Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Fare thee well, John Bolton, we hardly knew ye...

host · 12-05-2006, 01:40 AM

sigh..... mojo, I apologize for not organizing the following to match or to conform with the impressive layout of your last post. I know that the interest and time invested in this subject, as evidenced by your last post, will influence you to examine all of the support for my arguments, that I'm posting here.

Consider that the record of the past 48 months is lacking any meaningful congressional investigation of what Mr. Bush knew, and when he knew it, before he wrote the March 18. 2003 "determination" that he claimed justified invasion of Iraq, without a specific, UN resolution. Indeed, the effort of Sen. Pat Roberts to block release of his sentate committee's investigation of this matter, continues, since July, 2004, even after the Nov., 2005, walkout from the senate, by democrats, in protest of this coverup by Pat Roberts.

In short, you're probably gonna get what you cannot seem to comprehend can happen.... an actual open questioning, under oath, of officials in the Bush admin. who knew what happened in the admin.'s fashioning of the case for war in Iraq.

mojo, the SCOTUS has already "paved the way" for criminal trials of Mr. Bush, et al, after impeachment, conviction in the senate, and expulsion from office, or...after his term as POTUS expires on 1/20/2009:

Quote:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZC1.html
Kennedy, J., concurring in part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALDH. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 29, 2006]

Justice Kennedy, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join as to Parts I and II, concurring in part.

.... The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. See id., at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U. S. C. §2441. There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.....

Quote:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...0346/1001/NEWS
Posted on: Monday, November 20, 2006

Watada 'standing up for soldiers'

By Derrick DePledgeAdvertiser Government Writer

.......The forum yesterday, at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, was held to build public awareness and support for Watada's legal fight. His father, his attorney, Eric Seitz, and UH-Manoa constitutional law professor Jon Van Dyke defended Watada's actions as courageous and justified. No one from the Army was invited to present an opposing view......

...Van Dyke and Seitz say the war is illegal under United Nations charter and that Watada was right not to deploy on moral grounds. The U.S., in its justification for war, alleged that Iraq had failed to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions. The U.S. and its allies discussed a new resolution on the war with the other nations on the U.N. Security Council, but when diplomacy stalled, determined that a new resolution was not required before the 2003 invasion.

"This war cannot be justified — logically or factually or legally," Seitz said.

But Seitz also said Watada does not want to be a martyr by going to military prison and recognizes there is an element of civil disobedience to his actions that warrants some punishment. Seitz said he proposed to the Army that Watada serve several months of confinement in quarters and be discharged. But Seitz said the Army wanted Watada to serve at least a year in military prison.

"He knows now, and he has known from the beginning, that there are risks in this case," Seitz said......

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...in.transcript/
Villepin: 'War is acknowledgment of failure'

Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 12:52 AM EST (0552 GMT)

.....And what have the inspectors told us? That for a month Iraq has been actively cooperating with them, that substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of al-Samoud II missiles and their equipment, that new prospects are opening up with the recent question of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed, and that is indeed the key to Resolution 1441.

Therefore, I would like solemnly to address a question to this body, and it's the very same question being asked by people all over the world. Why should we now engage in war with Iraq? And I would also like to ask, why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?

War is always an acknowledgment of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable. Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences. Let us measure the effects of our decision. And it's clear to all in Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction. The method that we have chosen worked.......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-5.html
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 21, 2003

Presidential Letter Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 21, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/85.html
Heed the Lesson of Nuremburg: Let No Nation Be Above the Law

Published in The Forward, November 18, 2005

By Benjamin Ferencz

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow," Chief Justice Robert Jackson warned at the opening session of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, on November 20, 1945. "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Nuremburg trials this week, it increasingly appears that Jackson's warning is falling on deaf ears in America.......

......In fact, according to its own statute the ICC is permitted to deal only with crimes "of concern to the international community as a whole." This means that only leaders responsible for planning or perpetrating major crimes against humanity will be targets of the court.

The Bush administration's other objections to the court are equally untenable. To begin with, guilty knowledge and criminal intent must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council can direct the ICC to suspend any prosecution that might interfere with peace negotiations. And American objections on constitutional grounds are also unsupported by the facts.

Jingoistic slogans about protecting national sovereignty may sound appealing to an uninformed public, but try as the current administration might, it cannot eliminate the need for certain universally binding rules of humanitarian law in an increasingly interdependent world.

Simply put, current American fears are both misguided and unpersuasive. Not only does the ICC's carefully negotiated statute guarantee no retroactivity and fair trials, but it also requires nations to have priority to try their own citizens. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction only if the state of the perpetrator is unable or unwilling to provide a fair trial.

