http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-FuQzEJQFU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xigqzvV1Zo

"Mayor Of London Warns George Bush He Might Face Arrest As A War Criminal"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlK4iPSFSmY

"George W. Bush can’t fight for freedom and authorise torture

If the West’s aim is to spread the rule of law, it cannot be achieved by vile means, argues Boris Johnson."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8133411/George-W.-Bush-cant-fight-for-freedom-and-authorise-torture.html

http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/

---

"Desmond Tutu pide juzgar a Bush y Blair por crímenes de guerra

2 Septiembre 20128 Comentarios

George Bush y Anthony Blair. Foto: AP

El ex primer ministro británico, Tony Blair, y el ex presidente de EE.UU., George W. Bush, deberían comparecer ante la Corte Penal Internacional en La Haya por contribuir a desencadenar la guerra de Irak en 2003, opina el sudafricano Desmond Tutu, Premio Nobel de la Paz.

Desmond Tutu, Premio Nobel de la Paz , ex arzobispo de la Iglesia Anglicana de Sudáfrica, hizo un llamamiento a los ex líderes de EE.UU. y el Reino Unido a que asuman “la responsabilidad de sus acciones” respecto a la guerra en Iraq.

El Premio Nobel denunció a través de un artículo publicado en el diario británico ‘The Observer’ que Tony Blair y George Bush falsificaron los datos sobre las armas de destrucción masiva en Irak para provocar una guerra en el país que desestabilizó la situación en Oriente Próximo, y que preparó el terreno para la actual situación que atraviesa Siria, y para un posible conflicto de mayor escala, con la participación de Irán.

“Los líderes de entonces de EE.UU. [George Bush] y de Reino Unido [Tony Blair] fabricaron el escenario para comportarse como matones de patio [...]. Nos llevaron al abismo donde nos encontramos ahora; con el espectro de Siria e Irán ante nosotros”, escribe Tutu.

Por su parte, Tony Blair reaccionó a estas acusaciones, afirmando que, pese al “mucho respeto” que le merece el arzobispo Tutu por su lucha contra el apartheid, un problema sobre el que -asegura- comparte la misma posición, considera que “repetir los mismos bulos de que habíamos falsificado los datos de Inteligencia es completamente erróneo, según muestran los analisis independientes”.

Esta semana Desmond Tutu abandonó la cumbre en Johannesburgo porque se negó a compartir el mismo estrado que Tony Blair, que también estaba presente en el evento.

(Con información de RNV)"

http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2012/09/02/desmond-tutu-pide-juzgar-a-bush-y-blair-por-crimenes-de-guerra/

"Artículos Relacionados

Otros artículos sobre: Anthony Blair, Desmond Tutu, George Bush, Guerra, Iraq, Premio Nobel de la Paz, Sudáfrica

¿Por qué no tuve más remedio que rechazar a Tony Blair? (03-09-12)
Arrojan zapatos y huevos contra Blair en una librería de Dublín (+ Video) (04-09-10)
George Bush le pidió a Tony Blair extender su período como primer ministro (29-08-10)
Desmond Tutu se retirará de la vida pública (22-07-10)
Cientos de personas manifiestan en Londres en contra de Tony Blair (+Fotos) (30-01-10)"

¿Por qué no tuve más remedio que rechazar a Tony Blair?

3 Septiembre 201221 Comentarios

Desmond Tutu: sacado de un seminario en el que Tony Blair tenía previsto asistir. Fotografía: Str / REUTERS

El arzobismo sudafricano Desmond Tutu, Premio Nobel de la Paz, renunció a participar en la llamada Cumbre del liderazgo celebrada el jueves en Johannesburgo, a la que Tony Blair también estaba invitado. Foto: Str / REUTERS

The Observer

Traducido por Cubadebate

No podía sentarme junto a alguien que justificó la invasión de Iraq con una mentira.

La inmoralidad de los Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña en su decisión de invadir Iraq en 2003, basados en la mentira de que Iraq poseía armas de destrucción masiva, ha desestabilizado y polarizado al mundo en mayor medida que cualquier otro conflicto en la historia.

