Elphaba

Below is an article that I believe lays out a cogent argument that Bush and Rumsfeld are guilty of war crimes. It is a long read, but I hope you will take the time to evaluate the information for yourself and share your thoughts on it.

What I found appalling is the acknowledgment that little or nothing can be done about it if the claims are true.

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052805X.shtml


Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive

July 2005 Issue

When Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, he was asked whether he "ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise, and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison." Sanchez, who was head of the Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force-7 in Iraq, swore the answer was no. Under oath, he told the Senators he "never approved any of those measures to be used."

But a document the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) obtained from the Pentagon flat out contradicts Sanchez’s testimony. It’s a memorandum entitled "CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy," dated September 14, 2003. In it, Sanchez approved several methods designed for "significantly increasing the fear level in a detainee." These included "sleep management"; "yelling, loud music, and light control: used to create fear, disorient detainee, and prolong capture shock"; and "presence of military working dogs: exploits Arab fear of dogs."

On March 30, the ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging him "to open an investigation into whether General Ricardo A. Sanchez committed perjury in his sworn testimony."

The problem is, Gonzales may himself have committed perjury in his Congressional testimony this January. According to a March 6 article in The New York Times, Gonzales submitted written testimony that said: "The policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States." He added that he was "not aware of anyone in the executive branch authorizing any transfer of a detainee in violation of that policy."

"That’s a clear, absolute lie," says Michael Ratner, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is suing Administration officials for their involvement in the torture scandal. "The Administration has a policy of sending people to countries where there is a likelihood that they will be tortured."

The New York Times article backs up Ratner’s claim. It says "a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the September 11 attacks" gave the CIA broad authority to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International estimate that the United States has transferred between 100 and 150 detainees to countries notorious for torture.

So Gonzales may not be the best person to evaluate the allegation of perjury against Sanchez.

But going after Sanchez or Gonzales for perjury is the least of it. Sanchez may be personally culpable for war crimes and torture, according to Human Rights Watch. And Gonzales himself was one of the legal architects of the torture policies. As such, he may have been involved in "a conspiracy to immunize U.S. agents from criminal liability for torture and war crimes under U.S. law," according to Amnesty International’s recent report: "Guantánamo and Beyond: The Continuing Pursuit of Unchecked Executive Power."

As White House Counsel, Gonzales advised President Bush to not apply Geneva Convention protections to detainees captured in Afghanistan, in part because this "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote in his January 25, 2002, memo to the President.

Gonzales’s press office refused to provide comment after several requests from The Progressive. In his Senate confirmation testimony, Gonzales said, "I want to make very clear that I am deeply committed to the rule of law. I have a deep and abiding commitment to the fundamental American principle that we are a nation of laws, and not of men."

Pentagon spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel John Skinner says the ACLU’s suggestion that Sanchez committed perjury is "absolutely ridiculous." In addition, Skinner pointed to a recent Army inspector general report that looked into Sanchez’s role. "Every senior-officer allegation was formally investigated," the Army said in a May 5 summary. Sanchez was investigated, it said, for "dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogation operations" and for "improperly communicating interrogation policies." The inspector general "found each of the allegations unsubstantiated."

The Bush Administration’s legal troubles don’t end with Sanchez or Gonzales. They go right to the top: to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush himself. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International USA say there is "prima facie" evidence against Rumsfeld for war crimes and torture. And Amnesty International USA says there is also "prima facie" evidence against Bush for war crimes and torture. (According to Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, "prima facie evidence" is "evidence sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of fact unless rebutted.")

Amnesty International USA has even taken the extraordinary step of calling on officials in other countries to apprehend Bush and Rumsfeld and other high-ranking members of the Administration who have played a part in the torture scandal.

Foreign governments should "uphold their obligations under international law by investigating U.S. officials implicated in the development or implementation of interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment," the group said in a May 25 statement. William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, added, "If the United States permits the architects of torture policy to get off scot-free, then other nations will be compelled" to take action.

The Geneva Conventions and the torture treaty "place a legally binding obligation on states that have ratified them to exercise universal jurisdiction over persons accused of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions," Amnesty International USA said. "If anyone suspected of involvement in the U.S. torture scandal visits or transits through foreign territories, governments could take legal steps to ensure that such individuals are investigated and charged with applicable crimes."

When these two leading human rights organizations make such bold claims about the President and the Secretary of Defense, we need to take the question of executive criminality seriously.

And we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability? Who has the authority to ascertain whether these high officials committed war crimes and torture, and if they did, to bring them to justice?

The independent counsel law is no longer on the books, so that can’t be relied on. Attorney General Gonzales is not about to investigate himself, Rumsfeld, or his boss. And Republicans who control Congress have shown no interest in pursuing the torture scandal, much less drawing up bills of impeachment.

Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and Human Rights First (formerly known as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) have joined in a call for a special prosecutor. But that decision is up to Gonzales and ultimately Bush.

"It’s a complete joke" to expect Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor, concedes Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

John Sifton, Afghanistan specialist and military affairs researcher for Human Rights Watch, is not so sure. "Do I think this would happen right now? No," he says. "But in the middle of the Watergate scandal, very few people thought the President would resign." If more information comes out, and if the American public demands an investigation, and if there is a change in the control of the Senate, Sifton believes Gonzales may end up with little choice.

Human Rights Watch and other groups are also calling for Congress to appoint an independent commission, similar to the 9/11 one, to investigate the torture scandal.

"Unless a special counsel or an independent commission are named, and those who designed or authorized the illegal policies are held to account, all the protestations of ‘disgust’ at the Abu Ghraib photos by President George W. Bush and others will be meaningless," concludes Human Rights Watch’s April report "Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees."

But even as it denounces the "substantial impunity that has prevailed until now," Human Rights Watch is not sanguine about the likelihood of such inquiries. "There are obviously steep political obstacles in the way of investigating a sitting Defense Secretary," it notes in its report.

By not pursuing senior officials who may have been involved in ordering war crimes or torture, the United States may be further violating international law, according to Human Rights Watch. "Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction," says the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Geneva Conventions have a similar requirement.

Stymied by the obstacles along the customary routes of accountability, the ACLU and Human Rights First are suing Rumsfeld in civil court on behalf of plaintiffs who have been victims of torture. The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing on behalf of a separate group of clients. The center also filed a criminal complaint in Germany against Rumsfeld and Gonzales, along with nine others. The center argued that Germany was "a court of last resort," since "the U.S. government is not willing to open an investigation into these allegations against these officials." The case was dismissed.

Amnesty International’s call for foreign countries to nab Rumsfeld and Bush also seems unlikely to be heeded any time soon. How, physically, could another country arrest Bush, for instance? And which country would want to face the wrath of Washington for doing so?

But that we have come this far—where the only option for justice available seems to be to rely on officials of other governments to apprehend our own—is a damning indictment in and of itself.

The case against Rumsfeld may be the most substantial of all. While "expressing no opinion about the ultimate guilt or innocence" of Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch is urging his prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Anti-Torture Act of 1996. Under these statutes, a "war crime" is any "grave breach" of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," as well as torture and murder. A "grave breach," according to U.S. law, includes "willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment of prisoners of war and of other ‘protected persons,’ " Human Rights Watch explains in "Getting Away with Torture?"

Rumsfeld faces jeopardy for being head of the Defense Department when those directly under him committed grave offenses. And he may be liable for actions he himself undertook.

"Secretary Rumsfeld may bear legal liability for war crimes and torture by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo under the doctrine of ‘command responsibility’—the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed but fails to take reasonable measures to stop them," Human Rights Watch says in its report.

But Rumsfeld’s potential liability may be more direct than simply being the guy in charge who didn’t stop the torture and mistreatment once he learned about it.

First of all, when the initial reports of prisoner mistreatment came in, he mocked the concerns of human rights groups as "isolated pockets of international hyperventilation." He also asserted that "unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention," even though, as Human Rights Watch argues, "the Geneva Conventions provide explicit protections to all persons captured in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status."

Secondly, he himself issued a list of permissible interrogation techniques in a December 2, 2002, directive that likely violated the Geneva Conventions, according to Human Rights Watch. Among those techniques: "The use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours." On the directive, Rumsfeld, incidentally, added in his own handwriting next to this technique: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" He also included the following techniques: "removal of all comfort items (including religious items)," "deprivation of light and auditory stimuli," "isolation up to 30 days," and "using detainees’ individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress."

On January 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded this directive after the Navy registered its adamant objections. If, during the six weeks that Rumsfeld’s techniques were official Pentagon policy at Guantánamo, soldiers mistreated or tortured prisoners using his approved techniques, then "Rumsfeld could potentially bear direct criminal responsibility, as opposed to command responsibility," says Human Rights Watch.

Rumsfeld may also bear direct responsibility for the torture or abuse of two other prisoners, says Human Rights Watch, citing the Church Report. (This report, one of Rumsfeld’s many internal investigations, was conducted by the Navy Inspector General Vice Admiral Albert Church.) "The Secretary of Defense approved specific interrogation plans for two ‘high-value detainees’ " at Guantánamo, the Church Report noted. Those plans, it added, "employed several of the counter resistance techniques found in the December 2, 2002, [policy]. . . . These interrogations were sufficiently aggressive that they highlighted the difficult question of precisely defining the boundaries of humane treatment of detainees."

And Rumsfeld may be in legal trouble for hiding detainees from the Red Cross. "Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross," Human Rights Watch notes. This prisoner, according to The New York Times, was kept off the books for at least seven months.

