE is political !

    We should only fight for "civil liberties" ?

    But when we fight FOR those liberties, we're fighting AGAINST their violations by administrations — which are purely political bodies !

    & when the violations are perpetrated by corporations ( economic entities ) or by banks ( financial groups ), those violations THEMSELVES are public & political acts & processes !

    Any attempt to correct wrongs in the public sphere or in private corporations & institutions IS a political action !

    There's no staying OUT of politics !

  25. John -

    Holding George W. Bush accountable for his actions is doing no less than what was done to the Nazi leaders of the German people at the end of World War II. The biggest difference is that the United States was on the receiving end of waterboarding during World War II, and on the giving end of it during the Global War on Terror (trademark).
    If we are going to declare ourselves the favored people of the world (via the utter claptrap that is American Exceptionalism) then we need to adhere to the legal principles we have espoused in the past. Anything less is a less than honorable stance.

  26. Arrest Bush !

    That’s the demand of millions of oppressed around the world.

    Does the US have to be under ICC jurisdiction to validate this call ?

    That’s ridiculous !! It’s the same as saying a criminal must first recognize a court before he can be tried in it ! Any criminal worth the name would refuse to grant such a recognition !

  27. That’s exactly WHY the US didn’t put itself within the ICC’s orbit in the first place, to escape prosecution by it … while demanding its weak enemies be hauled before the same court !

    Amnesty’s stand & demand here is the antidote to just this sort of hypocrisy & double standard !

  28. Note the view given above by a blogger that any African country arresting Bush would have to be “moronic” to do so.

    Such a prospect is so ludicrous to this blogger he says it surely couldn’t come from this planet.

    Coudn’t escape the feeling that here lay the unspoken thought that an “African country” couldn’t dare to do what a Western country could , & has, done ( in Spain’s arrest of Pinochet ) !

    & this opinion comes from a nonWestern person …. while Zeke Johnson & Amnesty USA have the courage to demand the (im)possible as much of any African nation as they demanded it of Canada a while back.

    The reality this blogger so swaggeringly presumed to remind us of is not just limited to this geopolitical Earth, as he seems to think …. it’s also the reality of the mind & its realms of prejudice & bias in which he’s apparently much more smugly & securely anchored than those who are struggling to change them.

  29. No, it’s not “posturing” to call for Bush’s arrest, & not Obama’s.

    It’s immature to call for a president’s “arrest”.You can’t call or campaign for a president’s prosecution unless he’s actually cought in a criminal act or first thrown out of power.

    A president while in power, if i’m not mistaken, is protected from arrest under national & international law, within whose limits Amnesty seeks to abide.

    You’d have to have a coup to arrest him, as happens in south & central American countries for instance .

  30. “Stay out of politics” ??

    That can only apply if you’re talking of politics as a career !

    If you speak of politics as the realm of public affairs, every ISSUE is political !

    We should only fight for “civil liberties” ?

    But when we fight FOR those liberties, we’re fighting AGAINST their violations by administrations — which are purely political bodies !

    & when the violations are perpetrated by corporations ( economic entities ) or by banks ( financial groups ), those violations THEMSELVES are public & political acts & processes !

    Any attempt to correct wrongs in the public sphere or in private corporations & institutions IS a political action !

    There’s no staying OUT of politics !

  31. look at you guy your each other throuts ! together we are strong but what we are now is just sperate factors yelling at each other about who spilled the milk !!!

  32. @a.savage:
    Yes, the US has to be under ICC jurisdiction for it be answerable to the ICC. If Bush 2 is to be arrested, basic logic demands that Obama must also hand himself in to the ICC.

    A defendant has every right not to recognise a court seeking to try him. For instance, holocaust denial is a crime in Germany but NOT a crime in the UK. Should a UK citizen who espouses holocaust denial inside UK be liable to tried in a German court? Of course not.

    Have you forgotten your medication today? What sort of horrible accident did you have to have your cognitive reasoning damaged so badly? I hope you're getting proper medical care. :)

    No Western European country will dare to arrest a serving or ex-US president. Amnesty know this and instead expect poor, powerless African countries to assist AI's ridiculous posturing. "As long as it makes AI activists feel good it must be right" appears to be the main message emanating from AI.

    If you're waiting for the ICC to deliver justice to Western politicians, you're going to be very disappointed. In 2000, Robin Cook (UK foreign secretary) was honest enough to say that ICC was "not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States." http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/artic

    Just memorise this paragraph to stop us all wasting time on this futile AI posturing and grandstanding.

    "There are three sets of circumstances under which the ICC can launch a prosecution.

    First, it can be invited in by a government which has ratified the treaty setting up the court, as in the ICC’s current prosecutions in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.

    Second, it can have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council, as with its prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir.

