Archives for : war is a crime exhibition

Al Jazeera – Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty


November 28, 2011 | By Richard Falk

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

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

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

NST – Bush and Blair found guilty

Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (centre) presiding over the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair yesterday. Pic by Sharul Hafiz Zam

November 23, 2011 | By Eunice Au

THE Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCC) returned a guilty verdict against former United States president George W. Bush and former British prime minister Tony Blair on a charge of crimes against peace on its final day of hearing yesterday.

Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, in announcing the verdict, said both the accused had acted with deceit, selectively manipulated international law and committed an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime by invading Iraq in 2003.

The tribunal found that both the accused had contemplated to invade Iraq as far back as September 2001 and had defied the United Nations Resolution 1441, which clearly did not authorise the use of military action to compel Iraq’s compliance.

Kadir added that the two accused had admitted since the Iraq war that they knew or believed the intelligence reports on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to be unreliable and yet both proceeded to wage war against Iraq based on this false and contrite basis.

Memoirs of both the accused that had been tendered as evidence during the proceedings were also found to implicate both Bush and Blair, both having admitted their own intention to invade Iraq, regardless of international law.

It was suggested by the tribunal that the KLWCC file a report with the International Court of Crime against both the accused under the Nuremberg principles and include reports of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Bush and Blair.

The tribunal also recommended that the names of both accused be entered into the Register of War Criminals and publicised.

The KLWCC was tasked to publicise the tribunal’s findings to all nations who were signatories of the Rome Statue, so that the two criminals can be prosecuted if they enter the jurisdiction of these nations.

The KLWCC should also suggest to the UN General Assembly to pass resolution to end Iraq’s occupation and request that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqis.

Earlier, chief defence Jason Kay Kit Leon had argued that Bush had exhausted all means of diplomacy before launching an attack after receiving intelligence briefings on Iraq for two years, suggesting that then president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Iraq posed an imminent threat.

He quoted Bush as having said that  he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernable after the war.

Kay also mention that  Blair, in his memoir, had said he understood the need for the second UN resolution but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members.

The prosecution had made out a compelling case over the four days.

Chief prosecutor Professor Gurdial S. Nijar, in his summation, reiterated key documents of several intelligence reports that indicated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Neither was there an attempt by Saddam Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger by former United States diplomat Joseph Wilson and weapons inspector David Kay found that Saddam’s nuclear facility had deteriorated to such a point that it was totally useless, all discovered well before the UN Resolution 1441.

The tribunal reached a unanimous guilty verdict after four hours of deliberation.

Click here for more information:

Extempore Judgment of the KL War Crimes Tribunal

News link

Utusan – Isytihar perang sebagai jenayah

November 20, 2011 | By Ku Seman Ku Hussain

Mulai semalam hingga Selasa ini bekas Presiden Amerika Syarikat (AS) George W. Bush dan Perdana Menteri Britain, Tony Blair “dibicarakan” di Kuala Lumpur. Mereka dibicarakan kerana dituduh melakukan jenayah perang terhadap Iraq pada 2003. Akibat jenayah itu dianggarkan 1.4 juta orang awam di Iraq terkorban, berjuta yang lain menderita krisis makanan dan kesihatan.

Walaupun kedua-dua pemimpin yang dianggap “paksi kejahatan dunia” itu tidak ada di Kuala Lumpur, perbicaraan diteruskan di hadapan tujuh panel hakim dan disaksikan oleh orang ramai.

Bush dan Tony Blair didapati melanggar piagam Majlis Keselamatan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB). Mereka melancarkan perang atas Iraq untuk menumpaskan Presiden Saddam Hussein dengan alasan Iraq mempunyai loji senjata nuklear. Tetapi setelah didapati alasan itu tidak benar, PBB dan Mahkamah Jenayah Antarabangsa (ICC) gagal mengambil tindakan terhadap terhadap kedua-dua mereka.

Membicarakan dua bekas pemimpin Barat itu memperlihatkan kesungguhan Malaysia memperjuangkan keadilan kepada mangsa jenayah perang sekaligus keamanan dunia. Pada masa yang sama Malaysia mendesak dunia mengiktirafkan perang sebagai jenayah dan mereka yang melakukan jenayah ini mesti dihukum. Walaupun Perang Dunia Kedua telah berakhir lebih 60 tahun lalu, kuasa besar Barat mengenepikan badan dunia seperti PBB untuk melancarkan perang atas negara lain yang merdeka.

Tribunal Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur dianjurkan oleh Yayasan Keamanan Global Perdana yang diusahakan oleh bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Perbicaraan ini juga sindiran tajam kepada PBB dan ICC yang gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawab untuk memberi keadilan sekaligus memperjuangkan hak asasi manusia untuk hidup aman. Ini memperlihatkan dengan jelas bahawa kedua-dua bekas pemimpin itu mempengaruhi PBB dan ICC untuk tidak menghukum mereka.

Perbicaraan dijalankan di depan tujuh panel hakim yang terdiri daripada Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, bekas Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Datuk Dr. Zakaria Yatim, bekas Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Profesor Salleh Buang, Alfred L. Webre, Profesor Emeritus Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi, profesor undang-undang UiTM dan Profesor Niloufer Bhagwat. Tujuannya untuk membuktikan Bush dan Tony Blair melakukan jenayah di Iraq yang akhirnya mengakibatkan krisis kemanusiaan yang teruk.

