More evidence against Bush for war crimes, than those against The Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic

4 December 2006

War crimes more attested to Bush than those tried by Yugoslav President Slobodan asked for more tanks reflect the bankruptcy of the American Field Command as it is not reasonable to provide tanks for the disappearance of all the soldiers inside

America wants to lead the war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations to reduce human losses and get rid of the burden Financial and Arab and Islamic peoples are rulers and governed are required to address this scenario because it will consecrate the occupation.

Let the Arab League die in quiet .. Decisions of election integrity are the cornerstone of any democratic system.

By: General Saad El Shazly

Desiring to absorb the anger of public opinion around the world, including Arab and Muslim public opinion and the American public itself, the US announced that it would bring soldiers accused of torture in Abu Ghraib prison for public trial in Baghdad. I opened the television to see this public court. I did not find it public. It was inside a closed place that journalists or television were not allowed to transmit to the outside world. And became linked to the outside world is the official statement issued by the leadership of the occupation forces in Iraq.

Riyadh Radio called me at 14:45 on 19/5/2004 to ask me about my comment on this trial and I told her that America wants to offer the world a scapegoat to save its reputation. Big fish who is primarily responsible for these abuses. I have reinforced my opinion with the following:

The failure of the US to sign the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome in 1998 is an encouragement for American soldiers to commit such crimes. This means that the executive branch in the United States, beginning with President Bush, Even on August 2, 2002, the United States promulgated a law affirming the protection of US soldiers from war crimes trials before any international court, and named this law the American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA). The law also affirms the responsibility of all agencies Yeh.

We have the testimony of Janice Karpinski, director of the Abu Ghraib prison, which accuses General Sanchez, the commander of the coalition ground forces, and General Miller, the commander of American prisons.

We have General Taguba’s testimony before Congress that torture in Abu Ghraib was systematic. Soldiers can only do so on the orders of their commanders.

  • And we have the testimony of the recruiter England, which explicitly admits that the torture she did to the prisoners was on the orders of her commanders in order to obtain information from the detainees, and she was thanked by her superiors for what she did.
  • Then there is the New Yorker and Newsweek Magazine published on May 24, May 25, 2004 that President Bush approved a memorandum offered to him that allows the military intelligence to use the harshest means against detainees to obtain information. The memo is known to Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and about 200 other people.

Instead of an Rumsfeld offers US Secretary of Defense and with Condoleezza Rice for the trial of war criminals. If them give us a small soldier named Jeremy Sevens to recognize the crime (he announced the next day trial that he was sentenced to prison for 12 months, and discharged from the service after it! Is this penalty commensurate with the war crime he committed?

These outrageous actions by the US administration are more consistent with Bush than those tried by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who has been under arrest and trial by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague since February 12, 2002. These crimes also confirm the falsity of the American allegations that they came to Iraq to rid the Iraqi people of the tyranny of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Implications of the situation after the activity of the Iraqi resistance

  1. Signs of disintegration of the Union of States occupying Iraq, consisting of 34 countries:
    The impact of the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004, and the escalation of Iraqi resistance against the invasion forces had a major impact on the decisions of some countries of the Union to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain was the first of them, with Prime Minister Zapatero promising voters that he would pull Spain’s troops out of Iraq if he succeeded in the election. But Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, South Korea and Thailand soon announced their intention to withdraw their troops by June 30, 2004, the stated date for the handover of power to the Iraqis. It appears that other countries want to take as of June 30, 2004 an excuse to withdraw their troops from Iraq. These countries are: Netherlands, Norway, Poland, El Salvador. But it seems that America is not serious about handing over power to Iraqis on June 30 on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities will not be able to maintain security alone. Therefore, it is negotiating with these four countries to keep their troops after 30 June. Can America succeed? To answer this question, I will say that it will depend on the Iraqi resistance. The higher this resistance, the fleeing those countries and other countries of the coalition.
  2. General Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a number of military commanders in Iraq demanded to supply them with more tanks as the Humvee armored vehicles and the Stryker armored vehicles do not provide adequate protection for soldiers. This request reflects the bankruptcy of the US Field Command in the face of the situation. It is unreasonable to provide enough tanks for all the soldiers inside to disappear. Then the RPG is capable of destroying the American tank from a distance of 300 meters.
  3. The US leadership resort to cooperation with senior officers in the former Iraqi army, to help put down the Iraqi resistance.
  4. US soldiers are terrified of every comer, even searching children at checkpoints for fear of carrying explosives.

American scenario

A Security Council resolution authorizing the formation of a multinational force, of which the United States would contribute the largest share, and its leadership. And so it can lead the war against Iraq on behalf of the United Nations. This solution is characterized from the American point of view as follows:

  • Legitimizing the process of the US invasion of Iraq, and consider this invasion as if it is based on a resolution of the United Nations.
  • Lifting embarrassment from Arab countries and many European countries in order to contribute troops in Iraq under the flag of the United Nations. This will mean reducing the American casualties to the extent that it cannot bear, after it reached 126 American deaths in April 2004.
  • Distribution of financial burdens on the participating countries of the world, and thus reduce the economic burden on America, after the war in Iraq has become a cost of $4.7 billion per month.

