NYT on Guantánamo "Nothing has been more damaging to the United States than the violation of the legal principles at the heart of the American idea."
Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those “enhanced” techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.Roger Cohen on GuantánamoWhat they got on release was a single piece of paper from the American government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.
Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:
“An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible.”
That’s it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan’s life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.
We have “the deciding official,” not an officer, general or judge. We have “the information about you,” not allegations, or accusations, let alone charges. We have “a decision about what will happen to you,” not a judgment, ruling or verdict. This is the lexicon of totalitarianism. It is acutely embarrassing to the United States.
That is why I am thankful above all that the next U.S. commander in chief is a constitutional lawyer. Nothing has been more damaging to the United States than the violation of the legal principles at the heart of the American idea.
the latest
latest episodes
H shld gt n ths rght ftr h dls wth th njstc f ppl nt bng llwd t brng pckt knvs nt plns.
W mst hv prrts.
I'm sorry to hear that totalitarianism is embarrassing to the United States.
The plight of the 17 Uighars unjustly imprisoned is especially sad, as even President Bush has conceded that they are not enemy combatants. They should be released into the US because if they are sent back to China they are certain to be tortured. The PRC are doing their best to eliminate the Uighar minority by forcibly relocating 1.5 million young Uighar women to Han Chinese regions, and sending an equal number of Han Chinese to the Uighar region in order to achieve demographic ethnic cleansing. Betrayed at Yalta, the Uighars have suffered enough:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/26/dusty-relics-of-yalta/
Concern trolls in 3...2...1...
W'll s hw h trts th Scnd mndmnt bfr gttng ll xctd bt hw h lvs th Cnstttn. H smd t hv lttl trbl wth th cncpt bfr (nd ftr) DC v. Hllr
did you know the concern trolls have an anthem?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=j0e10baH6cE
"the american idea" = exploit everything until it breaks, then sell the parts for kindling
Yay, I love how many optimists there are amongst the BB readers.
...oh, wait.
So, anyone listen to the NPR/PRI interview with the first set of detainees they released? Eye opening, specially when the interviewer talks about how hard it is to find any that will talk to an American journalist.
Gz, s r y gys srsly dsmvwllng ny pst tht crtczs Prsdnt lct bm? bm ws rfrrd t n th rtcl s dn't s hw pst crtcl f hm, r vn mrly skptcl f hm s wrth dsmvwllng. mst sy 'm gttng vry trd f tht prctc.
Will the vowel-free idiots gtfo?
People are acting like the US has always been a virgin Snow White. Dirty deeds like these run throughout our history. This is just one of the recent ones. No nation has credibility.
Guantanamo has most definitely caused more harm than it's prevented, and the sooner it is closed, the better. 500 people have been released from there already, all without having formal charges or any explanation or apology. How will that NOT make people more angry at us?
I also await a President who has actually read the Constitution (or at the very least, one who approves of what it says).
Guantanamo Bay is appalling in every way, but the language used in this letter doesn't especially bother me. Why would you put legalese in a letter targeted at people whose first language isn't English?
Wait a minute, that "document" he quotes doesn't seem very official.
Who the hell wrote that? Certainly not someone with a firm grasp of English. Usually something like this would be written by a lawyer, or at least someone whose job it is to be a decent communicator. Not a single sentence in that thing is natural English at all.
I'm wondering what the point of this letter is. Why does even this much have to be communicated in writing?
But the level of anonymity in this written communication is astounding.
@12
I'm not sure which part of your post to take issue with...the part where you assume that those detained can't speak or understand English? (Some of them were Australian and British citizens, but that's besides the point)
Or the part where you assume that because they might not be able to speak English, that official documented communication with them should be dumbed-down somehow? - I think that's the part where you misunderstand the whole purpose of "legalese": it tells you which laws are being applied, and at least demonstrates that somebody is applying the law. which would be comforting, in this mess.
Or possibly the part where you completely fail to see what's appalling about the language in that letter - that it essentially reduces a human being to the level of a piece of cargo or livestock. There is absolutely zero recognition in those words that their target is a human being with rights. It's vagueness is also appalling - there is nothing there (as quoted) from which a detainee could glean WHO made the decision, HOW the decision was made, even WHAT information the decision was based upon. Which suggests that the "deciding officials" responsible know they're doing something wrong. Four lines isn't much, for a decision that may destroy someone's life.