No prosecutor in human history has been subjected to as many controls as exist in the ICC. The prosecutor is under strict administrative and budgetary controls of the court's Assembly of State Parties, which includes such staunch allies of America as Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the European Union. The American Bar Association, every former president of the American Society of International Law and a host of the most renowned and respected international lawyers in the United States, Israel and around the world support the ICC.

How, then, to explain America's objections — which, to many informed observers, seem to border on the irrational?

The American public deserves to be told the truth: The stated opposition of the Bush administration to the ICC is a sham. It is disgraceful that our government expects the rest of the world to simply swallow the argument that the United States is above the law. Those who oppose the ICC — whose most fundamental premise is that law applies equally to everyone — do not believe in the rule of law.

One need only look at the American Service-Members' Protection Act to find evidence of the administration's belief in American exceptionalism. The legislation, mockingly called "The Hague Invasion Act" by many Europeans, authorizes the president to use "all necessary means" to liberate any American who might be held in custody by the ICC in The Hague.

For further proof, one could examine the various "immunity agreements" that all nations receiving American aid are requested to sign. If they refuse to stipulate that no Americans, or their employees, will be sent to the ICC, the nations risk forfeiting all American military and economic aid — even if the recipient country needs the funds in order to pursue terrorists and drug traffickers.

Such irrational behavior, of course, can only evoke suspicion about American intentions and resentment toward Washington by intimidated signatories. Not one single American has been helped in any way by these coerced agreements — not one.

And little wonder that many are suspicious of our intentions. Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed America's intention to bypass, if necessary, restraints on the use of force codified by the U.N. Charter. Washington reserves the right, he warned, to anticipate hostilities and to strike first and pre-emptively — alone, if necessary — to counter a perceived threat to our national security.

Now, I do not wish to compare any Americans to the Nazi leaders. But after hearing Rumsfeld's words, I could not avoid being reminded of the argument put forward by the lead defendant in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremberg, S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf. When asked to explain why his unit murdered more than 90,000 Jews, including their children, the remorseless defendant casually explained that it was justified as anticipatory self-defense.

Germany anticipated an attack from the Soviet Union, Ohlendorf argued, and since Jews were perceived as supporters of Bolshevism, they presumably posed a potential future threat to German national interests. And if Jewish children knew that their parents had been executed, he continued, they, too, might become enemies of Germany, and therefore they had to be killed.

In a carefully reasoned judgment by the three judges presiding over the case — all of them American — Ohlendorf's defense was held to be untenable, and the S.S. general was hanged.

Sixty years later, I am afraid, this and other lessons from Nuremberg are lost on the Bush administration.

Benjamin Ferencz was chief prosecutor in the Einsatzgruppen trial at Nuremburg

It took the US army 51 years to admit and investigate the following accusations, only after 1999 news reporting surfaced.....and....just five years after the 2001 army "finding", new information showed that the US army ignored the clear and damning official documentation that it had access to, that proved that the killing of Korean civilians by US troops in 1950, was a deliberate policy:
Background: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/nogunri/

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900485_pf.html
U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and MARTHA MENDOZAThe Associated PressMonday, May 29, 2006; 2:44 PM

-- More than a half-century after hostilities ended in Korea, a document from the war's chaotic early days has come to light _ a letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines.

The letter _ dated the day of the Army's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950 _ is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea, and the first evidence that that policy was known to upper ranks of the U.S. government.

"If refugees do appear from north of US lines they will receive warning shots, and if they then persist in advancing they will be shot," wrote Ambassador John J. Muccio, in his message to Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

The letter reported on decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees at No Gun Ri.

Estimates vary on the number of dead at No Gun Ri. American soldiers' estimates ranged from under 100 to "hundreds" dead; Korean survivors say about 400, mostly women and children, were killed at the village 100 miles southeast of Seoul, the South Korean capital. Hundreds more refugees were killed in later, similar episodes, survivors say.

The No Gun Ri killings were documented in a Pulitzer Prize-winning story by The Associated Press in 1999, which prompted a 16-month Pentagon inquiry.

The Pentagon concluded that the No Gun Ri shootings, which lasted three days, were "an unfortunate tragedy" _ "not a deliberate killing." It suggested panicky soldiers, acting without orders, opened fire because they feared that an approaching line of families, baggage and farm animals concealed enemy troops.

But Muccio's letter indicates the actions of the 7th Cavalry were consistent with policy, adopted because of concern that North Koreans would infiltrate via refugee columns. And in subsequent months, U.S. commanders repeatedly ordered refugees shot, documents show.

The Muccio letter, declassified in 1982, is discussed in a new book by American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz, who discovered the document at the U.S. National Archives, where the AP also has obtained a copy.