En lugar de reconocer que el mundo en que vivíamos, con comunicaciones cada vez más sofisticadas, transportes y sistemas de armamento complejos que podrían en igualdad de condiciones a la familia global en su conjunto, los entonces líderes de EEUU y el Reino Unido fabricaron los motivos para comportarse como matones del patio de recreo que andan en coches separados. Ellos nos han llevado al borde del precipicio donde estamos ahora, con el fantasma de Siria e Irán ante nosotros.

Si los líderes pueden mentir, entonces, ¿quién debe decir la verdad? Días antes de que George W. Bush y Tony Blair ordenaran la invasión de Iraq, llamé a la Casa Blanca y hablé con Condoleezza Rice, quien era entonces consejera de Seguridad Nacional, para instar a que los inspectores de las Naciones Unidas se les diera más tiempo para confirmar o negar la existencia de las armas de destrucción masiva en Iraq. Ellos deben ser capaces de confirmar la existencia de este tipo de armas, argumenté, y el desmantelamiento de la amenaza contaría con el apoyo de prácticamente todo el mundo. Rice objetó mi argumento y dijo que había demasiado riesgo y que el presidente no podía posponer la decisión por más tiempo.

¿Sobre qué bases podemos decidir que Robert Mugabe debe ir a la Corte Penal Internacional, que Tony Blair debería unirse al círculo de los oradores internacionales de la Cumbre, que Bin Laden merecía ser asesinado, que Iraq debía ser invadida, porque aunque no poseía armas de destrucción masiva -como dijo el señor Bush, Comandante en Jefe, y como el señor Blair confesó la semana pasada-, valía el esfuerzo deshacerse de Saddam Hussein?

El costo de la decisión de librar a Iraq de su líder ha sido asombroso, comenzando para el propio Iraq. El año pasado, un promedio de 6,5 personas murieron allí cada día en ataques suicidas y coches bomba, de acuerdo con el proyecto Body Count de Iraq. Más de 110 000 iraquíes han muerto en el conflicto desde 2003 y millones de personas han sido desplazadas. A finales del año pasado, cerca de 4.500 soldados estadounidenses han muerto y más de 32.000 resultaron heridos.

Por este único motivo, en un mundo coherente, los responsables de este sufrimiento y la pérdida de vidas deberían estar siguiendo el mismo camino que algunos de sus pares africanos y asiáticos, que han tenido que responder por sus acciones en La Haya.

Habría que recordar además los costos de estas acciones, con sus efectos más allá de los campos de exterminio, visibles en los corazones endurecidos y las mentes de los miembros de la familia humana en todo el mundo.

¿Quién puede afirmar que los ataques terroristas han disminuido? ¿En qué medida hemos logrado que el mundo musulmán y judeocristiano esté más cerca y se haya sembrado la semilla de la comprensión y la esperanza?

El liderazgo y la moralidad son principios indivisibles. Los buenos líderes son los custodios de la moral. La pregunta no es si Saddam Hussein era bueno o malo o a cuántos de su pueblo masacró. El punto es que ni el Sr. Bush ni el Sr. Blair debieron haberse permitido a sí mismos rebajarse a ese nivel inmoral.

Si es aceptable para los líderes tomar medidas drásticas sobre la base de una mentira, sin un reconocimiento o una disculpa cuando se enteraron de la verdad, ¿qué vamos a enseñarles a nuestros hijos?

Mi llamado al señor Blair es que no hable de liderazgo, sino que lo demuestre. Usted es un miembro de nuestra familia, la familia de Dios. Usted debería estar hecho para la bondad, la honestidad, la moralidad, el amor, del mismo modo que nuestros hermanos y hermanas en Iraq, en los EE.UU., en Siria, en Israel e Irán.

Creía oportuno tener esta discusión en la Cumbre “Discovery Invest Leadership”, en Johannesburgo, la semana pasada. A medida que la fecha se acercaba, sentía un malestar cada vez profundo por asistir a una cumbre sobre “liderazgo” con el Sr. Blair. Extiendo mis más humildes y sinceras disculpas a los organizadores de la Cumbre, a los oradores y delegados por mi decisión de no asistir.

http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2012/09/03/por-que-no-tuve-mas-remedio-que-rechazar-a-tony-blair/

"Artículos Relacionados

Otros artículos sobre: Anthony Blair, Estados Unidos, George Bush, Gran Bretaña, Guerra, Iraq