@9 - ys, psts crtcl t th nw prsdnt d sm t gt dsmvwld, s d ths crtcl, vn n srcstc, lghthrtd r gntl wy, t th mdrtrs. (Whch sms dd t m, s mdrtr f thng myslf, lk t knw whn ppl thnk m bng jrk).
Ths s sd, bcs thnk lt f th strry-yd ptmsm bt bm shld b mdrtd by lttl rlty, ls w'll ll b dsspntd whn h trns t nt t b r Svr, bt jst pltcn.
t s f crs th blg thrs' prgtv t mdrt s thy chs, nd m crtn thy hv rsns thy fl r cmpltly lgtmt fr ths mdrtn, prhps vn crflly cnsdrd phlsphcl gdlns (ys, rd th mdrtr gdlns, nd jdg th mdrtn hr by thm). nfrtntly th pprnc f bs s s bd s th rlty f bs n ths cs - f fl lk cnnt ngg frly n dscssn hr* thn th ffct wll b th sm s f rlly cn't. Rcnt mdrtn hr hs gvn m tht mprssn.
* - "Bt n rdr t rg wth y, mst tk p cntrry pstn." "Bt thts nt th sm s jst tmtclly gnsyng vrythgn sy!" "Ys t s."
Fifty-three more days.
If you have concerns about moderation, you can take them to the Moderation Policy thread. Nothing in this thread has been disemvoweled because of criticism of P. E. Obama.
the whole thing stinks... and theese letters and the speed of "repatriation" are evidence that they want the embarrassment removed as fast as possible so that the released persons are not able to file claims while still on US soil... and the lack of any identification points in the letters mean that it is very difficult for them to file suit against a particular person as they would have to fight to get the information and that would be blocked on grounds of "national security"...
#18:
Nvrthlss, sd frm rgbly ff-tpc cntnt (lthgh n cld rg tht th dsmvwld psts mk th vlbl pnt tht Gtm s hrdly th nly sslt n r lbrts tht mst b rdrssd), mst f th dsmvwld psts r hrdly trllsh. Thy ll hv ctl rgmnts, rsnbl grmmr, nd (s bv) t lst tngntl rltn t th mprtnt sss ndr dscssn.
Wr th mdrtrs, wld dsmvwl wth lghtr hnd. Th cmmnts sctn hr s lrdy frly qck wth ccstns f trllshnss, nd t wld b trblng t lst t m f t ws frthr sntzd.
What part of 'take it to the Moderation thread' is difficult to understand?
Concern trolls are concerned.
I mean, wow, they just come oozing out from under their rocks don't they? Glen Greenwood has a post on this also.How the media talks about torture and the rule of law
People need to go to prison. There can be no other remedy.
It will be a stain on this country for awhile. I wonder how many Americans actually care or understand though.
I often wonder whether the people of the US know how much the rest of the world (naively) used to look up to their country as a symbol of freedom and justice. And how that has changed utterly because of Guantanamo and related activities. That the US could abandon the rule of law and due process completely, and institute the use of torture, it's still almost beyond belief. Anyone suggesting these practices a decade ago would have been called an anti-American conspiracy nut.
This is what the [i]bad guys[/i] do, folks. You're not supposed to be the bad guys.
You know what stings me, as a European? That there's talk of us having to put up your ex-prisoners. Wrongfully detained, these people cannot be sent back to their own countries for fear of torture or death. For some weird and most likely political reason, the US won't take them, so they'll be dumped on the European "allies."
The US' extreme arrogance is only overshadowed by our cowardice of actually taking them in.
Throughout this entire episode, from the duping of the public in the US and UK (with a dossier now demonstrably proven to be false - so who's being reprimanded? ...), to the evident injustice of Guantanamo, I have not been surprised. Just saddened.
The US not only has a history of totalitarian-sytle engagements with the population (Seattle anti-capitalism protests, black / white apartheid, mass arrests on LA beach), it has a history of lynching, killing and murder on a mass scale, mistreatment and so on. Just some 4 weeks ago, a black man was dragged behind a four wheel truck until he died.
So for all the hand-wringing, let's face it: The US is a sick puppy. Evil. Nasty, nasty buggers.
So I'm really not surprised.
I grew up there too. Recently read that all countries fail to live up to their principles, but the US fails to live up to higher principles than anyone else.
How true. Some might call that hypocrisy.
Laws cannot do much without the People. In this respect, and with all that was known back then, i still fail to understand how George W. Bush could have be reelected.