The Arab and Islamic peoples are ruled and governed to confront this American scenario. This scenario, if realized, would perpetuate the US occupation of Iraq, and is a major step toward US domination of Iraq. This hegemony will in turn lead to the passage of the Middle East project, which America wants to impose on the region, which means imposing the peace that America wants to impose on the region, which means imposing peace between the Arabs and Israel, but under Israeli conditions. What is really ironic is General Powell’s statement, “If the Iraqi authority asks us to leave Iraq after June 30, we will do it, but we don’t think they will.”

Of course, they will not ask for this, General Powell.

Arab summit and the problem of Iraq

The resolutions of the Arab Summit held in Tunis on 22-23 May 2004 were disappointing in general and the problem of Iraq in particular. It was no different from the resolutions of the previous Arab summits, full of structural expressions that we are tired of hearing over the past dozens of years without taking any practical steps to achieve them. “The Arab group is committed to supporting the territorial integrity of Iraq, and the need to give the United Nations a central and effective role in ending the occupation of Iraq and arranging the transfer of power to its people,” they said.

They say this at a time when America is splitting Iraq between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. They are creating schisms between Sunnis and Sunnis, and between Shiites and Shiites. They are demanding an active role to end the occupation of Iraq. I do not know how this can be achieved under the American occupation. America, gentlemen, is in a big dilemma in Iraq. Its increasing human losses have become overstretched, and its continued cost is $ 4.7 billion per month. In order to intervene to suppress the Iraqi revolution against the American occupation in accordance with the orders of the United Nations.

And to which Iraqis will the US hand over power on June 30? To the people she hired in the Iraqi Governing Council and to the ministers she hired and who are sacking them??

In this case, the United States is replacing its American employees with employees who have Iraqi nationality but whose identity is American.

The solution we must stick to

The following are the general principles of the solution that the Arabs should adhere to:

  1. No to hand over power to Iraqis under the US-British occupation
  2. No to hand over power to Iraqis not elected by the Iraqi people
  3. Demanding the handover of power from the occupation forces to the United Nations on 30 June 2004, followed immediately by the evacuation of all coalition forces from Iraq.
  4. The United Nations Forces are responsible for maintaining security from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. The following are:
    1. During the period from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, free elections will be held, following which an interim Iraqi government will be elected, and a constituent assembly elected to draft a new Iraqi constitution.
    2. During the period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, the constitution and referendum will be finalized and new elections will be held according to the results of forming a legislative council and an Iraqi government. During this period, state institutions are completed. The sovereign and security authorities are handed over to the elected Iraqi government on June 30, 2005.

The Arab League and the European Union

The European Union was established in 1958. The founding countries of this Union were only six: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. In 1973 Denmark, the United Queen and Ireland joined the Union. In 1981 Greece joined, and in 1986 Spain and Portugal joined. In 1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden joined. In 2004, ten countries joined: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta. Although the university was established some 11 years before the European Union, it did not achieve anything while the European Union has achieved very much.

The Union has one currency. Freedom of movement and freedom of action in any country are guaranteed to all. It has a unified parliament. And a unified foreign policy. The Arab League did not achieve any of this. And here we have to ask ourselves why they succeeded in achieving all that where we failed?

The answer is that the founders of this union have set controls and conditions for joining this union so that the components of the union are similar and not mutually exclusive.

The most important conditions for joining the Union were as follows:

  1. The political system in the State must be a democratic system that allows for the rotation of power and guarantees freedom of expression and respect for human rights in accordance with international conventions, and there should be transparency in the conduct of elections.
  2. The Union shall establish a State wishing to join the Union for a period of time which may be prolonged and may be shortened until it meets the conditions that must be fulfilled before being admitted to the Union. We have seen that the European countries that were part of the Soviet Union and that were part of the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) waited about ten years for the transition from totalitarian to democratic and economic. Free before being allowed to join the European Union on 1/5/2004.
  3. There should be economic and social gains for all countries of the Union as a result of the accession of new elements to the Union. As the migration of workers in poor countries to rich countries is expected to increase, as large companies in rich countries are expected to dismantle some of their factories and re-install them in poor countries where labor is cheap. Workers in rich countries, threatening them with unemployment or accepting lower wages than they once did. However, this will not last long, as labor permits from poor countries will entail product licenses that will benefit the majority of the population, including the rich working class.

Nonetheless, rich countries were allowed to control immigration for poor immigrants. To this end, France has allowed only students, researchers and self-employed persons to enter and work on condition that the corresponding French professions recognize their certificates. Unskilled workers will not be allowed to work in France until 2009. Germany and Italy have followed France’s example, and the years in which these countries impose restrictions on immigration differ.