The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant access to the Red Cross to all detainees, wherever they are being held. As Human Rights Watch explains, "Visits may only be prohibited for‘reasons of imperative military necessity’ and then only as‘an exceptional and temporary measure.’"

The last potential legal problem for Rumsfeld is his alleged involvement in creating a "secret access program," or SAP. According to reporter Seymour Hersh, Rumsfeld "authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate ‘high value’ targets in the war on terror." Human Rights Watch says that "if Secretary Rumsfeld did, in fact, approve such a program, he would bear direct liability, as opposed to command responsibility, for war crimes and torture committed by the SAP."

The Pentagon vehemently denies the allegation that Rumsfeld may have committed war crimes. "It’s absurd," says Pentagon spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Skinner. "The facts speak for themselves. We have aggressively investigated all allegations of detainee mistreatment. We have had ten major investigations on everything from A to Z. We’ve also had more than 350 criminal investigations looking into detainee abuse. More than 103 individuals have been held accountable for actions related to detainee mistreatment. Our policy has always been, and will always remain, the humane treatment of detainees."

What about Bush? If Donald Rumsfeld can be charged for war crimes because of his command responsibility and his personal involvement in giving orders, why can’t the commander in chief? Hina Shansi, senior counsel at Human Rights First, believes the case against Bush is much more difficult to document. And Sifton of Human Rights Watch says that since Bush is known as "a major delegator," it may be hard to pin down "what he’s briefed on and what role he plays in the decision-making process."

Amnesty International USA, however, believes that Bush, by his own involvement in formulating policy on torture, may have committed war crimes. "It’s the memos, the meetings, the public statements," says Alistair Hodgett, media director of Amnesty International USA.

There is "prima facie evidence that senior members of the U.S. Administration, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, have authorized human rights violations, including ‘disappearances and torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,’ " Amnesty states in "Guantánamo and Beyond."

The first solid piece of evidence against Bush is his September 17, 2001, "Memorandum of Notification" that unleashed the CIA. According to Bob Woodward’s book Bush at War, that memo "authorized the CIA to operate freely and fully in Afghanistan with its own paramilitary teams" and to go after Al Qaeda "on a worldwide scale, using lethal covert action to keep the role of the United States hidden."

Two days before at Camp David, then-CIA Director George Tenet had outlined some of the additional powers he wanted, Woodward writes. These included the power to " ‘buy’ key intelligence services. . . . Several intelligence services were listed: Egypt, Jordan, Algeria. Acting as surrogates for the United States, these services could triple or quadruple the CIA’s resources." According to Woodward, Tenet was upfront with Bush about the risks entailed: "It would put the United States in league with questionable intelligence services, some of them with dreadful human rights records. Some had reputations for ruthlessness and using torture to obtain confessions. Tenet acknowledged that these were not people you were likely to be sitting next to in church on Sunday. Look, I don’t control these guys all the time, he said. Bush said he understood the risks."

That this was Administration policy is clear from comments Vice President Dick Cheney made on Meet the Press the very next day.

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will," Cheney told Tim Russert. "We’ve got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

If, as The New York Times reported, Bush authorized the transfer of detainees to countries where torture is routine, he appears to be in grave breach of international law.

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture explicitly prohibits this: "No State Party shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions is also clear: "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

On February 7, 2002, Bush issued another self-incriminating memorandum. This one was to the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the CIA, the National Security Adviser, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was entitled "Humane Treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees." In it, Bush asserted that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world." He also declared, "I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan," though he declined to do so. And he said that "common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban."

This memo "set the stage for the tragic abuse of detainees," says William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Bush failed to recognize that the Geneva Conventions provide universal protections. "The Conventions and customary law still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an armed conflict," Human Rights Watch says in its report, citing the "fundamental guarantees" in Article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. That article prohibits "torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental," "corporal punishment," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

In the February 7, 2002, memo, Bush tried to give himself cover by stating that "our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not entitled to such treatment." He added that the United States, "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," would abide by the principles of the Geneva Conventions.

But this only made matters worse. His assertion that there are some detainees who are not entitled to be treated humanely is an affront to international law, as is his claim that the Geneva Conventions can be made subordinate to military necessity.

The Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture all prohibit the torture and abuse that the United States has been inflicting on detainees. Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties "the supreme law of the land," and the President swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

As more information comes out, the case against Bush could get even stronger, says Sifton of Human Rights Watch. If, for instance, Bush said at Camp David on September 15, 2001, or at another meeting, "Take the gloves off," or something to that effect, he would be even more implicated. "Obviously, if he did make such an explicit order, his complicity would be shown," says Sifton. Somehow, that message was conveyed down the line. "There was a before-9/11 and an after-9/11," Cofer Black, who was director of the CIA's counterterrorist unit, told Congress in 2002. "After 9/11, the gloves came off."