Reading some of the comments on the US I'm kind of reminded of the beginning of the Lord of the Rings when Bilbo is leaving the Shire and sees all kinds of scary foreign strangers doing menacing things.
Pre-Bush America wasn't full of happy Hobbits being subverted by the evil power of Sauron, it's always had it's own agenda. The in the latter half of the 20th century CIA sponsored terrorism and repressive right wing regimes, fostered corruption and economic slavery all over the world in the interests of the US. The dirty work was carried out by locals but they were financed by the US.
The neo-cons did nothing but assume that the US no longer needed to pay lip service to the sovereignty of other governments, that the world was the de-facto colony of the US. This attitude is what’s alienated so many people - that and the fact we can’t do anything about it - we can’t vote the US out of our politics, yet we are involved in situations that go against our own interests and our taxes are paying for American foreign policy.
I’m still waiting for Rumsfeld to be ‘rendered’ to Germany where he has an outstanding warrant for war crimes.
Honestly I'm still pretty shocked that so many things which have happened and been accepted were even allowed to happen at all.
It takes some of the sense of superiority out of looking back at things like HUAC and thinking "how did they let that happen?", knowing that a lot of people probably didn't "let it happen" but were ignored regardless.
What would win my trust and confidence (as a european) for the next President of the United States over anything else, is when, in one of his first acts after his inauguration, he would push to limit his own power as a President, strip himself of excecutive power, re-install institutions for policy oversight, and strive for transparancy and accountability on every level of government.
He would be a big man in my eyes, if he truely accepted the responsibilities that come with his role.
Fifty-two more days.
"What part of 'take it to the Moderation thread' is difficult to understand?"
Maybe the part that contains no link and gives no guidance as to where to find it. I looked on BB home page and I can't find any obvious place to start from that might navigate to such a thread. (But maybe I'm just stupid or blind.)
It would be nice to see Rumsfeld in The Hague. But before that can happen Obama must first discard the retarded law that says Americans can't be judged there.
Not to excuse Guantanamo, but no one else has mentioned the fact that while the US has detained people, Saddaam shredded them.
Those Uighurs are non-combatants (ie civilians - determined to be so by the Laws enacted by the Bush regime, no less) involuntarily transported by an occupying Army (US Forces) from Afghanistan to Gitmo (ie over international boundaries).
This is a crystal clear violation of the Geneva protocols, which strictly prohibits the forced transit of civilians, under military control at a time of foreign occupation, over any State/International boundaries whatsoever during a time of armed conflict, a Law adopted by the Nations because the Nazis were so very bad about that particular practice.
But since they are Muslims and a Republican President ordered it, he is not a war criminal, I guess.
Well, it is actually more likely the US won't prosecute for political reasons, eh?
Have hope. Violations of these Laws are crimes of Universal Jurisdiction. And the wheels of Justice can grind slowly and inexorably...
Of course, some say a Divine Justice awaits us all. The US's leaders ought to tremble, for if the religious agree on anything, it is that God is Just....
That the US and its Allies now refuse, for political reasons, to do their duty under and by the law, will not be lost on those who notice other "lesser" Americans serving ten years for selling fake sexual organs, or serving forty years for looking at "dirty, bad" pictures downloaded from the internet.
Close Gitmo, by all means, but "symbolic" acts/theatre does not suffice. Serve Justice as well. Prosecute the outgoing Administration under the full rigor of the Law.
@Travelina
Perhaps they haven't mentioned it because it is not overly relevant.
The Spanish Inquisition did some pretty horrible things too, but neither they or Saddam Hussein's practices with prisoners are of much relevance to what the US does at Guantanamo, or (perhaps more importantly) why it does it, given its claims to "rule of law" and all that other messy modern democratic stuff.
At least Saddam Hussein and the Spansih Inquisition didn't claim to be models of open modern democratic principles while shredding or otherwise abusing those they detained.
Oh yeah IMO the NYT should be prosecuted as well, under the "Lord Haw-haw/ Tokyo Rose/ Rwanda Radio" precedents, for advocating aggressive war against a Nation/Population which posed no threat whatsoever to American security.
The entire US leadership class needs to be replaced, by people who care about, well, the powerless and weak, that is, the majority of the US population, the "nobodies".
Hey travelina the Romans would feed guilty prisoners, alive, to hungry bears. (And not in the Arena.)