    Third, it can launch an investigation on its own initiative, as it has done in Kenya, but only in relation to states which recognise its jurisdiction and national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

    There’s a further catch. The UN Security Council can halt any investigation it doesn’t wish to proceed. This is initially for a year, but is actually renewable indefinitely. Permanent members of the UN Security Council – such as the United States or Britain – are never likely to face prosecution, and could stop any investigation dead in its tracks."
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2011/ba

    The ICC only acts against weak, powerless states — mainly African and some ex-Eastern European states.

  33. @a.savage:
    Yes, the US has to be under ICC jurisdiction for it be answerable to the ICC. If Bush 2 is to be arrested, basic logic demands that Obama must also hand himself in to the ICC.

    A defendant has every right not to recognise a court seeking to try him. For instance, holocaust denial is a crime in Germany but NOT a crime in the UK. Should a UK citizen who espouses holocaust denial inside UK be liable to tried in a German court? Of course not.

    Have you forgotten your medication today? What sort of horrible accident did you have to have your cognitive reasoning damaged so badly? I hope you're getting proper medical care. :)

    No Western European country will dare to arrest a serving or ex-US president. Amnesty know this and instead expect poor, powerless African countries to assist AI's ridiculous posturing. "As long as it makes AI activists feel good it must be right" appears to be the main message emanating from AI.

    If you're waiting for the ICC to deliver justice to Western politicians, you're going to be very disappointed. In 2000, Robin Cook (UK foreign secretary) was honest enough to say that ICC was "not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States." http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/artic

    Just memorise this paragraph to stop us all wasting time on this futile AI posturing and grandstanding.

    "There are three sets of circumstances under which the ICC can launch a prosecution.

    First, it can be invited in by a government which has ratified the treaty setting up the court, as in the ICC’s current prosecutions in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.

    Second, it can have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council, as with its prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir.

    Third, it can launch an investigation on its own initiative, as it has done in Kenya, but only in relation to states which recognise its jurisdiction and national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

    There’s a further catch. The UN Security Council can halt any investigation it doesn’t wish to proceed. This is initially for a year, but is actually renewable indefinitely. Permanent members of the UN Security Council – such as the United States or Britain – are never likely to face prosecution, and could stop any investigation dead in its tracks."
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2011/ba

    The ICC only acts against weak, powerless states — mainly African and some ex-Eastern European states.

  34. @a.savage:
    Yes, the US has to be under ICC jurisdiction for it be answerable to the ICC. If Bush 2 is to be arrested, basic logic demands that Obama must also hand himself in to the ICC.

    A defendant has every right not to recognise a court seeking to try him. For instance, holocaust denial is a crime in Germany but NOT a crime in the UK. Should a UK citizen who espouses holocaust denial inside UK be liable to tried in a German court? Of course not.

    Have you forgotten your medication today? What sort of horrible accident did you have to have your cognitive reasoning damaged so badly? I hope you're getting proper medical care. :)

    No Western European country will dare to arrest a serving or ex-US president. Amnesty know this and instead expect poor, powerless African countries to assist AI's ridiculous posturing. "As long as it makes AI activists feel good it must be right" appears to be the main message emanating from AI.

    If you're waiting for the ICC to deliver justice to Western politicians, you're going to be very disappointed. In 2000, Robin Cook (UK foreign secretary) was honest enough to say that ICC was "not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States." http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/artic

    Just memorise this paragraph to stop us all wasting time on this futile AI posturing and grandstanding.

    "There are three sets of circumstances under which the ICC can launch a prosecution.

    First, it can be invited in by a government which has ratified the treaty setting up the court, as in the ICC’s current prosecutions in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.

    Second, it can have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council, as with its prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir.

    Third, it can launch an investigation on its own initiative, as it has done in Kenya, but only in relation to states which recognise its jurisdiction and national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

    There’s a further catch. The UN Security Council can halt any investigation it doesn’t wish to proceed. This is initially for a year, but is actually renewable indefinitely. Permanent members of the UN Security Council – such as the United States or Britain – are never likely to face prosecution, and could stop any investigation dead in its tracks."
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2011/ba

    The ICC only acts against weak, powerless states — mainly African and some ex-Eastern European states.

  35. It should be people in Amnety Internatinal who should be Jailed. This are international criminals who work and are paid by Oil companies, greedy sukers such as Soros and his open socity Sycopaths

  36. look at you guy your each other throuts ! together we are strong but what we are now is just sperate factors yelling at each other about who spilled the milk !!!

  37. @a.savage:
    Yes, the US has to be under ICC jurisdiction for it be answerable to the ICC. If Bush 2 is to be arrested, basic logic demands that Obama must also hand himself in to the ICC.

    A defendant has every right not to recognise a court seeking to try him. For instance, holocaust denial is a crime in Germany but NOT a crime in the UK. Should a UK citizen who espouses holocaust denial inside UK be liable to tried in a German court? Of course not.