I believe that these three conditions are wonderful conditions that can be the constants that should be applied to anyone who joins the Arab League. Yes, there are minor differences between our concept of democracy and the concept of the countries of the Union.

They exaggerate personal liberty and human rights to the point of accepting homosexuality and the marriage of the Gleen, and abolishing the death penalty in retribution, which we firmly reject. The provision in the constitution that Islamic law is the main source of legislation can purge Western democracy from all or most of its impurities.

Target unit or row unit

One of the reasons for the failure of the Arab League was that it was concerned with form without substance. She was trying to show her people that they were in complete agreement. This meant seeking vague compromises that could be interpreted by each member as they please, in order to emphasize the unity of the Arab ranks. I believe that not mentioning the truth or retracting the right decision in order to maintain unity is a big mistake and contrary to our religious beliefs. The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him he said, «Do not be flunkey say that the best people we have a good but wronged but resettled yourselves that the best people is to treat and that abusers do not oppress».

Decision making method

The decision-making style was one of the obstacles that led to the failure of the university, which was taking the principle of consensus. Undoubtedly, the principle of unanimity in decision-making is unjust. It settles between a country of 70 million and a country of less than half a million. It equals a country with a gross domestic product of $ 185 billion and a country with a output of no more than $ 600 million. This equates to a country with an average per capita income of $ 28,700 per year and a country with an average per capita income of $ 415. It equals a country with the greatest responsibility for defending the Union, with 3,000 tanks and more than 500 combat aircraft, and a country with only 35 tanks and eight aircraft. Justice requires that the voice of each member of the Union be commensurate with the magnitude of the consequences it bears. This does not mean that a country has 50 votes and one vote, as this would be a precondition for small and low-income countries. But it is possible to divide the Arab countries into five groups, the least of which has one vote and the most five votes. This is one of the methods used by the United States in terms of the number of votes available to each of the states in the US Senate. Voting on important decisions is then made by a two-thirds majority and for less important decisions by an absolute majority But it is possible to divide the Arab countries into five groups, the least of which has one vote and the most five votes. This is one of the methods used by the United States in terms of the number of votes available to each of the states in the US Senate. Voting on important decisions is then made by a two-thirds majority and for less important decisions by an absolute majority But it is possible to divide the Arab countries into five groups, the least of which has one vote and the most five votes. This is one of the methods used by the United States in terms of the number of votes available to each of the states in the US Senate. Voting on important decisions is then made by a two-thirds majority and for less important decisions by an absolute majority.

How the reform begins

It is certain that the prescription of reform, which has appeared in the previous pages, will be totally rejected by the vast majority of Arab countries, for the simple reason that we are asking undemocratic regimes to adopt a democratic system, and then we hope that they will unanimously approve it. Members of the League have the right to veto and can stop any decision issued by the Arab League, even if approved by all others. We have seen how Tunisia suspended the Arab Summit in late March 2004 by unilateral decision. Therefore, the difficult equation facing us is “there is no way to reform the League unless its members are reformed and there is no way to reform its members through a decision issued by the Arab League.”

Faced with this difficult equation, we can only let the university die quietly, and look among its adult children for those who believe in true democracy. And that all believers in democracy rally around him to establish an Arab democratic system form and guaranteed, and be an example to follow. This is the first stage.

The second stage is for democracy to take hold in one or two other members and be adjacent to the first one. And let everyone know that an Arab League of three members who believe in their common interests politically, economically and security, and believe in democratic decision-making, are a thousand times better than an Arab League of 22 cannot make a binding decision for all its members. The three will grow year after year. The 22 will decrease year after year.

The political reform that we want

The political system, which we demand to be available in each member of the desired Arab League, includes the following main points:

  1. To be a democratic constitutional parliamentary republican system, or a democratic constitutional parliamentary monarchy in which the king or prince enjoys a supreme status but owns and does not judge the example of monarchy in Britain. In all cases, Islamic law should be the main source of legislation.
  2. The complete separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and not to give the king, the president, the prince or the prime minister any legislative or judicial powers.
  3. Repeal any existing exceptional laws such as the Emergency Law, the Parties Law, the Press Law, and laws that allow civilians to be tried by military or special courts.
  4. Respect for human rights in accordance with international conventions, except those contrary to Islamic law.
  5. Freeing the formation of parties.
  6. Holding fair elections. It is no longer enough for the government to declare that its elections are fair, while the public and the international community know that they were fraudulent. The integrity of elections is the cornerstone of any democratic system. Through the ballot box, which the police do not control voters’ access to, or the dropping of names from the election schedules, and through electoral awareness, and by providing balanced media opportunities for all candidates, fair elections can be achieved, producing the homeland sincere elements that The march leads to a better future.


* Chief of Staff of the Egyptian armed forces in the October war