So it's ok for the US just to have the guilty beaten to death, right?
Just what is your point, besides saying that the US is ok no matter what it may do?
Anyway it is claerly contrary to Justice to destroy innocents, even in the pursuit of the most atrocious criminal. But neither the USians or the Israelis agree, it seems.
USA has never been the "good guys" in regards to foreign policy. At best, they've been the lesser evil. Sometimes citizens inside U.S. has opposed to the offenses towards other nationalities, but mostly they have been content.
To an European the immunity from criticism the US President and his cabinet gets onces they come in position is baffling. Not even the French are this authocratic. It's not democratic, solidaric or a sign of respect. It's stupid and antidemocratic.
Every time people in power do something, they must be questioned. The more power they have, the more have to justify what they are doing.
In U.S., people and media is "solidaric" with the president and "respect" his voters... and stops asking questions. Outside U.S.A. we are well aware of the crimes U.S. troops and allies always commited in other countries. But we can't do much about it. People inside U.S.A. can, but they don't.
@ #51 - he'll never push to limit his own power... that's supposed to be Congress's job... so much for checks and balances.
Also, this idea that America was constitutionally "broken" over the last eight years and now we can go back to being righteous is simply ridiculous.
The U.S. Constitution has never been interpreted as protecting the rights of people outside U.S. borders. Just ask any Latin American who was tortured by a School-of-the-Americas-trained goon.
You know what would be great? A truth and reconciliation commission on U.S. involvement in the massacres in Guatemala. Guantanamo Bay is definitely not the worst thing the U.S. has ever done.
George57L @33: It's at the bottom of the "Don't Miss" column to the right of the page. Or follow this link.
pjk @39 Also, this idea that America was constitutionally "broken" over the last eight years and now we can go back to being righteous is simply ridiculous.
While it has gotten remarkably worse (or are least become more noticeable) over the last eight years, I agree that this problem predates Bush. Look at the Patriot Act, for example. You don't just pull a 1000-page law out of your ass on short notice. Somebody thought these things through well before September 11th and had the document ready to be signed into law whenever it was needed.
Also, while it's great that the Guantanamo Bay detention center will be closed, it was only one of many. What (if anything) will happen to the others?
"The U.S. Constitution has never been interpreted as protecting the rights of people outside U.S. borders." I doubt that, but if so, so what?
Is the limitation in the Constitution or are you "reading in", that is, amending it with your limitation?
Further: Interpreted by whom? You? The Foreign Policy establishment at State? The Department of War?
And more generally: Why the qualification or limitation? Convenience in conducting aggressive foreign policy? What about places outside borders but under US Military control? Like Gitmo?
I say BS. The Constitution as written protects all people, wherever they are...it just has no way of being enforced, such people being beyond your Courts' effective jurisdiction (which US Army facilities certainly are not). And I note that no Americans were tortured by the goons of whom you speak.
Also, people have rights beyond the US constitution - the document itself says so. "Universal jurisdiction" difficult to understand?
"All men are created equal, if they are within the territorial boundaries of the USA"
Just doesn't seem right, eh?
Travelina, if we're reduced to saying "at least the Bush administration isn't as bad as a tin-pot third world dictator," all hope is lost.
A fellow in Tikrit who sees someone who looks like him, with a name like his, wearing an orange jumpsuit with a hood over his head, and hears that he's been waterboarded or (as at Abu Ghraib) sexually molested isn't going to notice that the people who broadcast these criticisms of the Bush administration on CNN aren't arrested or executed for criticizing George Bush. All he sees is that we Americans claim to be much, much better than Saddam, and yet are treating people like him in ways that, while better than Saddam treated them, are not consistent with the values we espouse.
The struggle against the ideas that led to 9/11 isn't a military struggle, it's an ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of the developing world. America's best weapon is its promotion of human rights at home and abroad. Allowing things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to happen, and defending practices like waterboarding and extrajudicial procedures that violate the basic human rights guarantees that underpin our society, the Bill of Rights, destroys our credibility as promoters of human rights, and so destroys the effectiveness of our most important weapons in that war. It strengthens al Qaeda - indeed, it may be the only thing keeping al Qaeda operating.
If we can get back to living up to our ideals, the people who believe Osama bin Laden's hate-filled rhetoric today will start to question it; and people who question you are far less likely to die for you.
Ditto #31 Marcel
Let's hope there's more to it than high-fiveing each other for electing a new president...
