The Colorado Springs 2005 bid committe

The Colorado Springs 2005 hosting bid to host the upcoming U.S. war crimes trials has been officially accepted by INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME TRIALS .US! We now approach phase II. We must continue to raise awareness for the trials and widen the circle of Colorado Springs citizens who support the calls for reconcilliation to international law.

How can we bring the International War Crimes Trials to Colorado Springs? The advent of hosting war crime trials will be a reality if John Kerry wins the US elections in November 2004.

Kerry has already expressed his intention to make the United States a signatory to the International Criminal Court, at which point the indictments can begin.
President Bush has stated that his objections to ratifying the ICC were to protect American soldiers from facing charges in international courts. But this reason is disingeneous because the prosecution of common soldiers is not the purpose of the ICC.
It is not the intent of the ICC to prosecute regular crimes of war in those cases which already fall under the jurisdiction of military tribunals or domestic courts. As we can see from the ABU GHRAIB cases, the US government has every intention to prosecute the common soldiers it holds responsible for those abuses.

The unique capability of the International Criminal Court is to indict heads of state and otherwise unassailable diplomats, functionaries, administrators and conspirators.
Preparations have already begun with the IWCT to document the charges, gather the evidence, and prepare the briefs. Efforts are well underway in Japan, Greece, Turkey and Belgium to organize the extra-judicial tribunals to supplement the ICC staffs.

Colorado Springs must act as early as possible to offer our city as a potential US host to the trials!

The first objective of the COS2005 bid project is to make the concept of international law more tangible in American minds. Today when someone hears a protester denounce President Bush as a war criminal, it sounds like so much rhetoric.

But the charge is more than an opinion or an academic argument. The war of aggression which the U. S. pursued against Iraq is a war crime by any number of international laws. As a result there is an inevitable legal action coming against the U. S. for waging an illegal war. International law is not hyperbole.
Criticisms between presidential candidates might be political, but charges of war crimes are out of everyone’s hands. No one is exempt from prosecution for war crimes, and there are no statutes of limitation.

The concept of impending war crime trials thus become an election issue. Can we consider re-electing leaders who are guilty of war crimes, chiefly, the war crime of “crimes against the peace?”
An American voter might hesitate to endorse someone who they can imagine will go down in history as having been the bad guy in the black hat. We believe most people aspire to be law-abiding god-fearing citizens, of America, and of the world community as well.

Reprinted from

Janet Jackson’s boob

Boob Non-grataWhat exactly happened at this year’s superbowl haltime show? Pop sub-luminaries Nelly and Kid Rock lead the extravaganza. Then a fading Janet Jackson closes with a decade old number, and bares her breast, creating a furor over the uncontrolable nature of live TV.
Now the networks got a reason to put a time delay on two upcoming events, the Grammies and the Oscars: the two forums at which left-leaning Hollywood types might have wanted to speak their minds about the war and the state of the nation.

Now anything untoward can be bleeped. And knowing they would be bleeped, celebrities can ease their consciences that there wouldn’t have been a point to even try.

Would it be conspiratorial to wonder if someone approached Janet Jackson with the idea? Jump start her lagging career with an idiotic stunt, handing the yellow press an excuse to silence Hollywood in this year of Vietnam Revisited and a president moron trying to stay in office?

Prince Harry isn’t free

Scion of fascist overclass.   Prince Harry in uniform.
In usual dress

It says a lot about the state of freedom in the modern world when even the heir to the throne of England can’t express himself freely.

There was a time when dressing like a Nazi was not only irreverent but immaturely insensitive to the memory of the Holocaust. At present however, the Nazi reference calls one’s attention to the fascism omnipresent in today’s governing bodies.

Perhaps Prince Harry wasn’t saying: look at me, I’m the camp commander of Treblinka. Perhaps Prince Harry was saying, if I may put words in his mouth, this:

Look at me, I’m a scion of the ruling family, of a government which has taken its country to war against the wishes of its people, which has invaded a defenseless country, which has curtailed human rights for its own population, which has imprisoned some of its subjects in defiance of rights granted since 400 years, which engages in torture, and is for all intents and purposes, as fascist as the Nazis. Short only the extermination camps. But we do not perhaps yet know about these.

But Harry wasn’t permitted to make this statement. He was treated like only a spoiled kid. Prince Charles treated his son’s act like that of a kid who didn’t know he was triffling with the horrors of Auswitch. But Charles is only protecting the wolf in sheep’s clothing of his protectors, the international corporatocracy which pulls his strings. Who’s the spoiled child really?