    Have you forgotten your medication today? What sort of horrible accident did you have to have your cognitive reasoning damaged so badly? I hope you’re getting proper medical care. :)

    No Western European country will dare to arrest a serving or ex-US president. Amnesty know this and instead expect poor, powerless African countries to assist AI’s ridiculous posturing. “As long as it makes AI activists feel good it must be right” appears to be the main message emanating from AI.

    If you’re waiting for the ICC to deliver justice to Western politicians, you’re going to be very disappointed. In 2000, Robin Cook (UK foreign secretary) was honest enough to say that ICC was “not a court set up to bring to book prime ministers of the United Kingdom or presidents of the United States.”
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10289/

    Just memorise this paragraph to stop us all wasting time on this futile AI posturing and grandstanding.

    “There are three sets of circumstances under which the ICC can launch a prosecution.

    First, it can be invited in by a government which has ratified the treaty setting up the court, as in the ICC’s current prosecutions in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.

    Second, it can have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council, as with its prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al Bashir.

    Third, it can launch an investigation on its own initiative, as it has done in Kenya, but only in relation to states which recognise its jurisdiction and national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.

    There’s a further catch. The UN Security Council can halt any investigation it doesn’t wish to proceed. This is initially for a year, but is actually renewable indefinitely. Permanent members of the UN Security Council – such as the United States or Britain – are never likely to face prosecution, and could stop any investigation dead in its tracks.”

    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2011/battles/5400/

    The ICC only acts against weak, powerless states — mainly African and some ex-Eastern European states.

  38. It should be people in Amnety Internatinal who should be Jailed. This are international criminals who work and are paid by Oil companies, greedy sukers such as Soros and his open socity Sycopaths

  39. Since the Superpower & its allies have set the rules of a game, we know exactly how it's likely to be played in this world's courts.

    It makes it all the more urgent to call on all governments & nations to arrest & prosecute Bush & other criminals, ALWAYS & EVERYWHERE.

    The Power of a Call in ITSELF is crucial …. & galvanizing … TRANSFORMING !!

    It wakes up the peoples of a region to the fact that a war criminal has crossed their borders.

    The boredom with which the "neutral" public greets most news of such visits is suddenly gone … people sit up & watch the news with sharper attention.

    & that is a moment in their awakening.

    They see this criminal is followed by calls for his arrest from his own "homeland".

    They see the historical, global connections from which they are no longer remote.

    For apologists of such a criminal or similar criminals, Amnesty's call is "posturing", if not worse.

    But for the Peoples who resist him, long before & even now, this call IMMEASURABLY strengthens their voices & is ALWAYS WELCOME.

    It ALL depends on which side you're on.

    If you're on the side of the resisting peoples ( & by "you" i don't mean any blogger, but the gentle reader out there ), then you know who's the REAL posturer.

    Is it Amnesty, which does not allow a single opportunity for justice to pass in silence ?

    Or is it the criminal, who goes everywhere around the world dressed in the rags of "respectability", when he's utterly bereft of it ?

  40. Amnesty's call for Bush's arrest must be seen, not as an isolated voice in a wilderness, but in the global context of a rising chorus of voices against war & war crimes .

    There's an international opposition to war criminals today demanding their judicial prosecution.

    A new & burgeoning phenomenon.

    This is a crucial connection in the global antiwar movement.

    The antiwar upsurge AROUND the world is the CHIEF FACTOR in the mass opposition to visits by war criminals ANYWHERE & EVERYWHERE today, & in the calls for their prosecution coming from NEW & UNEXPECTED QUARTERS.

    For the first time, war criminals have become scared to venture abroad.

    They cut visits short, they run.

    Sri Lankan leaders & officials linked to their regime's genocidal war on Tamils ran in the UK on being chased by a mass opposition & public outcry.

    Part of the opposition to Amnesty's call you see here reflects this new & growing fear besetting war criminal regimes.

    They ascribe the calls against the criminals to mere stunts & posturing.

    But their fear is real.

  41. Never underestimate the power of a public call, like Amnesty's to the African nations.

    A call stands by itself.

    It's triggering … & galvanizing.

    Its ripples spread within the mind, endlessly.

    That's why we're still talking & arguing about it here.

    While Amnesty's isn't just a symbolic cry, don't cut it off from its symbolic content either.

    For even essentially symbolic calls have the power to change a narrative.

    Which is the power to shape world opinion … or a People's vision.

    When Bush visited Canada, & the Mohawk elder Splits the Sky stood out tall & spoke out in ringing tones against him, you could see this power in action.

    Splits the Sky had once tried to make a citizen's arrest of Bush all by himself, right in the face of the massed ranks of Canadian police.

    For this he'd been arrested, & prosecuted.

    This time he stood right in front of the police & demanded they arrest Bush.

    "Uphold the law ! Arrest him !" he called out to them repeatedly.

