Bush et Cheney accusés de crimes contre la constitution

Dans deux petites villes du Vermont, Brattleboro and Marlboro :

«During yesterday's Vermont presidential primary, two small towns in the famously liberal state also approved resolutions indicting Bush and vice president Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution".

No specific crimes are mentioned, but organisers of the anti-Bush effort have referred to perjury, obstruction of justice and war crimes related to the Iraq conflict. The resolutions ask town attorneys in Brattleboro and Marlboro to draft indictments without outlining how to enforce them, giving the charges little practical consequence.» Guardian, 5 mars 2008

On peut demander aux élèves de faire la même chose comme activité pédagogique ?

Situation-problème : Comment traduire le gouvernement de George W. Bush devant la justice pour les conséquences de ses politiques ?

Je crois qu'on pourrait apprendre et s'amuser beaucoup...

Je me servirais entre autres de ce discours de Noam Chomsky (Democracy Now !)
«Iraqis, it appears, accept the highest values of Americans. That ought to be good news. Specifically, they accept the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal that sentenced Nazi war criminals to hanging for such crimes as supporting aggression and preemptive war. It was the main charge against von Ribbentrop, for example, whose position was—in the Nazi regime was that of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The Tribunal defined aggression very straightforwardly: aggression, in its words, is the “invasion of its armed forces” by one state “of the territory of another state.” That’s simple. Obviously, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are textbook examples of aggression. And the Tribunal, as I’m sure you know, went on to characterize aggression as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself all the accumulated evil of the whole.” So everything that follows from the aggression is part of the evil of the aggression.

Well, the good news from the US military survey of focus groups is that Iraqis do accept the Nuremberg principles. They understand that sectarian violence and the other postwar horrors are contained within the supreme international crime committed by the invaders. I think they were not asked whether their acceptance of American values extends to the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. He forcefully insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not apply the principles to ourselves.

Well, needless to say, US opinion, shared with the West generally, flatly rejects the lofty American values that were professed at Nuremberg, indeed regards them as bordering on obscene, as you could quickly discover if you try experimenting by suggesting that these values should be observed, as Iraqis insist. It’s an interesting illustration of the reality, some of the reality, that lies behind the famous “clash of civilizations.” Maybe not exactly the way we like to look at it. »

Merci, M. Chomsky !