Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a. Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
b. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. c. Crimes against humanity: Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated
++++++++++++++++++++ Bush and his cabal are toast.
"Sadly there is no sign of the New York Times changing its sniffy we-told-you-this-already-view! � You can be inaccurate just as much by ignoring something as you can by writing it up and getting it wrong.�...
But of all the major national newspapers, none have been so deconstructionist, cavalier, and churlish in treating the memos as The New York Times. Todd Purdum, for example, has declared that the documents are not "the Dead Sea Scrolls." They are "not quite so shocking." Official evidence of a rush to war not shocking?
It is hard to escape the conclusion that, for the most part, the American print media�s bringing up the rear �beetlebum� approach in covering the memos constituted a rather blatant dereliction of duty. It indicates a complicity in resisting a re-examination of the official lies on the path to war. It is almost enough to make one believe that major media outlets are afraid to take on the White House�s version of truth, either out of worry over being out of step with other �mainstream media,� or because they fear losing access to high-level sources, or because top editors supported, and support, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--and in some well-known cases, their own stories �fixed� intelligence to fit the pro-war view.
But what about the Fourth Estate�s integrity before history?"