The White House press office refused to return five phone calls from The Progressive seeking comment about the allegations against Bush. At his daily press briefing on May 25, the President’s Press Secretary Scott McClellan was not asked specifically about Bush’s culpability but about Amnesty International’s general charge that the United States is a chief offender of human rights.

"The allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts," McClellan said. "The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity. We have liberated fifty million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . We’re also leading the way when it comes to spreading compassion."

Amnesty International USA does not intend to back off. "Our call is for the United States to step up to its responsibilities and investigate these matters first," Executive Director Schulz says. "And if that doesn’t happen, then indeed, we are calling upon foreign governments to take on their responsibility and to investigate the apparent architects of torture."

Inquiries to the embassies of Belgium, Chile, France, Germany, South Africa, and Venezuela, as well as to the government of Canada, while met with some amusement, did not reveal any inclination to heed Amnesty’s call.

Schulz is not deterred. Acknowledging that the possibility of a foreign government seizing Rumsfeld or Bush might not be "an immediate reality," Schulz takes the long view: "Let’s keep in mind, there are no statutes of limitations here."



Matthew Rothschild is Editor of The Progressive.

host

When I have raised these issues, the response from Bush regime supporters is:

1.) We can do anything we want, the U.S. makes the rules. No international court is recognized to have jurisdiction over illegal acts of American officials.

2.) Charges of war crimes are only prosecuted on the losers by the winners.The only determination of commission of war crimes is made by the winning side. The only difference between war criminals and righteous warriors is losers vs. winners.

3.) The offenses that were categorized by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg as war crimes have been revised or re-categorized over time, and are not relevant or comparable to today's events.

4.) you are always bashing Bush, get a life, the article that you posted is too long, why don't you post your own opinion; anyone can do google searches and cut and paste.....the sources you use are from sites that are leftie/not credible, the author of the article you quote is a leftie, so his opinions aren't valid. Amnesty International is out to get the U.S. administration, look at all the good that the U.S. has doone in the world, and you have to expect that freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people will take time and be messy, but the Iraqis are of course, better off.....

Have I missed any?

Elphaba

Ok....so what did you think of the article, Host.

Locobot

It's true, the America I grew up believing in is disappearing rapidly. I get the feeling that Koran defacement is only the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in our West Indies Dachau. It's amazing that in our current media environment that everything is scandalized except our government, quite a change from the previous administration.

dlish

if nazi officials can be charged with war crimes nearly 60 years later, i wonder what would happen if the USA ceased to be the dominating superpower... i dare say that a lot in the current adminstration would have a lot to answer for.

its not about koran desecrations..its about renditions of 'ghost prisoners' to other nations that have poor human rights records. who basically do USA's dirty work. so basically the USA is sub-contracting out torture.

from a logocal point of view...im a builder, who happens to use sub contractors (ie plumbers, brickies, electricians etc)..now say i wanted to build something illegal which wasnt sanctioned by the council, but i got the subcontractor to do it, would i not be liable to face the cause of my actions? my ass would be wooped and so would the subcontractors...

its not different in this case. torture through redition is illegal. i just hope that the rest of the world wakes up and makes its voice heard.

host i wouldnt consider you a leftist for the same reasons i dont consider myself a leftist. all we ask for is justice.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

matthew330

ahh what a lovely thread. I'll take the time to read and consider something from "the progressive", as soon as you take the time to read and consider something from Rush Limbuagh. When you can refer to someone who supports the current administration as something other than a "regime supporter", perhaps you'll be heard. But you seem content with your circle jerks here on the TFP. All you ask for is justice, all i ask is you quit acting like whining crybabies. All you ask is justice, all i ask is you give up on your pathetic attempts at playing the martyr.

Elphaba

I'm not a martyr, and I am not whining. Please read the article before judging it. Why bother to post, if you won't bother to read it? I was hoping for an informed discussion.

matthew330

HOnestly, because it's not worth my time. Your first sentence was "check out this long article of why i think bush is guilty of war crimes". Since Dec of 1999 Bush has been guilty of something that he should be in jail for. You've cried wolf way too many times. I don't take a word of what the left says seriously. It's clear to me you cannot look at anything objectively. Without reading one word of the article i can say with confidence whatever it was about will fall into TFP never never land after a few have masterbated over the content.

Your objectives are clear, and tired, and not worth any thought. A clear example is hosts recent post about the HIV trial. One which he used to compare american gov research to Nazi research. It didn't require much though to respond to this because that's what i do for a living. Host was out of there pretty quick - and moved onto his next pathetic article. But everyone bought his comparison, until it was challenged - and then he just moved on to the next. None of these articles deserve any time.

You've obviously read it, if you want to convince me to read it it's gonna take more than "this is why i think bush is a war criminal", and if you can't do that -seriously, how am i supposed to think that your motivation for posting isn't an "informed discussion" but a "progressively truth-out" informed circle-jerk. In which case i say - have fun.