    In that moment, in the watching public's & camera's eyes, Bush was not only cut to size as the international lawbreaker he is, you could see upheld to all the world the TRUE duty of any police force … & its actual role on the ground.

  42. Dear Zeke Johnson & Amnesty,

    By your call to arrest Bush, you have acted, not just as the representatives of the People's opinion, but as its true leader.

    For a true leader leads, even if no one will follow.

    A leader must uphold what is right, irrespective of whether her or his vision is acceptable to the powers- that – be, or not.

    When the Mohawk elder Splits the Sky urged the police to do their duty by upholding the law, he knew they would not do so.

    But where they will not, he has to uphold the law by himself, even if he stands alone.

    You too have upheld the law with your call, irrespective of whether the governments you call upon uphold it or not, or are able to uphold it or not.

    By doing so, in this moment, you have proven yourselves worthy of your work.

  43. Since the Superpower & its allies have set the rules of a game, we know exactly how it’s likely to be played in this world’s courts.

    It makes it all the more urgent to call on all governments & nations to arrest & prosecute Bush & other criminals, ALWAYS & EVERYWHERE.

    The Power of a Call in ITSELF is crucial …. & galvanizing … TRANSFORMING !!

    It wakes up the peoples of a region to the fact that a war criminal has crossed their borders.

    The boredom with which the “neutral” public greets most news of such visits is suddenly gone … people sit up & watch the news with sharper attention.

    & that is a moment in their awakening.

    They see this criminal is followed by calls for his arrest from his own “homeland”.

    They see the historical, global connections from which they are no longer remote.

    For apologists of such a criminal or similar criminals, Amnesty’s call is “posturing”, if not worse.

    But for the Peoples who resist him, long before & even now, this call IMMEASURABLY strengthens their voices & is ALWAYS WELCOME.

    It ALL depends on which side you’re on.

    If you’re on the side of the resisting peoples ( & by “you” i don’t mean any blogger, but the gentle reader out there ), then you know who’s the REAL posturer.

    Is it Amnesty, which does not allow a single opportunity for justice to pass in silence ?

    Or is it the criminal, who goes everywhere around the world dressed in the rags of “respectability”, when he’s utterly bereft of it ?

  44. Amnesty’s call for Bush’s arrest must be seen, not as an isolated voice in a wilderness, but in the global context of a rising chorus of voices against war & war crimes .

    There’s an international opposition to war criminals today demanding their judicial prosecution.

    A new & burgeoning phenomenon.

    This is a crucial connection in the global antiwar movement.

    The antiwar upsurge AROUND the world is the CHIEF FACTOR in the mass opposition to visits by war criminals ANYWHERE & EVERYWHERE today, & in the calls for their prosecution coming from NEW & UNEXPECTED QUARTERS.

    For the first time, war criminals have become scared to venture abroad.

    They cut visits short, they run.

    Sri Lankan leaders & officials linked to their regime’s genocidal war on Tamils ran in the UK on being chased by a mass opposition & public outcry.

    Part of the opposition to Amnesty’s call you see here reflects this new & growing fear besetting war criminal regimes.

    They ascribe the calls against the criminals to mere stunts & posturing.

    But their fear is real.

  45. Never underestimate the power of a public call, like Amnesty’s to the African nations.

    A call stands by itself.

    It’s triggering … & galvanizing.

    Its ripples spread within the mind, endlessly.

    That’s why we’re still talking & arguing about it here.

    While Amnesty’s isn’t just a symbolic cry, don’t cut it off from its symbolic content either.

    For even essentially symbolic calls have the power to change a narrative.

    Which is the power to shape world opinion … or a People’s vision.

    When Bush visited Canada, & the Mohawk elder Splits the Sky stood out tall & spoke out in ringing tones against him, you could see this power in action.

    Splits the Sky had once tried to make a citizen’s arrest of Bush all by himself, right in the face of the massed ranks of Canadian police.

    For this he’d been arrested, & prosecuted.

    This time he stood right in front of the police & demanded they arrest Bush.

    “Uphold the law ! Arrest him !” he called out to them repeatedly.

    In that moment, in the watching public’s & camera’s eyes, Bush was not only cut to size as the international lawbreaker he is, you could see upheld to all the world the TRUE duty of any police force … & its actual role on the ground.

  46. Dear Zeke Johnson & Amnesty,

    By your call to arrest Bush, you have acted, not just as the representatives of the People’s opinion, but as its true leader.

    For a true leader leads, even if no one will follow.

    A leader must uphold what is right, irrespective of whether her or his vision is acceptable to the powers- that – be, or not.

    When the Mohawk elder Splits the Sky urged the police to do their duty by upholding the law, he knew they would not do so.

    But where they will not, he has to uphold the law by himself, even if he stands alone.

    You too have upheld the law with your call, irrespective of whether the governments you call upon uphold it or not, or are able to uphold it or not.

    By doing so, in this moment, you have proven yourselves worthy of your work.