Desmond Tutu pide juzgar a Bush y Blair por crímenes de guerra (02-09-12)
Pejes de las guerras (17-06-12)
Las guerras de los poderosos contra Afganistán, Iraq y Libia han sido un fraude (+ Video) (13-10-11)
Una madre a Tony Blair: "Mentiste y tus mentiras mataron a mi hijo" (22-01-11)
George Bush le pidió a Tony Blair extender su período como primer ministro (29-08-10)"

"We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague

Desmond Tutu has helped us see the true nature of what the former prime minister did to Iraq and increased pressure for a prosecution

- George Monbiot
- guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 September 2012 12.30 EDT
- Jump to comments (1184)

Tony Blair arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to give evidence on media ethics to the Leveson inquiry in May 2012. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

For years it seems impregnable, then suddenly the citadel collapses. An ideology, a fact, a regime appears fixed, unshakeable, almost geological. Then an inch of mortar falls, and the stonework begins to slide. Something of this kind happened over the weekend.

When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it.

The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, "i) there must be an armed attack upon a state or such an attack must be imminent; ii) the use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) the acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack." None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him: "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists."

Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.

Blair's diminishing band of apologists cling to two desperate justifications. The first is that the war was automatically authorised by a prior UN resolution, 1441. But when it was discussed in the security council, both the American and British ambassadors insisted that 1441 did not authorise the use of force. The UK representative stated that "there is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the council for discussion as required in paragraph 12." Two months later, in January 2003, the attorney general reminded Blair that "resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council".

Yet when Blair ran out of options, he and his lieutenants began arguing that 1441 authorised their war. They are still at it: on Sunday, Lord Falconer tried it out on Radio 4. Perhaps he had forgotten that it has been thoroughly discredited.

The second justification, attempted again by Blair this weekend, is that there was a moral case for invading Iraq. Yes, there was one. There was also a moral case for not invading Iraq, and this case was stronger.

But a moral case (and who has launched an aggressive war in modern times without claiming to possess one?) does not provide a legal basis. Nor was it the motivation for the attack. In September 2000, before they took office, a project run by future members of the Bush administration – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – produced a report which said the following: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Their purpose, they revealed, was "maintaining American military pre-eminence". The motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein was no more moral than the motivation for arming and funding him, two decades before.

But while the case against Blair is strong, the means are weak. Twenty-nine people have been indicted in the international criminal court, and all of them are African. (Suspects in the Balkans have been indicted by a different tribunal). There's a reason for this. Until 2018 at the earliest, the court can prosecute crimes committed during the course of an illegal war, but not the crime of launching that war.

Should we be surprised? Though the Nuremberg tribunal described aggression as "the supreme international crime", several powerful states guiltily resisted its adoption. At length, in 2010, they agreed that the court would have jurisdiction over aggression, but not until 2018 or thereafter. Though the offence has been recognised in international law for 67 years, the international criminal court (unlike the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, which hear cases from before they were established) will be able to try only crimes of aggression committed beyond that date.

The other possibility is a prosecution in one of the states (there are at least 25) which have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws. Perhaps Blair's lawyers are now working through the list and cancelling a few speaking gigs.

That the prospect of prosecution currently looks remote makes it all the more important that the crime is not forgotten. To this end, in 2010 I set up a bounty fund – www.arrestblair.org – to promote peaceful citizens' arrests of the former prime minister. People contribute to the fund, a quarter of which is paid out to anyone who makes an attempt which meets the rules. With our fourth payment last week, we've now disbursed more than £10,000. Our aim is the same as Tutu's: to de-normalise an act of mass murder, to keep it in the public mind and to maintain the pressure for a prosecution.

That looked, until this weekend, like an almost impossible prospect. But when the masonry begins to crack, impossible hopes can become first plausible, then inexorable. Blair will now find himself shut out of places where he was once welcome. One day he may find himself shut in.

Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot

A fully referenced version of this article is available at www.monbiot.com "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/03/tony-blair-the-hague-iraq-war

"Cracking Blair's wall "

http://judithmilleranddrdavidkellyandwmd.blogspot.com/

"Vicepresidente de EEUU asegura que los republicanos quieren guerra con Siria e Irán

4 Septiembre 2012

El vicepresidente de Estados Unidos Joe Biden dijo que Mitt Romney, el recién electo candidato presidencial republicano, podría dedicarse a la guerra con Siria e Irán si es elegido presidente en noviembre.