The fact that it never should have been a competition but still was just highlights how fickle a lot of those voters are.
"better than how Saddam treated them"? The iraqis once had cradle-to-grave medical care and free education...and even with oil at $10 a bbl they could easily afford it...but those sanctions had to kept in place, huh?
The US has destroyed the nation of Iraq.
And this comment (the one that asserts that the US treats Iraqis better than Saddam did) sounds like a lament for lost "propaganda values" entailed, not by the fact of Gitmo and Official US lawlessness, but by its revelation in the media...methinks the poster would actually like to see CNN/other media prosecuted....
The iraqis knew long before the US media reported it as to what the Americans were doing in Iraq.
Still waiting for those further pictures, etc, that we were promised would be released...oh yeah the cover-up is necessary for the "national interest"...can't have our primary weapon in the ideological struggle become useless...the torturers must get their Pensions and medals...
Travelina - given that the whole 'Saddam put people in shredders!' thing has been largely discredited as a propagandist myth, you'd have to wonder why anyone would mention it even if it were relevant.
However, I did hear that he didn't feed his unicorns properly. Or exercise them. Evil bastard.
He's "the decider".
He needs a bat-man style bad-guy outfit, Like the Chen(ey)guin has.
Geez, i can't get over/ understand this "ideological struggle" idea/meme...is that like those "culture wars" the Repubs were fighting with the progressives in the USA?
Funny that the prime movers in an "ideological struggle" with the hippies et al. are now saying we are in an "ideological struggle" with fanatical Islamists...and using super-harsh 'legal" techniques in BOTH "struggles" is OK so long as we control the info flow or "message"...
For those saying "the problem" pre-dates Bush:
Yes indeed, all the way back to when Rummy and Cheney were functionaries in the Nixon Administration...you guys have not had a effective change in Gov for forty-odd years. Just about when "this stuff" all started....funny how the same people and/or their "proteges" are still occupying the main bureaucratic nexii of Power, even after all these years. And Laws seem to just get ever-harsher for behavior that a mere generation ago (or less) was entirely legal.
Ugly Canuck, if you think there's anything sympathetic to the Bush administration or critical of CNN in *my* posting, you must be taking instruction in interpretive hermeneutics from Alberto Gonzalez.
A web browser user has reviewed the information in this blog post on 28 December 2008 and the deciding brain region in him has made a decision about what will happen to your post. You post will be commented. The comment will contain as strange humor as possible.
it's the oddest thing, I typed "Moderation" in the search box and it instantly took me here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/27/boing-boings-moderat.html
All of these comments blaming republicans or expecting something new from coming democratic consolidation of the executive/legislative branches are hilarious. Almost everyone in both parties are politicians, not public servants. Obama seems to be a better man than Bush, and I am sure he will curb some of the excesses, but he is gonna have people tortured and assasinated too. Bush just had the balls to do it out in the open.
"Bush just had the balls to do it out in the open."
you mean he lacked the brains to do it secretly?
heh, a heh , ha HA HA HO HOOOOO!
"George W. Bush hopes history will see him as a president who liberated millions of Iraqis and Afghans, who worked towards peace and who never sold his soul for political ends.
"I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush said in excerpts of a recent interview released by the White House Friday.
"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process. I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values."
ahhhh, ya can't write this stuff....
Perhaps my comment conveyed the wrong impression. What he did was wrong, but I believe he genuinely feels it was right, and that he acted lawfully and ethically. In some twisted way this is better than a president who knows it's wrong, and still does it. The main thrust of my comment was the point that essentially every politician sells part of their soul, and persons who believe one party or their members are morally superior are blind to reality. Black ops are going to happen under democrats/Obama just like republicans/Bush.
sociopaths that can't tell right from wrong are better than people who knowingly commit crimes?
Did Bush or should Bush have known invading Iraq was a violation of international law? Yes.
The US Constitution states international treaties signed by the US become the law of the land.
From the US Constitution
Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The US not only signed the UN Charter, but basically wrote it along with the other founding members. That charter makes it illegal to use force against another country without UN Security Council approval. If the US were not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with veto power, the US could be thrown out of the UN for violating that charter provision.
From th UN Charter
Article 6
A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
The invasion of Iraq also violated the Nuremberg Principles, which the US also helped create to define war crimes. By definition the persons responsible for the Iraq Invasion in the US and the UK, in fact the leadership of every coalition force is now a war criminal.