  47. I'm way behind in the comments, but one thing I want to point out: a fallacy we see over and over again on the blog and on Facebook comments is that of changing the subject.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    It usually takes the form of "Amnesty is concerned about issue X, but since in the blog they're not addressing issue Y, issue X is not important."

    Aside from being an illogical argument–Y is irrelevent to the importance of X and the substance of the claim about X isn't addressed–this line of argument implies that we would have to include every human rights issue in every blog!

    For a full list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

  48. I'm way behind in the comments, but one thing I want to point out: a fallacy we see over and over again on the blog and on Facebook comments is that of changing the subject.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    It usually takes the form of "Amnesty is concerned about issue X, but since in the blog they're not addressing issue Y, issue X is not important."

    Aside from being an illogical argument–Y is irrelevent to the importance of X and the substance of the claim about X isn't addressed–this line of argument implies that we would have to include every human rights issue in every blog!

    For a full list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

  49. I'm way behind in the comments, but one thing I want to point out: a fallacy we see over and over again on the blog and on Facebook comments is that of changing the subject.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    It usually takes the form of "Amnesty is concerned about issue X, but since in the blog they're not addressing issue Y, issue X is not important."

    Aside from being an illogical argument–Y is irrelevent to the importance of X and the substance of the claim about X isn't addressed–this line of argument implies that we would have to include every human rights issue in every blog!

    For a full list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

  50. Zeke

    The writers above are not committing a logical fallacy.

    In actual fact you are.

    In any truly "just" system, and that is what the whole world wants "international law" to eventually become, in any "just" system of laws, the application, or the more usual complaint you see on this blog which is the non-application of international law to case Y most certainly is relevant to the discussion of application of international law to case X because it violates the principle of fairness and equality.

    The idea of "equal protection under the law", i.e that the laws should be equally and fairly administered to all without discrimination or favoritism, is a core principle of any "just" system of laws.

    For just one example, the United States Constitution has this principle of basic justice and even-handedness enshrined in the 14th amendment. Recent published studies show that even tiny human infants a few months old, chimpanzees and dogs can recognize and will react negatively to blatant unfairness and favoritism. Scientists now believe this is a built in instinctual response.

    So, when Amnesty, or any other international organization demands that so-called international law be unfairly applied to only in the case of Y, of just certain very select individuals, such as in this example an extremely politically unpopular former US President while Amnesty at the same times completely ignores X, i.e. thousands of other even worse criminals, many people myself included feel that Amnesty is not acting fairly and not acting in accordance with one of the key underlying base components of true "justice" which is equality under the law.

  51. its kinda sad how you guys/girls could spend all day debating about whos the bad guy or who should be the bad guy or who should take the blame i may just be a freshmen in high school but at least i make a diffence in life

  52. I’m way behind in the comments, but one thing I want to point out: a fallacy we see over and over again on the blog and on Facebook comments is that of changing the subject.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

    It usually takes the form of “Amnesty is concerned about issue X, but since in the blog they’re not addressing issue Y, issue X is not important.”

    Aside from being an illogical argument–Y is irrelevent to the importance of X and the substance of the claim about X isn’t addressed–this line of argument implies that we would have to include every human rights issue in every blog!

    For a full list of logical fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

  53. Zeke

    The writers above are not committing a logical fallacy.

    In actual fact you are.

    In any truly “just” system, and that is what the whole world wants “international law” to eventually become, in any “just” system of laws, the application, or the more usual complaint you see on this blog which is the non-application of international law to case Y most certainly is relevant to the discussion of application of international law to case X because it violates the principle of fairness and equality.

    The idea of “equal protection under the law”, i.e that the laws should be equally and fairly administered to all without discrimination or favoritism, is a core principle of any “just” system of laws.

    For just one example, the United States Constitution has this principle of basic justice and even-handedness enshrined in the 14th amendment. Recent published studies show that even tiny human infants a few months old, chimpanzees and dogs can recognize and will react negatively to blatant unfairness and favoritism. Scientists now believe this is a built in instinctual response.

    So, when Amnesty, or any other international organization demands that so-called international law be unfairly applied to only in the case of Y, of just certain very select individuals, such as in this example an extremely politically unpopular former US President while Amnesty at the same times completely ignores X, i.e. thousands of other even worse criminals, many people myself included feel that Amnesty is not acting fairly and not acting in accordance with one of the key underlying base components of true “justice” which is equality under the law.

  54. its kinda sad how you guys/girls could spend all day debating about whos the bad guy or who should be the bad guy or who should take the blame i may just be a freshmen in high school but at least i make a diffence in life

  55. Hi Zeke,
    Odd that you accuse others of logical fallacies when the entire AI campaign to indict Bush 2 is based on a logical fallacy. i.e. because Pinochet was arrested in London, Bush 2 can also be arrested… somewhere.