“Él expresó que fue un error terminar la guerra en Irak y traer a casa a todas nuestras tropas”, recalcó Biden en una parada de la campaña presidencial en Pensilvania.

“Él (Romney) dijo que era un error establecer una fecha final para nuestros guerreros en Afganistán y traerlos a casa. Da a entender con su discurso que está listo para ir a la guerra contra Siria e Irán”.

Mientras Romney apoya la fecha límite del presidente Barack Obama de septiembre 2014 para el retiro de las tropas de Afganistán, él dice que plazos como los de Obama causa que los aliados cuestionen el compromiso de Estados Unidos de ayudar a países a recuperarse de la guerra.

El retiro de Irak, concluido a finales del año pasado, provocó críticas de Romney, quien describió la medida ya sea inepta o impulsada por motivos políticos.

“Creo que usted escucha a los comandantes en el terreno y entiende de ellos cuál es la línea de tiempo par a la transición al ejército irakí”, dijo Romney en octubre.

(Con información de CNN. Traducción: Correo del Orinoco, Venezuela)

http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2012/09/04/vicepresidente-de-eeuu-asegura-que-los-republicanos-quieren-guerra-con-siria-e-iran/

"Artículos Relacionados

Otros artículos sobre: Estados Unidos, Guerra, Irán, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Partido Republicano, Siria

Sanciones: asesinatos masivos por medios diplomáticos (06-08-12)
Obama prepara a EEUU para una nueva guerra (02-04-12)
Si miran este mapa, quizás comprendan por qué la campaña mediática contra Siria e Irán (05-02-12)
¿Está ya en marcha la guerra contra Irán? (22-01-12)
Buques de guerra de EEUU, Francia, Gran Bretaña y Rusia en las costas iraníes y sirias (10-01-12)"

"Letters

Opening statements in the case against Blair

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 September 2012 15.59 EDT

George Monbiot, like other self-righteous anti-war zealots, seizes on Desmond Tutu's refusal to share a platform with Tony Blair to once again demand the prosecution of the former prime minister for alleged war crimes (We're one crucial step closer to seeing Blair at The Hague, 4 September). His case hangs on the detail of various UN resolutions which, like most such resolutions, are barely worth the paper they are written on, primarily because so much national self-interest affects the way members vote.

Iraqi minorities were gassed, otherwise slaughtered, imprisoned, tortured and generally persecuted by Saddam's criminally fascist regime for decades and the west did nothing about it; indeed, it even supported this monster with aid and armaments. Today, he is long gone and Iraq is on the road to democracy.

Blair-the-war-criminal faddists like Monbiot should think more about what Iraq would look like if Saddam had been left alone. The intervention in Iraq was perhaps justified, perhaps a monstrous folly, but that country is now a somewhat better place than the Iraq of Saddam.

Brian Wilson
Glossop, Derbyshire

• George Monbiot's analysis is correct. The invasion of Iraq violated the UN charter, and those who launched it committed the international crime of aggression. He might have added that Mr Blair was explicitly warned of the risk of prosecution for this offence by Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, who wrote in his advice of 7 March 2003: "Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts." However, the headline to the article is wrong: we will not see Mr Blair facing this charge at the Hague because, as Monbiot explains, the international criminal court does not yet have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, and when it acquires jurisdiction it will not be retrospective.

Geoffrey Bindman QC
Bindmans LLP

• Failing Blair's appearance at The Hague, could he not still be impeached by the Commons for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in relation to the invasion of Iraq? The excellent report A Case to Answer, produced in 2004 for Adam Price MP precisely for this procedure (and strangely dropped at the time) should be revived and acted upon now by all those MPs who opposed the invasion. We don't need to wait for Chilcot.

Raymond Fisher
Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

• George Monbiot is right when he says the means are weak in getting Blair to face trial. According to the Rome Statute of the ICC, an "act of aggression" is defined as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state". However, it's not all so clearcut. I have over time written to the court in furtherance of an indictment against Blair, and on 28 June this year received this reply from the office of the prosecutor: "Most of the allegations that have been made are beyond my power to investigate since Iraq has not ratified the Rome Statute, meaning that the Court has no jurisdiction over its territory." So it appears that we exist in a kind of parallel universe where leaders can look to see who doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the ICC and then bomb them to smithereens.