Conway-Lanz, a former Harvard historian and now an archivist of the National Archives' Nixon collection, was awarded the Stuart L. Bernath Award of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations for the article on which the book is based.

"With this additional piece of evidence, the Pentagon report's interpretation (of No Gun Ri) becomes difficult to sustain," Conway-Lanz argues in his book, "Collateral Damage," published this spring by Routledge.

The Army report's own list of sources for the 1999-2001 investigation shows its researchers reviewed the microfilm containing the Muccio letter. But the 300-page report did not mention it.

Asked about this, Pentagon spokeswoman Betsy Weiner would say only that the Army inspector general's report was "an accurate and objective portrayal of the available facts based on 13 months of work."

Said Louis Caldera, who was Army secretary in 2001 and is now University of New Mexico president, "Millions of pages of files were reviewed and it is certainly possible they may have simply missed it."

Ex-journalist Don Oberdorfer, a historian of Korea who served on a team of outside experts who reviewed the investigation, said he did not recall seeing the Muccio message. "I don't know why, since the military claimed to have combed all records from any source."

Muccio noted in his 1950 letter that U.S. commanders feared disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating American lines via refugee columns.

As a result, those meeting on the night of July 25, 1950 _ top staff officers of the U.S. 8th Army, Muccio's representative Harold J. Noble and South Korean officials _ decided on a policy of air-dropping leaflets telling South Korean civilians not to head south toward U.S. defense lines, and of shooting them if they did approach U.S. lines despite warning shots, the ambassador wrote to Rusk.

Rusk, Muccio and Noble, who was embassy first secretary, are all dead. It is not known what action, if any, Rusk and others in Washington may have taken as a result of the letter.

Muccio told Rusk, who later served as U.S. secretary of state during the Vietnam War, that he was writing him "in view of the possibility of repercussions in the United States" from such deadly U.S. tactics.

But the No Gun Ri killings _ as well as others in the ensuing months _ remained hidden from history until the AP report of 1999, in which ex-soldiers who were at No Gun Ri corroborated the Korean survivors' accounts.

Survivors said U.S. soldiers first forced them from nearby villages on July 25, 1950, and then stopped them in front of U.S. lines the next day, when they were attacked without warning by aircraft as hundreds sat atop a railroad embankment. Troops of the 7th Cavalry followed with ground fire as survivors took shelter under a railroad bridge.

The late Army Col. Robert M. Carroll, a lieutenant at No Gun Ri, said he remembered the order radioed across the warfront on the morning of July 26 to stop refugees from crossing battle lines. "What do you do when you're told nobody comes through?" he said in a 1998 interview. "We had to shoot them to hold them back."

Other soldier witnesses attested to radioed orders to open fire at No Gun Ri.

Since that episode was confirmed in 1999, South Koreans have lodged complaints with the Seoul government about more than 60 other alleged large-scale killings of refugees by the U.S. military in the 1950-53 war.

The Army report of 2001 acknowledged investigators learned of other, unspecified civilian killings, but said these would not be investigated.

Meanwhile, AP research uncovered at least 19 declassified U.S. military documents showing commanders ordered or authorized such killings in 1950-51.

In a statement issued Monday in Seoul, a No Gun Ri survivors group called that episode "a clear war crime," demanded an apology and compensation from the U.S. government, and said the U.S. Congress and the United Nations should conduct investigations. The survivors also said they would file a lawsuit against the Pentagon for alleged manipulation of the earlier probe.

The Army's denial that the killings were ordered is a "deception of No Gun Ri victims and of U.S. citizens who value human rights," said spokesman Chung Koo-do.

Even if infiltrators are present, soldiers need to take "due precautions" to protect civilian lives, said Francois Bugnion, director for international law for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, global authority on the laws of war.

After reviewing the 1950 letter, Bugnion said the standard on war crimes is clear.

"In the case of a deliberate attack directed against civilians identified as such, then this would amount to a violation of the law of armed conflict," he said.

Gary Solis, a West Point expert on war crimes, said the policy described by Muccio clearly "deviates from typical wartime procedures. It's an obvious violation of the bedrock core principle of the law of armed conflict _ distinction."

Solis said soldiers always have the right to defend themselves. But "noncombatants are not to be purposely targeted."

But William Eckhardt, lead Army prosecutor in the My Lai atrocities case in Vietnam, sensed "angst, great angst" in the letter because officials worried about what might happen. "If a mob doesn't stop when they're coming at you, you fire over their heads and if they still don't stop you fire at them. Standard procedure," he said.

In South Korea, Yi Mahn-yol, head of the National Institute of Korean History and a member of a government panel on No Gun Ri, said the Muccio letter sheds an entirely new light on a case that "so far has been presented as an accidental incident that didn't involve the command system."