    The case of Pinochet's arrest you used to create an equivalence to arresting Bush 2 can be dismissed using the False analogy argument, in which which the analogy is poorly suited.

    As I've shown (above), neither Bush 2 nor any other US President is ever likely to be indicted by the ICC for war crimes as the US is not under ICC jurisdiction and neither will be it ever allow itself to be under ICC jurisdiction.

    Please explain the precise legal mechanisms AI intend to use to successfully indict and arrest Bush 2 for his alleged war crimes. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, disinterested observers (like me) will continue to accuse AI of moral grandstanding for no particular gain.

  56. I demand the immediate arrest and detention of Zeke Johnson on grounds of treason. By calling on other nations to harm or even kill a former president of the United States, he is guilty of treachery and has violated any allegience to his country. Someone start a Facebook group, please and thanks.

  57. Hi Zeke,
    Odd that you accuse others of logical fallacies when the entire AI campaign to indict Bush 2 is based on a logical fallacy. i.e. because Pinochet was arrested in London, Bush 2 can also be arrested… somewhere.

    The case of Pinochet’s arrest you used to create an equivalence to arresting Bush 2 can be dismissed using the False analogy argument, in which which the analogy is poorly suited.

    As I’ve shown (above), neither Bush 2 nor any other US President is ever likely to be indicted by the ICC for war crimes as the US is not under ICC jurisdiction and neither will be it ever allow itself to be under ICC jurisdiction.

    Please explain the precise legal mechanisms AI intend to use to successfully indict and arrest Bush 2 for his alleged war crimes. If you’re unable or unwilling to do so, disinterested observers (like me) will continue to accuse AI of moral grandstanding for no particular gain.

  58. I demand the immediate arrest and detention of Zeke Johnson on grounds of treason. By calling on other nations to harm or even kill a former president of the United States, he is guilty of treachery and has violated any allegience to his country. Someone start a Facebook group, please and thanks.

  59. Wow, who would have thought a war-monger had such a large fan-base, and on a human rights site at that. Oh I forgot, it's not "terrorism" or "war-mongering" when an American does it. It's called "spreading democracy" and any arguments to the contrary are "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". Typical.

  60. Michael Bowling:

    I don't know if I agree that poor ol' Zeke really should be singled out to have the hounds after him like a treed possum for the rest of his days. Geepers peepers, isn't that going a wee bit overboard? Zeke has an extremely difficult job with the lives of countless millions literately in his hands, where moral dilemmas abound and Zeke has been forced to make a multitude of choices between the lesser of two evils out of sincere motives after all, am I right ?

    But if Zeke does complain about the obvious unfairness of his treatment just because no one else gets treated the way he gets treated, you can just explain to him his big mistake, that he is committing an obvious logical fallacy such that the treatment that Y ( Zeke ) receives has nothing what so ever to with the treatment everyone else ( X ) receives. Duhh.

  61. I’m currently working with http://www.militaryeducation.org. They specialize in educating others who are interested in Military Scholarships.They have created a new Military Infographic, which I thought might interest your readers.
    You can review the graphic at http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipme…. If you like the graphic, I’d appreciate if you could add it to your blog or share it through your social media accounts. Thank You!

  62. Wow, who would have thought a war-monger had such a large fan-base, and on a human rights site at that. Oh I forgot, it’s not “terrorism” or “war-mongering” when an American does it. It’s called “spreading democracy” and any arguments to the contrary are “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”. Typical.

  63. I’m currently working with http://www.militaryeducation.org. They specialize in educating others who are interested in Military Scholarships.They have created a new Military Infographic, which I thought might interest your readers.
    You can review the graphic at http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipme…. If you like the graphic, I’d appreciate if you could add it to your blog or share it through your social media accounts. Thank You!

  64. I’m currently working with http://www.militaryeducation.org. They specialize in educating others who are interested in Military Scholarships.They have created a new Military Infographic, which I thought might interest your readers.
    You can review the graphic at http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipme…. If you like the graphic, I’d appreciate if you could add it to your blog or share it through your social media accounts. Thank You!

  65. Michael Bowling:

    I don’t know if I agree that poor ol’ Zeke really should be singled out to have the hounds after him like a treed possum for the rest of his days. Geepers peepers, isn’t that going a wee bit overboard? Zeke has an extremely difficult job with the lives of countless millions literately in his hands, where moral dilemmas abound and Zeke has been forced to make a multitude of choices between the lesser of two evils out of sincere motives after all, am I right ?

    But if Zeke does complain about the obvious unfairness of his treatment just because no one else gets treated the way he gets treated, you can just explain to him his big mistake, that he is committing an obvious logical fallacy such that the treatment that Y ( Zeke ) receives has nothing what so ever to with the treatment everyone else ( X ) receives. Duhh.

  66. I’m currently working with http://www.militaryeducation.org. They specialize in educating others who are interested in Military Scholarships.They have created a new Military Infographic, which I thought might interest your readers.
    You can review the graphic at http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipment/. If you like the graphic, I’d appreciate if you could add it to your blog or share it through your social media accounts. Thank You!