Elphaba

Matthew, I said nothing of the kind and you know it. If you have no interest in reading the article, go look at titties or something. Why continue wasting your time and mine?

matthew330

o k

host

Elphaba, I think that the article gives high ranking executive branch and pentagon and intelligence agency officials something to think about. They will not hold office for more than a few years, and they may at least see their ability to travel outside of the U.S. limited if they want to avoid arrest. Alberto Gonzales refuted the torture memo that he initiated and approved, after it provided legal cover for 22 months of officially sanctioned torture and abuse, so that he could claim his promotion via senate judiciary committee approval. These men and woman were promoted for commiting criminal and treasonous acts on the direction of the man who later pinned on their medals.
International law regarding initiating aggressive war, and treaties such as the Geneva protocols have been replaced with the new precedent that command of superior military power prevents accountability for war crimes.

tecoyah

It is unfortunate to be put in a position that will inevitably be percieved as leaning one way or another....as I try to avoid this. But I need to say this before this entire board:

Read the above thread....the whole thing, and consider what derailed the discussion.

We have commited ourselves to fixing this part of TFP, and in the future that may mean removing issues that arise. We have had to do so in the past, and its never fun. I request that if you have no intention (or capability) of "Adding" to a thread constructively.....simply hit back.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

MoonDog

Nah - I think you hit them all! I must have missed the thread that dealt with #3 in your list, however.

Also, I should point out that - for myself, at least - the sources you use are not "invalid"...they merely originate from sources that I question. That means that I have to seek out additional sources of information on the same issue, read them, and try to arrive at my own conclusions. I don't damn anyone for taking a source from Fox News to task - I don't even watch Fox News because I think they are too far in the conservative camp! Just don't damn us when we take your sources to task.

As for your posts being "too long", information overload is a very real part of our lives. That some people find the articles you post too long for what they wish to devote to it - its a valid argument from their point of view.

However, the real purpose of this post was to demonstrate how guilty the administration is regrading war crimes. Hasn't this point been drivin into the dirt yet? There are options: special committees, independent investigators, lawsuits...hell, didn't the article state that a lawsuit that Amnesty or the other group started in Germany got thrown out?

Bottom line - people who think that the administration needs to be investigated for crimes know what channels are necessary to make it happen. If they can, they will pursue the issue through those channels. I support them doing that.

While I understand that posting articles supporting that goal here in this forum serves the purpose of keeping the issues in everyones thoughts, we must realize that no one here probably has the wherewithal to make such a set of trials and investigations happen.

I would hope, however, that you are sending a steady stream of letters and backup material to your Senators and Representatives? THAT'S where I would expect things to happen/change - either with them or the people that you elect to replace them (if you can manage to make that happen).

Ustwo

I wonder if Republicans wanted to bring FDR up for warcrimes charges for the treatment of German prisoners and the internment of the west coast Japanese.

You do know we tortured German prisoners right?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

MoonDog, one of the major points of the article is that it is extremely unlikely that any investigation within the US will occur. Attorney General Gonzales is not going to initiate one against his boss and where it appears he is culpable as well. The majority party will certainly not turn on one of their own.

Nixon was finally undone because the press would not be stopped and people finally began to listen. The above article comes to the same conclusion. Do I personally believe that the American people will rise up and demand an explanation? No, the country is not war-weary enough for that to happen.

Do I believe that Bush is a "war criminal?" Heavens no, the term is far to perjorative for
me. Do I believe that Bush has been a knowing party to a "war crime?" In the article above, the paper trail is leading me in that direction. What I hope to find now is a "legal" opinion (not personal belief) that disputes that a war crime has been committed at senior levels within our government.

Elphaba

I'm curious as to why you think this adds something to the current topic? It certainly looks like simple sarcasm to me.

Ustwo

I can't add much to the current topic since the source material is suspect, tainted, biased, and unworthy of response.

As such I just have to wonder if anyone really cares if some terrorist is tortured in some dark hole, but instead are just looking to add more 'Bush admin is evil' rhetoric.

I could start posting NewsMax articles if the main article is to be considered valid source material. Its on the internet too. When you base your main post off such material what kind of discussion do you expect?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Have you read the article? What is your opinion of the paper trail? If you have no intent to add to the discussion in a thoughtful way, why do you post at all?

Ustwo

Yes, and there is no evidence of anything done directly by the US. It’s a giant much to do about nothing.

Since Sept 11, the news media has openly talked about terrorists being questioned in countries like Turkey or Egypt with the implication that those governments may use torture since their laws are different than ours. So Rummy is guilty of a war crime for having Egyptian authorities interrogate a prisoner?

I then ask myself if I have a problem with this.....