Walaupun dipadankan dari sebuah tribunal jenayah perang Vietnam 1967 anjuran kerajaan Sweden dan Denmark untuk mendakwa AS membunuh orang awam Vietnam, Tribunal Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur lebih berwibawa. Ini kerana Suruhanjaya Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur menyediakan bukti-bukti yang sangat kukuh dan tidak boleh ditepis oleh tertuduh.

Antaranya rakaman pengakuan rakyat Iraq yang menjadi mangsa perang dan mereka yang didera di luar batas kemanusiaan semasa dalam tahanan. Pengumpulan bukti walaupun mengambil masa yang lama iaitu lebih dua tahun tetapi berhasil mengemukakan pertuduhan yang kukuh terhadap Bush dan Tony Blair. Inilah kali pertama sebuah tribunal membicarakan bekas pemimpin AS dan Britain itu selepas perang Iraq pada 2003.

Bagi tuduhan pertama, Bush dan Tony Blair dituduh melakukan jenayah dan menakluki sebuah negara yang merdeka, Iraq pada 19 Mac 2003. Ini menyalahi piagam PBB yang melarang serangan atas negara lain kecuali mempertahankan diri. Tuduhan kedua, Bush bersama lapan pegawai kanan dituduh melakukan penyeksaan dan mengeluarkan perintah eksklusif untuk mengecualikan semua konvensyen antarabangsa termasuk Konvensyen Geneva III 1949 terhadap penglibatan mereka di Afghanistan pada 2001 dan di Iraq pada 2003.


Selain Bush dan Tony Blair, turut dituduh dalam Tribunal Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur ialah bekas Naib Presiden AS, Dick Cheney, bekas Setiausaha Pertahanan, Donald Rumsfeld, bekas Peguam Negara Alberto Gonzales, bekas Penasihat Jabatan Pertahanan, William Haynes dan profesor undang-undang, John Yoo. Kalau ada yang masih ingat, perang Iraq adalah ujian penting Rumsfeld mengendalikan serangan AS dengan teknologi pemusnah paling moden.

Seperti kata Dr. Mahathir, ini bukan mahkamah main-main kerana ada pendakwaan, ada tertuduh dan ada juga peguam untuk membela tertuduh. Dr. Mahathir memberi tanggungjawab kepada barisan panel hakim yang berwibawa dalam undang-undang antarabangsa untuk menghukum Bush, Tony Blain dan yang lain. Ini adalah keputusan berteraskan undang-undang bukan perasaan.

Usaha ini memperlihatkan walaupun Malaysia kecil tetapi tidak mengecilkan diri. Malaysia berusaha memperjuangkan keamanan sejagat dan sentiasa memerhati tingkah laku PBB yang tidak menjalankan tanggungjawab dengan adil. Cara Malaysia perjuangkan keamanan bukan menggunakan senjata seperti AS. Tribunal ini juga seharusnya memalukan ICC yang gagal mendakwa Bush dan Tony Blair padahal asasnya cukup kukuh. Keputusan perbicaraan ini digunakan untuk mendesak dunia memulaukan kedua-dua bekas pemimpin ini dari sebarang kegiatan termasuk mengundang mereka memberi ceramah.

Hak asasi manusia telah dicabuli kuasa-kuasa besar Barat. Mangsa perang dinafikan mendapat keadilan sebaliknya didera melampaui kemanusiaan. Maka Tribunal Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur mengambil tanggungjawab untuk memberi keadilan.

Pemimpin kuasa besar dunia tidak boleh memberikan apa alasan sekalipun untuk mewajarkan perang terhadap negara lain. Tidak ada istilah perang untuk keamanan seperti yang dislogankan oleh AS semasa menyerang Afghanistan. Sepuluh tahun AS memburu Osama Ben Laden dan berjuta yang menjadi korban. ternyata tidak ada istilah perang untuk keamanan. Lebih malang yang terkorban sama ada di Iraq atau Afghanistan sebahagian besarnya rakyat biasa.

Mana-mana pemimpin yang mewajarkan perang adalah menghalalkan pembunuhan beramai-ramai. Pembunuhan dan penyeksaan terhadap rakyat Palestin sejak tahun 1948 hingga kini oleh Israel disebabkan AS menghalalkan perang. Dalam perang Iraq, AS bukan sahaja menghalalkan pembunuhan dan penyeksaan malah menjadikan Iraq sebagai medan menguji teknologi senjata pembunuh termoden. Ini bukan rahsia lagi. Belanjanya ditanggung oleh kerajaan Iraq yang menjadi boneka AS sekarang ini. Ternyata “pertolongan” AS menjatuhkan Saddam bukanlah percuma. Ia dibayar dengan kehilangan nyawa, harta benda dan khazanah budaya berharga zaman kegemilangan Baghdad suatu waktu dulu.

Banyak pemimpin dunia yang terlibat dengan jenayah perang dibawa ke muka pengadilan. Bekas pemimpin rejim Khmer Rouge di Kemboja, Pol Pot yang membunuh lebih dua juta orang awam akhirnya dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan di negaranya. Tetapi ICC yang mempunyai pengaruh lebih besar tidak mendakwa Bush dan Tony Blair yang melakukan jenayah yang sama. Inilah jawapannya kenapa Malaysia memikul tanggungjawab dan menganjurkan Tribunal Jenayah Perang Kuala Lumpur. Mercutanda keadilan dan kemanusiaan disuburkan dari negara ini.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Dr Siti Hasmad Mohd Ali, at the exhibition

News link