  67. i stand COMPLETELY with Zeke Johnson & his position here — which is about the METHODOLOGY of WORK.

    For there's NO other way of working, of campaigning !

    Johnson's methodology, his way of work here … is the ONLY way in REALITY.

    & what is this way of working ?

    To have a SUCCESSFUL campaign on ANY issue, we must ALWAYS FOCUS on the KEY LINK there.

    A link means just ONE in an ENTIRE CHAIN. One chain among MANY.

    Humans … ALL creatures … work LINK by link, CHAIN by chain. No one does EVERYTHING AT ONCE.

    The "critics" here are actually telling us, "WHY do you focus on ONE key in ONE chain, when there're OTHER links & even OTHER chains ?"

    Because that's how ANY work is EVER done. One by one. Step by step. Item by item. Link by link.

    To do this doesn't mean we IGNORE the OTHER links & the OTHER chains. We just know the place of each, the role of each, the time for each !

    We focus on these others AS WELL … AS & WHEN their turn comes, AS & WHEN their issues arise in the flowing chain of events.

    But only those who DON'T want to see us tackle a particular work or campaign AT ALL, only THEY accuse the campaigner of "ignoring" ALL the other links, ALL the other chains when he is focusing on one.

    Such "CRITICS" actually DON'T WANT TO SEE US DO OUR WORK. They don't want us to FOCUS. They just don't LIKE it !

    Such "critics" go against reality, EVEN their own when they focus against our PARTICULAR campaigns, issue by issue…. just watch them.

    For such IS the NATURE of work.

    One at a time … one by one.

    One issue, one step, one link, one chain at one time.

  68. i stand COMPLETELY with Zeke Johnson & his position here — which is about the METHODOLOGY of WORK.

    For there’s NO other way of working, of campaigning !

    Johnson’s methodology, his way of work here … is the ONLY way in REALITY.

    & what is this way of working ?

    To have a SUCCESSFUL campaign on ANY issue, we must ALWAYS FOCUS on the KEY LINK there.

    A link means just ONE in an ENTIRE CHAIN. One chain among MANY.

    Humans … ALL creatures … work LINK by link, CHAIN by chain. No one does EVERYTHING AT ONCE.

    The “critics” here are actually telling us, “WHY do you focus on ONE key in ONE chain, when there’re OTHER links & even OTHER chains ?”

    Because that’s how ANY work is EVER done. One by one. Step by step. Item by item. Link by link.

    To do this doesn’t mean we IGNORE the OTHER links & the OTHER chains. We just know the place of each, the role of each, the time for each !

    We focus on these others AS WELL … AS & WHEN their turn comes, AS & WHEN their issues arise in the flowing chain of events.

    But only those who DON’T want to see us tackle a particular work or campaign AT ALL, only THEY accuse the campaigner of “ignoring” ALL the other links, ALL the other chains when he is focusing on one.

    Such “CRITICS” actually DON’T WANT TO SEE US DO OUR WORK. They don’t want us to FOCUS. They just don’t LIKE it !

    Such “critics” go against reality, EVEN their own when they focus against our PARTICULAR campaigns, issue by issue…. just watch them.

    For such IS the NATURE of work.

    One at a time … one by one.

    One issue, one step, one link, one chain at one time.

  69. Another fallacy I wish people would stop using on the blog and Facebook comments: ad hominem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Please keep it civil everyone! (Well, if that were possible, I guess we wouldn't need Amnesty!)

    @ Mango, here you go (states are obligated to initiate criminal investigations of torture through their domestic courts if necessary – ie the ICC isn't required):
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/097

    Best,
    Zeke

  70. Another fallacy I wish people would stop using on the blog and Facebook comments: ad hominem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Please keep it civil everyone! (Well, if that were possible, I guess we wouldn't need Amnesty!)

    @ Mango, here you go (states are obligated to initiate criminal investigations of torture through their domestic courts if necessary – ie the ICC isn't required):
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/097

    Best,
    Zeke

  71. Another fallacy I wish people would stop using on the blog and Facebook comments: ad hominem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Please keep it civil everyone! (Well, if that were possible, I guess we wouldn't need Amnesty!)

    @ Mango, here you go (states are obligated to initiate criminal investigations of torture through their domestic courts if necessary – ie the ICC isn't required):
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/097

    Best,
    Zeke

  72. Here’s the thing about calling for President Bush to be held accountable. Democracies are supposed to uphold the law and honor their treaty commitments.

    In his memoirs President Bush admitted ordering the waterboarding of detainees in US custody. Like it or not, that’s a criminal offense.

    The primary jurisdiction for investigating this offense rests with the United States but not exclusively so. The Convention Against Torture places an obligation on signatories to act if there is evidence that an individual coming within their jurisdiction is associated with acts of torture. The Convention currently has 147 state parties.