Nope.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevo

FYI the geneva convention does not cover terrorists or any enemy that fights without a uniform, blows up civillians discriminately. The whole point of the GC is to maintain set standards in war to protect people, both civillians and soldiers.

Why do I never see an article talking about how the insurgents are guilty of war crimes? What do you think the press would say if it was a US soldier driving a truck full of explosives into a crowd of civillians? Probably the same thing they say now. Do you see nothing wrong with that????? When we catch those terrorist SOBs we do what we have to to get all the information we can out of them so that we can try and prevent more attacks. These insurgents are not soldiers, they do not belong to a country or army, and are entiteled to ZERO rights under the geneva convention.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

dlish

no the government is guilty of sub contracting out torture. lets rememebr that some of these 'worst of the worst' and 'known criminals' have been released without charge, yet some are yet to see their day in court. so we cant assume that they all are terrorists.

what you should ask yourself is...if a US soldier was captured, would this not give terrorists or terrorist states (axis of evil or otherwise) an excuse to excercise torture on that same basis by canning International Law and Geneva Conventions and rendering US soldiers between each other?... so yes i do think that you sould have a problem with it

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Ustwo

As compared to beheading?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevo

exactly.

take a look at what the terrorists do to captured troops and civillians alike. I still don't hear you condemning them.

If the US was to behead captured insurgents and broadcast it worldwide what would we hear? The same damn thing they say now. human rights blah blah blah. The terrorists don't know how good they got it.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

Well at least they would have a case against us then instead of hearsay and innuendo.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dlish

of course i condemn them in the highest degree. there is no justification for beheadings..they are as much war criminals as those in who start such wars. but it doesnt give us a reason to stoop down to their level. thats the difference between allied troops and terrorists..we try to abide my international law.

but its still no excuse for torture and willful neglect of internation laws and treaties.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Ustwo

So its no longer an excuse for them to be 'as bad as us' but now we shouldn't stoop to their level?

Is there an international law against handing non-uniformed terrorist fighters over to the Egyptian government?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dlish

like i said..some of these people who have been rendered have been released. one example would be mamdouh habib from australia.

as for an international law concerning torture..yes its called the geneva conventions... just because u subcontract the torture, doesnt stop you from being implicated in the torture itself. like i said previously, its like a head contractor/sub contractor relationship. both would be liable, espcially is the US is aware of claims of torture, which they definately are.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

host

I sometimes yearn to live in a simpler world, where only "terrorists" threaten and then follow through by actually beheading their victims. I don't believe that such a world exists, and so I deliberate too much and search too long, and end up knowing less than I think that I do.

"Only Siths deal in absolutes", Ustwo, but here, there is a "gray" area:

powerclown

Sorry about that tecoyah-san.
It's true, though; I have been saving my best thinking for Tilted Philosophy....

Locobot

Those of us who knew that our government was lying to us about its motivations behind invading Iraq long before that war even started tend to hold out hope that there was some glimmer of altruism in our actions. At least I did. S. Hussein was nasty dictator who deserved to be deposed for his use of chemical weapons and a legal system light on justice, heavy on torture.

If we truly intend on replacing Hussein with another regieme which makes torture and rape a regular part of the legal system then we are guilty of crimes against humanity. If we hope to hold any type of moral high ground over Hussein (something actually required if we intend to put him on trial) then we need to investigate these incidents and prosecute those responsible. It turns out that some of our highest officials gave consent in some of these cases, they are therefore complicit.

We Americans like to look down our noses with condescension at at Saddam's "rape rooms" but rape and torture has been an unofficial part of our legal system for decades. It makes us smile to think of child molesters and rapists being beaten and raped in American prisons, as they universally are. American prisons often dole out de facto death sentences through calculated negligence of the guards. Jeffery Dahmer and Father John Geoghan may have deserved what happened to them, who's to say. Unfortunately every non-violent and inconsequential criminal in our prisons receives virtually the same treatment.

We know this as Americans and condone it through our elections. "Fair treatment of criminals" will not get you elected. In fact it is a good way to lose an election in the U.S.

We also know that those directly responsible for abuses at Abu Ghraib worked in their civilian life as prison guards...

Willravel

Both were wrong. Don't you think people should be heald responsible for their actions? Or perhapse they get to do what they please so long as their is a war going?
For something you yourself deemed "unworthy of response", this sure does get a lot of responses from you. I count 6 responses so far.
And how was the prisoner interrogated? It's not as simple as sitting the guy down in front of a dounut and keeping him from his milk. This is real life. American and American sanctioned interrogation often includes things like torture, which is wrong (and also is unreliable for getting information).
Are you suggesting the US resort to terrorism?

Mantus

Ustwo,

Why do you continue to post such replies. Everything you write reaks of sarcasm and attempted belitteling of the posters you respond too. I know everyone does this now and then, but EVERY single one of your posts is like this...

Anyhoo. In order of your responces.