Richard Tippett
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

• George Monbiot lists three ways the war on Iraq could have been legally justified: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council (SC) authorisation. However, even had Blair and Bush twisted enough arms to get a second resolution, that in itself would not necessarily have made it legal. The first two would still need to be fulfilled. The SC is a political body, even when it is acting in a quasi-judicial way, and it still has to conform to international law. The only body that could give a definitive judgment on its legality is the international court of justice. Of course, it was never asked.
But the problem is much wider than just Blair's guilt. In 1945 the UN was founded with the aim, as expressed in the preamble to its charter, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", and the security council, and in particular its five permanent members, was tasked with implementing that aim. Yet since 1945 there have been some 200 armed conflicts, resulting in many millions of deaths, and one or more of the P5 have been involved in almost all of them, directly or indirectly and/or by providing the weapons used. In any other sphere such incompetence (or worse, criminality) would result in severe punishment and removal from a position of power.

Frank Jackson
Former co-chair, World Disarmament Campaign

• Blair won't get his comeuppance. It is not by accident that the UN conducts its business of trying to prevent unnecessary bloodshed between its members in New York rather than Brussels or Strasbourg, ensuring that even where there has been an egregious breach of its own laws and procedures by the host country no prosecution of the aggressors will ensue.

Bill Jackson
Nottingham

• George Monbiot's says Tony Blair "will now find himself shut out of places where he was once welcome" following the call from Desmond Tutu that Blair should face the ICC. Tutu's call should be widely welcomed and may well be a crucial step towards Blair appearing at The Hague, but other steps with more immediate effect can be taken that may help towards achieving that goal. It should be made clear that further canvassing by Blair for a role in the present Labour party will be rejected, which would be a great service to this country and our reputation across the world.
Michael McGowan
Former Labour MEP for Leeds

• In support of George Monbiot's article I would say that when a prime minister endorses a document that is going to be presented to parliament and the British people and used as a "business case" to invade a country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, I believe that he or she needs to make absolutely certain that the content of that document is completely accurate.
If the prime minister writes in the foreword to that document, "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme" and "his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them", and it then transpires that the country invaded does not possess even one of these weapons, the only conclusion one can draw is that the foreword was written by someone who has lied to engineer an illegal invasion of another country. In my opinion there is no doubt that such a person should be tried as a war criminal.

David Gerrard
Hove, East Sussex

• As peace activists of diverse faiths and beliefs in Occupy Faith UK, the multi-faith arm of the Occupy movement, we applaud Archbishop Desmond Tutu's moral stand in calling Blair to account for war crimes before the international criminal court, and his Christian commitment to "truth" in rejecting a conference platform with a prime minister whose legacy has been one of lie after lie.

We therefore view with regret the contrasting Tale of Two Bishops in the recent statement by the bishop of Derby, Dr Alastair Redfern, that "Tony Blair is not a war criminal" – speaking in his role as chair of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom (of which Occupy Faith UK is a member body). This expensive taxpayer funded body is the national arena for the faith organisations in Britain, and has strongly resisted protests from faith leaders at its decision to admit to full membership the former prime minister's Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

Tony Blair and George Bush have been the author of the deaths of untold numbers of innocent children, women and men in the pursuit of their illegal wars, and yet Archbishop Tutu's uncompromising integrity is a rare commodity among religious leaders, when many Church of England bishops, archbishops, Egyptian grand muftis and others have willingly eased Blair's political rehabilitation through sharing public platforms or serving on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation's board of religious advisers.

In this 25th anniversary of the Inter Faith Network, Archbishop Tutu's challenge, "If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth?", directly shames these faith leaders to speak up as prophetic and critical moral voices for the defenceless victims of Blair's crimes around the world, or risk falling into the same hypocritical collusion with power and bloodshed.

Alan Bolwell
Mohamed Elsharkawy
Tanya Paton
Steven Burak
Sean Leigh
Occupy Faith UK"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/opening-statements-case-against-blair?newsfeed=true

1. Desmond Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague

Myjoyonline.com‎ - 10 hours ago

2. Tutu: Send Bush And Blair To The Hague

The Right Perspective‎ - 1 hour ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW4gc0ujn4s&feature=related

SCOTLAND SHOULD NOT BE COMPLICIT IN WAR CRIMES, GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: THE INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADJECTIVE...!