    Amnesty International seeks the application of law equally without fear or favor. We take the same position on abuses that occur in United States that we do regarding those that occur in any other nation. This is not a liberal position – this is a just position.

    Earlier today the former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was sentenced in an American court to 14 years in jail for corruption. He broke the law and, regardless of the high office he once occupied, he was held accountable. That’s the way it is supposed to be.

    Oh, and while were on the subject, enough already with the ‘waterboarding isn’t torture’ shtick. Every single time waterboarding came up in US jurisprudence prior to 9/11 it was considered torture. Just because John Yoo can’t use LexisNexis doesn’t mean it ain’t so.

  73. Another fallacy I wish people would stop using on the blog and Facebook comments: ad hominem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Please keep it civil everyone! (Well, if that were possible, I guess we wouldn’t need Amnesty!)

    @ Mango, here you go (states are obligated to initiate criminal investigations of torture through their domestic courts if necessary – ie the ICC isn’t required):

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/097/2011/en/249d0934-4ef6-4b9a-9a3f-a155eb6d1ecd/amr510972011en.html

    Best,
    Zeke

  74. Here’s the thing about calling for President Bush to be held accountable. Democracies are supposed to uphold the law and honor their treaty commitments.

    In his memoirs President Bush admitted ordering the waterboarding of detainees in US custody. Like it or not, that’s a criminal offense.

    The primary jurisdiction for investigating this offense rests with the United States but not exclusively so. The Convention Against Torture places an obligation on signatories to act if there is evidence that an individual coming within their jurisdiction is associated with acts of torture. The Convention currently has 147 state parties.

    Amnesty International seeks the application of law equally without fear or favor. We take the same position on abuses that occur in United States that we do regarding those that occur in any other nation. This is not a liberal position – this is a just position.

    Earlier today the former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was sentenced in an American court to 14 years in jail for corruption. He broke the law and, regardless of the high office he once occupied, he was held accountable. That’s the way it is supposed to be.

    Oh, and while were on the subject, enough already with the ‘waterboarding isn’t torture’ shtick. Every single time waterboarding came up in US jurisprudence prior to 9/11 it was considered torture. Just because John Yoo can’t use LexisNexis doesn’t mean it ain’t so.

  75. @Zeke, I agree with you 100% that Bush 2 should be tried for legalising and approving torture, as there exists a prima facie cast against him. But we both know it's not going to happen.

    Neither Obama nor his successors will travel down that path.

    I'd also like to see water run uphill, but we know that it's not going to happen. So, AI simply engages in posturing, damaging its own credibility.

  76. @Zeke, I agree with you 100% that Bush 2 should be tried for legalising and approving torture, as there exists a prima facie cast against him. But we both know it’s not going to happen.

    Neither Obama nor his successors will travel down that path.

    I’d also like to see water run uphill, but we know that it’s not going to happen. So, AI simply engages in posturing, damaging its own credibility.

  77. @ Zeke: just wanted to say that the Bush 2 indictment document is very impressive and it's obvious that AI have spent a lot of time, money and care in preparing it. It's a real shame that all that wasted time and effort could've been spent on more areas with a greater probability of success.

  78. @ Zeke: just wanted to say that the Bush 2 indictment document is very impressive and it’s obvious that AI have spent a lot of time, money and care in preparing it. It’s a real shame that all that wasted time and effort could’ve been spent on more areas with a greater probability of success.

  79. My understanding is that the Bush administration has already been found guilty of human rights abuses. There was a fair trial and US attorneys were present. We are now harboring an war criminal. This article does not even touch on the depleted uranium or the horrible birth defects caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor can we discuss on-going investigations into halliburton, and the world-wide devastation being caused right now, contamination of water supplies, destruction of property, denial of rights. I hope that one of these countries will have the courage to do what is right.

  80. Using social media Please Sign the petition to Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank to stop this trend of making people homeless , jobless and foodless.
    http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/landgrabs

    Big land deals are tearing whole communities apart, leaving people hungry and homeless. It’s big business at a big cost. But the World Bank has the power to be a force for good. With your help, it can protect the rights of the world’s poorest people.
    •Factors like rising food prices and a demand for new fuels have caused a huge rush of big land deals
    •Every second, poor countries lose an area of land nine times the size of a football pitch to banks and private investors
    •Poor families are losing the land they rely on to grow food – often evicted without fair treatment or compensation
    The World Bank funds many big land deals. It also influences how land is bought and sold. So this means it has the power to help get the situation back under control. We need your help to call on the Bank to play an important role in stopping land injustice.
    Big land deals are forcing poor people from their homes, jobs and food. This injustice must stop now before any more lives are ruined. I want the World Bank to help protect poor people’s rights and freeze its investment in land while it sets a fair standard for others to follow.
    http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/landgrabs