- Tourture of German and Japanese prisoners, or the detainment of Japanese living in America within camps or any of the other crime the US comited during WWII does not justify any future crimes by any other administration at any other time. Nor do current crimes excuse sins of the past.

- The material is obviously biased. How else would one write an article with an aim of condeming an individual or a group with crimes? Yet it being biased doesn't necisarilly mean it's suspect nor tainted.

- Obviously the above article could be false. Yet this is not the first such case made against the curent administration. IF this matterial holds any truth it's certainly not a good thing. Thus it's worth discusing.

- Rummy sent the prisoners there. Dlishsguy made a perfect analogy earlier.

- So if they behead, we are alowed to sink to their level?

- Guantanimo Bay, prison tourture in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending terrorist subjects to countries that are more liberal with their use of interigation techniques are not hearsay and innuendo. The article is about finding acountability.

- You need a law to tell you tourturing people is wrong?

This should be an issue of great concern to everyone. The fact is that we must uphold a standard on human rights. The war on terrorism isn't won by capturing avery single terrorist becasue that can't happen. Terrorism will only be stoped if we cease to be a valid target. The only way to do that is to stop perpetuating the hate for this country around the world. We commited crimes, for us it's not a big deal because we arnt the victims. We think we can sweap them under the rug and forget about it, and we will. Others may have longer momories, especially if their homes and children ended up as colateral damage during our attempts to bring them "freedom". Not holding anyone acountable for these actions is the equivalent of handing out Al Quida inlistment pamphlets. So it's not just about morality. Oposing these actions is logicaly beneficial to the US.

I am not saying, burn Bush and Co. at the stake. I realize the situation they are in. I realize drastic actions have to be taken. But they CAN go too far and we can't just keep counting these crimes an "necessary". It is discusion like this one that allows us to decide on that issue.

Elphaba

Well said, Mantus. The publisher of the article may come from a particular position but it is careful to use quotes as to who is claiming what. Hence my interest in the documents that were referred to.

I would also like to agree with you that I am hard pressed to find any comments by Ustwo that are not sarcastic, inflammatory, or irrelevant to the topic. Ustwo, it is my sincere hope that you will abide by the rules of this forum as laid out by Hal and the mods, or move on to other forums. I continue to believe that it is possible to have a political dialogue that doesn't devolve in the manner you have chosen. I know that you are intelligent enough to raise the level of your discourse in accordance with the rules set for us all. Please, do. I would be grateful.

host

On his blog, John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, not only feels Cheney's pain, but reminds Cheney of Conyer's "open invitation from me to come before the Members of Congress to testify about what he knows."
It is very difficult for me to take anything that Cheney or Bush say, seriously.

alansmithee

But if your bias gets in the way of truth, it definately taints your efforts. As the above article demonstrates.

But part of the discussion should be about the validity of the claims. It seems many people here don't want that, they just want to discuss the various ways that people in the Bush administration are war criminals. They don't even accept the possiblility that they aren't war criminals.

That's the point, we aren't sinking to their level. I'm sure the numerous people whos beheading videos appeared on the internet would've gladly switched places with any of these phantom torture victims.

It's about finding accountability for wrongs that haven't even been proven yet. This article starts with a presumption of guilt, then works from there.


I don't even know where to begin here. Not only are you instantly condemning an entire country based on some actions which have yet to be proven, but you then go on to say that we should essentially need to bend over to the terrorists so they won't dislike us. You seem to believe that Al Queda and terrorism sprang up as a reaction to some allegations of wrongdoing in Iraq.

And personally, it disgusts me that people give credence to an article like the one in the OP, yet ignore when people are killed. What they are essentially doing is making it a two-front war: you have the terrorists in the field and the terrorist enablers at home. Al Queda couldn't pay for press like this.

host

alansmithee, are you accusing me, because of the content of my posts, of aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States, i.e., committing treason by questioning the acts of members of the federal executive branch who conduct themselves in an unprecedentedly secretive manner, as if they are unaccountable to the elected representatives of the people, and above the law? The president's press secretary said this:

alansmithee

For one, I wouldn't be accusing you any more I would accuse a printing press or paperboy. You don't have anything but links, with at most one line of original content that may or may not have to do with the topic at hand.

And who's opinion is it that this administration is "unprecedenedly" secretive? I see no proof of this. During wartime, many previous administrations have opperated in greater levels of "secrecy". Just because there isn't a live webfeed into the White House and Pentagon at all times doesn't equate to "unprecedented secrecy". And the executive branch isn't accountable to Congress, it's a separate entity.

And these people aren't "questioning", they are rabble-rousing. They are actively trying to hurt the administration, and they have no consideration for who they take out in the process. It goes back to the hatred liberals have for Bush, they lose all reason in their blind persecution of him and anything/anyone attached to him. They figure if they can't get him out in an election, they will try to harm the country to damage how people see him. They advocate for terrorists, murderers, and thugs rather than give any ground. And I think much of what they do is treasonous.

