The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration has announced it will hold its second session of hearings on January 20-22, 2006. This session will continue the truly historic work of forging a powerful, comprehensive, and highly public case documenting what the Bush regime is doing to the people of the world.
The Commission’s successful first session was held in New York on October 21-22 before a distinguished panel of jurists. Experts from the fields of law, diplomacy, environment, history, global health and reproductive rights came together with witnesses from flooded New Orleans, the war zones of Iraq and immigration jails of the U.S.
Hundreds of people heard penetrating exposures of the Bush regime’s wars of aggression, global apparatus of torture and indefinite detention, suppression of scientific research and warnings of global warming, and genocidal sabotage of efforts to stem the AIDS pandemic. Passionate and painful eyewitness accounts highlighted the special hearing into the Bush administration’s criminal actions before, during and after the Katrina disaster.
Much of the remarkable testimony from the first session is now available online at www.bushcommission.org. Download the audio and text and share them widely.
In January, after considering the rich evidence presented in both sessions, the panel of jurists will reach its verdicts. Their final findings are expected to be released around the time of the President’s State of the Union Address and the nationwide demonstrations organized by The World Can’t Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!
The following is from the testimony by John Clark, Professor of Environmental Studies at Loyola University in New Orleans.
http://rwor.org/a/025/international-tribunal-katrina.htm
hmm ... STANG, I really appreciate what you are trying to do but by copy-paste an article that falls after its opening statement isn't a good way of trying to achieve your goal.
From the same article:
"The Triple Crime in the Katrina Disaster
I was listening to local radio, and I heard Mayor Nagin on the radio. And he made the statement, quote, direct quote, "Hurricane Katrina did not discriminate." That's a very interesting statement. I think it shows a great -- we could say it’s just a deception, but if he believes it, it shows a great ignorance of how society works, because we know, as Dr. Bullard and others have pointed out in their many decades of work, racism is built into our social system.
Class oppression is built into our social system. So when a hurricane hits, it does discriminate. It automatically discriminates. It automatically produces very deep and severe problems for some people and perhaps moderate, sometimes severe problems for others, but not equal problems. And we see that in New Orleans... But the blame is not equal. Because some authorities have been entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of the problems of society and taking care of people's needs. And they have failed abysmally in this responsibility and, I would say, criminally."
By blaming the apple for an orange's colour will not stand in any court of law. With this kind of statements your cause is done more harm then good ... because its rediculous. The hurricane itself has done nothing discriminate.
If those responsible for the safety and welfare of the city of New Orleans have neglected their duties you will have to present a case of evidence containing human error and neglect.
Using the statement "Hurricane Katrina did not discriminate." as proof that a person neglected his or her responsibilities has no valid ground and everything following this argument falls with it ...
I am fully aware errors ... BIG errors ... have been made prior to 'Katrina' so that the disaster could hapen as it happened. Nagin didn't mean anything else then what is literally meant by "Hurricane Katrina did not discriminate." ... the effect the hurricane had on different people in different social classes perhaps is subject to social discrimination, which has to be proofed with facts.
Of course I understand that the statement is used as an introduction to the later statements of the "speaker", but I read not further into an article when a statemnet like "Hurican Katrina did not discriminate" is followed with:
"That's a very interesting statement. I think it shows a great -- we could say it’s just a deception, but if he believes it, it shows a great ignorance of how society works, because we know, as Dr. Bullard and others have pointed out in their many decades of work, racism is built into our social system."
The apple is blamed for the orange's colour ... this will not do.
The continuation of the article might be interesting, but I have not read on after reading the opening paragraphes.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowBush would claim that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a "war of aggression".
"Wars of aggression"???
Can you give me some examples of non-aggressive war or is this just an attempt to make things sound worse than they are. War should be sufficient.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Research the findings after January 20-22, 2006.
Wasn't this the thing that got started with some LSD and a one-bedroom apartment on the Upper East Side? I hear that they were either going to go see "Brokeback Mountain" or form the thing you mentioned.
recent news reports have indicated that people of non-color were disproportionately represented (on a percentile basis) among katrina fatalities .... what say you now, stang? ...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200512%5CNAT20051214b.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=katrina+fatalities+whites