From the Nuremberg Priciples
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
[edit] Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation
Senior judge says Iraq invasion broke international law
The Illegal Iraq Invasion According to the UN Charter, the U.S. Constitution, Resolution 1441, and the Nuremberg Charter
Those quotes are a pretty direct reflective of the 'end justifies the means' school of thought...
I wonder if Bush has any fears that he will be charged with war crimes down the road, but all we can do is guess what goes on in that 'Deciding' head of his.
After a few minutes in the tubes, this simple boy pulled this stuff up. By various international laws and treaties it is a war crime for one state, or group of states, to attack without provocation or UN Security council resolution another state, with the lone exception being immediate self-defense. Just like we all learned on the playground. Does anyone still want to try and convince us FoetusNail is smarter and better informed than Bush and the legal teams at DoS, Justice, and DoD, all of which are peopled by various specialists in international law.
These people knew what they were doing was wrong, they could not get Security Council approval, which they sought, then attacked without approval. They have mistreated, tortured, and denied detainees due process under the law. In fact to do so they had to create new laws and courts, just like a certain European country did in the 20th century.
They knew, they know, they will get away with murder.
The past eight years has been nothing but a nightmare for human rights, privacy, and our 'standing' in the eyes of the world. Fuck George W. Bush!
Thank you for erudite review of relevant laws. They have nothing to do with my original point. The original post stated he was thankful that Obama was a constitutional lawyer, one comment was the number of days left till Obama takes over and changes things, many comments were along the lines of Bush/republicans BAD!!. My central point is that the american political machine takes human beings and strips them of some of their humanity because that is what is necessary to succeed. Because of this, Obama will have people tortured/killed just every president in modern times has, in violation of those laws you so thoughtfully listed. I stated earlier I think he will curb some of the excesses, but he is still gonna have blood on his hands.
@TAKUAN,
Everyone *knows* that balls and brains are mutually exclusive! ;p
"Not to excuse Guantanamo, but no one else has mentioned the fact that while the US has detained people, Saddaam shredded them."
Saddam was a Bad Guy. We expected him to be bad. The US are meant to be the Good Guys. We expected them to be good. When they fight, the Good Guys play by the rules. That's why they're the Good Guys. It's all that makes them good. When you're talking about changed perceptions, it really is that simple.
No one is denying the US's tarnished record with respect to foreign interventions prior to 2001, but at least it could be argued that this was a State attempting to preserve and further itself and its ideals, albeit through unpalatable and immoral means. Abandoning the right to trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to freedom from torture, and not seeming to even care enough to vote for a change of government when these things are placed in the spotlight, you have to wonder what exactly was being preserved.
Saddam was a bad guy?
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
I'm thankful for George Bush, he gave me my country back to me. Before him I drank the kool-aid and believed the fairy tale that I lived in a democracy. Now I know something resembling the truth, elections are managed affairs that are bought and paid for. Brand Obama spent the most and had the best marketing team and that's why he won. But I'll pull back from complete cynicism and say that I think there is still reason for hope as long as the people demand real change and hold Obama's feet to the fire.
George Bush and Dick Cheney are never going to go to serve time for their crimes. They have too much power for that to happen. Maybe the lesser goons like Albert "Fredo" Gonzales will, but not the principles. Perhaps in 20 years when GW is 80 and China has finished picking the bones of what was once the US, but not before.
don't count on that. Times get really bad,people won't care about the old rules that said retired criminals were immune. That's why they're all shitting bricks today. Look at their faces in press and interviews. They fear.
Fifty-one more days.
In Bush's case, the country and Bush would both be better off if he had changed his values, just enough to know the difference between right and wrong.
Finally read more about the Bushs' interview, conducted by the president's sister.
From the NYT: "Mrs. Bush said she would “always have a special place in my heart” for the women and girls of Afghanistan, able in the post-Taliban era to go to school or walk outside without male chaperones."
At about the time of her statement eight girls were attacked by Taliban members, ten were recently arrested. Their attackers, tore off their head scarves and threw or sprayed acid in their faces. The Taliban have destroyed hundreds of schools, killing teachers and other workers. The most seriously injured, has vowed to continue her education. Though many Afghans are intimidated and refuse to allow their young women to go to school or travel without chaperones.
The Bush family is completely delusional, they also seem to think the rest of us don't know how to read.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AE1HQ20081115