___

AP Investigative Researcher Randy Herschaft in New York and AP Writer Jae-soon Chang in Seoul contributed to this report.

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/82.html
Letter to Senator Richard G. Lugar, re: Bolton Nomination

Senator Richard G. Lugar, ChairmanU.S. Senate Committee on Foreign RelationsDirksen BuildingWashington DC 20510-6225

April 11, 2005

Dear Senator Lugar:

Almost 60 years ago, I represented the United States as a Chief Prosecutor in one of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. We earned the respect and admiration of the world by upholding the principles, espoused by Justice Robert Jackson and General Telford Taylor, that crimes against humanity could not go unpunished and that law must applied equally to everyone I have never before raised objection to any political appointment but I cannot remain silent regarding your consideration of John Bolton to be our chief representative at the United Nations. I am deeply convinced that his confirmation would be seriously detrimental to the interests of our nation.

There is no doubt that Mr. Bolton is an intelligent and patriotic American who is entitled to have opinions that differ from my own. The views he has publicly expressed have been so far removed from the Nuremberg principles and the rule of law that they have astounded and alienated nations all over the world. I shall refer only to areas where I feel particularly qualified to comment.

I am a Harvard Law School graduate (1943), and former combat soldier who was awarded five battle stars in World War Two. I have devoted most of my life trying to help create a more peaceful and humane world. As an unpaid observer, I have spent much time at the UN working for the creation of the International Criminal Court to strengthen the rule of law. John Bolton, despite pretensions t the contrary, has been working to destroy the ICC in its cradle. The arguments made in opposition to the ICC are demonstrably false. The ICC poses no threat whatsoever to US military personnel. The details are spelled out in my books and articles shown on my website.

I will merely note that support for the ICC has come from the American Bar Association and many other respected legal associations, every former President of the American Society of International Law, a host of outstanding legal experts including former Ambassador Shabtai Rosenne (Va. J. Int.L. 164) who represented Israel with distinction at the United Nations for many years. The nearly 100 nations that have ratified the Statute for the Court, as well as those many small countries that have been badgered into signing agreements to immunize all US national from ever being sent to the ICC, view the Bolton-supported efforts with scorn and apprehension. His confirmation would be received as another slap in the face. Such actions make enemies of friends. Bolton's declarations that international law does not exist, that the US has a legal right to ignore its treaties and to launch preemptive strikes against presumed enemies, all repudiate what we stood for at Nuremberg. He has been a key spokesman for a point of view that is not shared by all Americans. His rejection by the Senate would be a reaffirmation that America has not lost the ideals which made it great.

Since I am now in my 86th year, may I presume to request that you circulate this letter among all of your colleagues for their consideration.

With best wishes to you all,

Ben

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/39.html

......<h3>Opponents of the new court frequently ignore the fact that the international criminal court will be completely subordinate to national courts.</h3> It is only where the national courts are unable or unwilling to grant a fair trial to the accused that the international court can intervene. Almost all war crimes by UN nationals can be tried by UN courts, thereby preempting the international court.

A <a href="http://www.amacad.org/publications/icc8.aspx">recent article</a> by a highly respected military judge, Professor Robinson Everett of Duke University, suggests a more comprehensive way of ensuring absolute priority to American courts by enacting UN legislation assuring that UN courts will have jurisdiction to try any American accused of violating the law of nations as laid down in the Statute for the International Criminal Court. This would guarantee American defendants all their Constitutional rights in every possible case and, if the trial were fair, would completely exclude any prosecution by the international court. It is hoped that the UN negotiators will not insist upon the right of the United States to conduct sham trials in order to evade international justice. The ultimate decision about the adequacy of national trials rests with the international court but there are adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.........

Benjamin B. Ferencz

15 June 2000

A Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor

mojo, you had a lot to say, in your last post. I've delivered plenty of support for my argument, much of it from the premier living expert on the US prosecution of WWII war crimes. My question to you, is, how many more times do you think it is appropriate for the people of the US to be required to wait 50 or more years, for actual examination and disclosure of war crimes committed by US nationals? How many more "No Gun Ri"incidents must we hide, in order to maintain the hypocrisy of "justice" administered by the US, and the other allies, at Nuremberg?

Don't you realize, or care, that your beliefs support Goering's assessment, and dismissal, of his death sentence for war crimes, as "Victors' justice"? Bush and Bolton, by their statements and actions, obviously don't give a shit, but I believe that the US has abandoned a 56 years long, official course that clearly seperated the principles of the victorious WWII allies from those of the leaders of WWII Japan, and Germany, and that belief evinces outrage and despair, from me, and hopefully from others here, as well!