Mantus

alansmithee,

- Lets not go in circles. An article being biased doesn't make it full of false facts.

- Oh how I agree with you. Yet so far the people who are supposed to be pointing out the holes in it did nothing but use the "bias" argument or simply made inane comments.

- Guantanimo Bay needs investigation, the prison tourtures in Iraq and Afghanistan are well documented, the transfer of prisoners to other countries where tourture is used for interigation is well documented.

- Have you seen the photos from the Iraqi prison?

- The top members of the administration may not be responcible, that is true, this certainly isn't an open and shut case. There is a possibility though. What do we do about it? I would like to see an independant inquiry into this.

- alan I would apresiate that you stick to the topic and refrain from making up fase acustaions and slander against me. I am not codeming the US. I am stating that other will. People tend to generalize. I am talking about simple PR. I certainly didn't make a claim that terrorism began after the invasion of Iraq.

It's always a multi front war. The US has an image problem and it's rather serious. You can't just allow the people to use a war as an excuse to do anything they want. People need to be held accountable. If they are not held accountable our justice system and our image is tarnished. This is a serioius issue.

roachboy

first, i have no general disagreement with the article that began the post beyond thinking as i was reading it that the argument should have been clearer as an argument--that a large amount of evidence exists that *would* justify charging folk in this administration with various crimes, *were there* an agreed-upon institutional framework within which such prosecution could take place.

even if there were such a framework, these folk would be innocent until proven guilty--no need to reproduce the "logic" of the lovely double-tiered "legal" system particular to bushworld vis-a-vis those deemed potential "enemies of the states" in arguments against that world---it makes no sense to on the one hand criticize the administration--rightly to my mind--for its evacuation of legal due process on the one hand and then do the same in the critique.



on the other hand, it is interesting that once again you find here an entire catalogue of conservative avoidance mechanisms at work. the pointless relativizing move--a tactic worked out intially with reference to clinton (bush did x but clinton did 5, so...); the ubiquitous accusation of "bush bashing"--a term that really does end discussion with conservatives---when it comes up, the effect is simply "i am not listening"---which i find interesting as a response, viewed from a remove: there is no need to think out the implications of critical/damning information in rightworld--you can simply dismiss it. very curious phenomenon for a democratic polity to be infected with--it is wholly antithetical to informed debate.

as for chargnes of treason--they seem little more than a particular hysterical loop that runs round and round within the bigger conservative strategies for dismissing dissonant information.


postshower edit:

the opposition to bush and the broader political movement for which he stands looses everything when it concedes ground to conservative-style discourse--what is required is no simple change of figurehead within the same ideological context, but a different ideological context and different people operating within it as well--

opposition to bush et al has to operate in a different, better register, with more information, more nuanced interpretations etc. in that way, operations like what you see above with reference to the conservacliche "bush-bashing" are exposed for what they are--tropes for reducing cognitive dissonance, faclie, content-free modes of dismissing information they do not like. folk who grow dissasatisfied with the self-limited, self-limiting intellectual and political worlds available to them through right ideology should be able to see that what is a stake in their ideological choice is more than support for a particular president, but an entire mode of thinking, of processing the world.

another way of saying the same thing: the worst possible outcome of political conflict across the borders that seperate rightwing world from that inhabited by other people is for the outside to come to resemble too much the inside.

what i have figured out across being in places like this one is that, no matter how gratifying it might be, direct frontal attack on conservatives may not in fact be the best way to dissuade them of their politics (or convince them of bankrupt character of their politics--either way)--it is better, i think, to simply refuse their frame of reference, build alternative readings of the world and continue to do it, demonstrating over and over the obvious limitations of the conservative modes of processing information. the way to defeat conservative ideology is not on its own grounds--it is more information, more interpretation, closer description, better analyses, a different vision of capitalism, a different vision of the consequences of that economic system, on and on....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

My "accusations" are not false. Your words:

This isn't you saying what other people think, this is you saying that we (America) committed crimes. Then you accuse the whole country of trying to sweep these supposed crimes under the rug.

I agree that people need to be held accountable when they do something wrong. But there is no proof of wrongdoing. War doesn't excuse everything, but it does excuse some things. Normally, shooting people is considered murder, but in war it's generally accepted.

Many people don't understand that this isn't a "norman" war. Terrorists are playing with a total different rule set than we are, even on our worst day. But the left seems to think that we should focus more on potential wrongdoing in what the US is doing than the blatant evils being committed by terrorists. And I think that much of the reason for this is because the left is more worried about discrediting the Bush administration than it's worried about how people are being treated. And telling about heads are getting chopped and mosques being blown up by terrorists doesn't help them in that effort, but making suspect claims about war crimes does.