Iran to try 26 U.S. officials in absentia for crimes against humanity

[News_Editor]

Iran to try 26 U.S. officials in absentia for crimes against humanity

2011-07-07 02:21:30 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) -- Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission on Wednesday announced plans to try 26 United States officials in absentia and file lawsuits against them at international bodies, the Fars news agency reported.

"The Islamic Republic has earlier lodged complaints with international circles against the crimes committed by certain U.S. officials in different countries, but today it has compiled a plan for sanctioning 26 U.S. officials and will try these criminals based on the plan," said Seyed Ali Aqazadeh member of the commission.

The 26 U.S. officials will be charged with diverse crimes against humanity in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. Aqazadeh remarked that these individuals played direct roles in the alleged crimes but continue their activities in different posts within the U.S. government.

Earlier, the Iranian Parliament announced plans to annul any agreement with state and private firms and companies which are affiliated or related in some way to the 26 U.S. officials sanctioned.

"The parliament intends to require Iranian economic firms to annul their deals with the companies with which the 26 American officials have direct or indirect economic ties," said another commission member Mohammad Karim Abedi in late May.

Among the 26 sanctioned officials are former FBI Chief Director Thomas Pickard; former commander of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Geoffrey Miller; current Guantanamo commander Rear Admiral Jeffery Harbeson; former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the U.S. troops who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib; Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan; and Stuart Levey, the incumbent and first Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence for his role in the sanctions imposed on Iran.

In mid-June, relatives of the victims of the U.S. military operations in west Iraq announced plans for initiating a judicial case against former U.S. President George W. Bush, who ordered the Iraqi occupation in 2003.

The decision came after citizens became enraged when a U.S. official demanded the Iraqi Parliament to pay compensations for the U.S. military campaign which began in 2003. The U.S. government said that the official's remarks were his personal opinion and not the country's.

The victim's relatives will also raise a judicial case against officials of the Iraqi government who took power after 2003 and, despite being allegedly aware of the alleged atrocities in west Iraq, did nothing in fear of losing their posts.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-07-07

[Jingthing]

I can't publish my reaction to this here, but you get the idea. To be clear, I wouldn't be against some Americans including W. Bush and the evil one Cheney being tried at the Hague. But IRAN?!?

[WeeGB]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Edited July 6, 2011 by WeeGB

[kuffki]

Iran the world pillar

[kuffki]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

[philw]

The irony of it is almost amusing.

I hope the Iranians can make and present a forceful case against the accused.

Who knows where it would lead.

It would seem that they have a point.

[geriatrickid]

The irony of it is almost amusing.

I hope the Iranians can make and present a forceful case against the accused.

Who knows where it would lead.

It would seem that they have a point.

The fist hurdle for the Iranians to overcome is that they would have to accept International law in order to apply that law.

The second hurdle would be the guarantee of a fair trial and due process under the auspices of an internationally approved judiciary.

Iran has no mandate to lay the charges and is incapable of conducting a trial in a manner that would comply with the international war crimes process. This is just another example of the national insanity that characterizes the mullah state.

[WeeGB]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

It's always advisable to check FACTS, before posting drivel. According to the United Nations website, http://www.un.org/en/members/ Iran IS indeed a member of the UN, and in fact, is a FOUNDING MEMBER. A country does NOT have to be a democratic state, in order to recognise war crimes committed by other states. Iran has every right, to raise this matter, and file lawsuits internationally. I tend to agree with philw's comment regarding the irony concerned, but perhaps the Iranians have a better sense of humour than some of the right-wing posters on here. Nevertheless, a war crime is against international law, and americans should NOT be exempt from either being accused or tried at the Hague.

[ableguy]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Bunch of clowns and thugs, what a joke and you are with them ?????

[kuffki]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

It's always advisable to check FACTS, before posting drivel. According to the United Nations website, http://www.un.org/en/members/ Iran IS indeed a member of the UN, and in fact, is a FOUNDING MEMBER. A country does NOT have to be a democratic state, in order to recognise war crimes committed by other states. Iran has every right, to raise this matter, and file lawsuits internationally. I tend to agree with philw's comment regarding the irony concerned, but perhaps the Iranians have a better sense of humour than some of the right-wing posters on here. Nevertheless, a war crime is against international law, and americans should NOT be exempt from either being accused or tried at the Hague.

FOUNDING MEMBER who does not comply with and defy every single regulation and sanction.

The very same founding member who breaches every single international law and agreement

The very same founding member who supports terror-openly

The very same founding member who openly wishes for destruction of another

It can not be the same founding member who supports, aids and harbors internationally recognized terror organizations, arms terror groups, sponsors terrorist attacks and praises those who kill.

Call me right wing or whatever wing you like, but knowing THE FACTS, not sure how you arrived at conclusion supporting Iran's lunacy once again.

PS. Who would be the defense for the Americans?

[Steely Dan]

Crimes against humanity is indeed rich coming from a Country which doesn't even recognise the universal human rights declaration. I put this down to their resident megalomaniac not seeing his name in print for a few days.

[orangezeke]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

It's always advisable to check FACTS, before posting drivel. According to the United Nations website, http://www.un.org/en/members/ Iran IS indeed a member of the UN, and in fact, is a FOUNDING MEMBER. A country does NOT have to be a democratic state, in order to recognise war crimes committed by other states. Iran has every right, to raise this matter, and file lawsuits internationally. I tend to agree with philw's comment regarding the irony concerned, but perhaps the Iranians have a better sense of humour than some of the right-wing posters on here. Nevertheless, a war crime is against international law, and americans should NOT be exempt from either being accused or tried at the Hague.