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2011/06/scotland-should-not-be-complicit-in-war.html

---
Noroeste.com‏@noroestemx

"El crimen no se combate con gladiolas y perfumes", dice Alcalde de #Mazatlán: http://www.noroeste.com.mx/publicaciones.php?id=808509 …

---
Noroeste.com‏@noroestemx

"El crimen no se combate con gladiolas y perfumes", dice Alcalde de #Mazatlán: http://www.noroeste.com.mx/publicaciones.php?id=808509 …

Details

---

Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl

@SanjuanaMtz @JohnMackerman @Lydiacachosi @AlexSalmond @scotsmandotcom @Wikileaks @AssangeC @AristeguiOnline #UN ◄ http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/09/desmond-tutu-pide-juzgar-bush-y-blair.html …

11:50 AM - 4 Sep 12 · Details

---
Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl

@SanjuanaMtz @JohnMackerman @Lydiacachosi @AlexSalmond @scotsmandotcom @Wikileaks @AssangeC @AristeguiOnline #UN ◄http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/08/el-caso-assange-o-wikileaks-washington.html …

11:50 AM - 4 Sep 12 · Details

---
Eligio Del Awiizotl‏@EligioAwiizotl

@DesmondTutuPF @MayorOfLondon @RicardoPatinoEC @OTP_ICC ◄ Do not forget Aznar & other NATO's guys! https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLKxekvptsOYw0KV_4bk83MMeWHdZn_c87vNf0_kYsXImgl1q1xEjbmpQpMB3G667eAD6mqbiOXPiBB0VyBcdPP63YWChM4k6PBWj6V_DlWxqZh8cPAGXIAo2CBCO9woQUiD56pC2OtWU/s400/LOS+3.jpg http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/09/desmond-tutu-pide-juzgar-bush-y-blair.html

---

"EL CASO ASSANGE"*, OR WIKILEAKS, WASHINGTON AND THE BORGIAS...

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/08/el-caso-assange-o-wikileaks-washington.html

---

DESMOND TUTU & PEPE GRILLO, AND THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BIG LIE... WHY US-NATO WANTS "TO ENCRYPT" THE BIG LIE WHICH DISGUISES THE SWEDISH'S PROSECUTION PERPETRATED MALICIOUSLY AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE, ET AL...

http://fideiius.blogspot.com/2012/09/desmond-tutu-pepe-grillo-and-truth.html
---

"En nombre de la «guerra contra la delincuencia»

Un estudio del fenómeno de la tortura en Mexico"

http://www.unmondetortionnaire.com/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Mexique_ACAT_Juin_2012_ESP_En_nombre_de_la_guerra_contra_la_delincuencia_Un_estudio_del_fenomeno_de_la_tortura_en_Mexico.pdf

---

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Desmond+Tutu+&oq=FIDEIIUS+Desmond+Tutu+&gs_l=hp.12...2264.14230.0.15235.10.10.0.0.0.0.928.3638.2j3j0j1j0j3j1.10.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.SjFy05Yq5go&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Bush&oq=FIDEIIUS+Bush&gs_l=hp.3...17266.17967.1.18472.4.3.0.1.1.0.101.290.2j1.3.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.a81ycxqXjDQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Blair&oq=FIDEIIUS+Blair&gs_l=hp.3...10813.11386.2.11688.4.3.0.1.1.0.135.341.1j2.3.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.BkQJKsQe_Sk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEIIUS%20&tok=Z4gp9dIUDiOnyQqCmaO1cw&pq=fideiius%20aznar&cp=20&gs_id=4p&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS%20Chema%20Rebu%20Aznar&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS+Chema+Rebu+Aznar&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=FIDEIIUS+Afganistan&oq=FIDEIIUS+Afganistan&gs_l=hp.3...4139.5933.9.6283.10.10.0.0.0.0.176.1003.8j2.10.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.jGfsIfrZfaE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=5BtGUPeIKe-u2gWajIHQDA&ved=0CBsQvwUoAQ&q=FIDEIIUS+Afghanistan&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=FIDEIIUS&tok=Z4gp9dIUDiOnyQqCmaO1cw&pq=fideiius%20chema%20rebu%20aznar&cp=13&gs_id=69&xhr=t&q=FIDEIIUS%20Irak&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=FIDEIIUS+Irak&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7769940c5ab5a494&biw=1024&bih=640