FOUNDING MEMBER who does not comply with and defy every single regulation and sanction.

The very same founding member who breaches every single international law and agreement

The very same founding member who supports terror-openly

The very same founding member who openly wishes for destruction of another

It can not be the same founding member who supports, aids and harbors internationally recognized terror organizations, arms terror groups, sponsors terrorist attacks and praises those who kill.

Call me right wing or whatever wing you like, but knowing THE FACTS, not sure how you arrived at conclusion supporting Iran's lunacy once again.

PS. Who would be the defense for the Americans?

kuffki, you were caught making stuff up...then proceed to spin your way out of it ? a simple apology works better.

when you say 'every single regulation and sanction' and 'every single international law and agreement' you just make it worse.

dude, i am only trying to help you out here - you have a reputation to protect. this is the thai visa forum, at least...3 other people will see this.

[metisdead]

A post full of anti semitic hyperbole has been removed.

[kuffki]

kuffki, you were caught making stuff up...then proceed to spin your way out of it ? a simple apology works better.

when you say 'every single regulation and sanction' and 'every single international law and agreement' you just make it worse.

dude, i am only trying to help you out here - you have a reputation to protect. this is the thai visa forum, at least...3 other people will see this.

Thank you, but i was not aware i was seeking help and certainly was not aware i had "reputation" to protect.

However if you DO want to appear intelligent, why do not you post FACTS showing otherwise, rather than trolling and discussing what i should or should not be doing

[orangezeke]

kuffki, you were caught making stuff up...then proceed to spin your way out of it ? a simple apology works better.

when you say 'every single regulation and sanction' and 'every single international law and agreement' you just make it worse.

dude, i am only trying to help you out here - you have a reputation to protect. this is the thai visa forum, at least...3 other people will see this.

Thank you, but i was not aware i was seeking help and certainly was not aware i had "reputation" to protect.

However if you DO want to appear intelligent, why do not you post FACTS showing otherwise, rather than trolling and discussing what i should or should not be doing

and here i was trying to help a man out ! sheesh...

i guess if i WAS trying to appear intelligent, all i would have to do is show you one UN 'regulation and sanction' that they comply with to prove your first statement a lie. then i could move onto showing one international 'law and agreement' they obey and that would show your second statement was also <deleted>. combine that with your ignorance on UN membership and, well, it would be a good thing you're not out to protect your reputation.

nah, i can't do it. i'm not intelligent enough.

[kuffki]

kuffki, you were caught making stuff up...then proceed to spin your way out of it ? a simple apology works better.

when you say 'every single regulation and sanction' and 'every single international law and agreement' you just make it worse.

dude, i am only trying to help you out here - you have a reputation to protect. this is the thai visa forum, at least...3 other people will see this.

Thank you, but i was not aware i was seeking help and certainly was not aware i had "reputation" to protect.

However if you DO want to appear intelligent, why do not you post FACTS showing otherwise, rather than trolling and discussing what i should or should not be doing

and here i was trying to help a man out ! sheesh...

i guess if i WAS trying to appear intelligent, all i would have to do is show you one UN 'regulation and sanction' that they comply with to prove your first statement a lie. then i could move onto showing one international 'law and agreement' they obey and that would show your second statement was also <deleted>. combine that with your ignorance on UN membership and, well, it would be a good thing you're not out to protect your reputation.

nah, i can't do it. i'm not intelligent enough.

and little more trolling

[Pakboong]

As far as I can determine, there have been 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Pakboong

[Jingthing]

As far as I can determine, there have be 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Sounds like they have been really slacking off on looking at Iran then. Clearly a bias in the UN based on those numbers.

[midas]

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRlQCKuBlQU

[Pakboong]

As far as I can determine, there have be 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Sounds like they have been really slacking off on looking at Iran then. Clearly a bias in the UN based on those numbers.

That is certainly possible.

[kuffki]

As far as I can determine, there have been 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Can you also please check sanctions

Edited July 7, 2011 by kuffki

[dingding]

While it seems more than a little ridiculous to try the US officials in absentia in Iran, (because the alleged crimes did not happen there), I have no complaints with charges being filed internationally by Iran. It's common knowledge that some US forces (and UK forces too), have tortured prisoners, and committed other excesses. If war criminals from other countries can be tried at the Hague, why not US officials ? A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the citizenship of the person committing the crime. I hope they also find some evidence on Blair, Bush's pet warmongering lap-dog. It also seems eminently sensible to cut ties with companies associated with the alleged perpetrators of these crimes. After all, if it's acceptable for the US, EEC, and other countries to use sanctions, or refuse to trade with "rogue" countries and companies, it must be acceptable for Iran to take the same stance.

Because Iran is NOT Hague, nor is it even a member of UN , nor it is even a democratic state, nor it is human rights protector.

Iran is ONLY a terror supporter and human rights abuser, which gives them no right or position to even open their mouth let alone judge others.

Maybe it takes an abuser to know an abuser GO ON IRAN DO IT

[Pakboong]

As far as I can determine, there have been 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Can you also please check sanctions

The way it reads, they are connected. I did find a 4th against Iran that wasn't listed in the first source I checked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10768146

[Ulysses G.]

As far as I can determine, there have be 3 UN resolutions with regard to Iran since 2003. Another country which also begins with an "I" has had 232 which is more than the rest of the world combined.

Sounds like they have been really slacking off on looking at Iran then. Clearly a bias in the UN based on those numbers.

That is FOR SURE.