Donald Rumsfeld, War Criminal
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.The Torture ReportNow, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
the latest
latest episodes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QkiygCG2RQ
Cheney admits to supporting waterboarding, without regret.
Of course Rummy and Cheney and probably even Bush should be tried for what they've done. Of course Obama won't do it. He's a Democrat, after all. We all need to work together in these "difficult times", right?
they'll get their Shoe President pardons of course. But sooner or later an opportunity will emerge to try them elsewhere. Even if they are kidnapped,I highly doubt the American government will start another war to rescue their scaly little tails.
GREAT NEWS! Now we just have to get Bush and Cheney!
Hang each one of them. Please!
never going to happen.
What's great is the indepth investigative reporting that the NYT has done on rendition and torture by the US; all those stories, entire pages given over to exposing how we got to where we are, over the course of the several years.
Oh, wait--I'm thinking of a bj in the Oval Office. Nevermind.
make it happen.
On the Geneva Conventions bit - this bugs me, but from what I've read, the Conventions apply to uniformed military forces and spontaneously-formed resistance movements, not to guerrilla forces with no government behind them. But you shouldn't be able to have it both ways - either they're a military force subject to those rules, or they're a bunch of criminals (or suspected criminals) who deserve due process.
I can't see the US ever handing up one of its (former) officials to an international court, though. Does anyone know if it's been done before?
There were children at Guantánamo. There were pictures and videos that you were never allowed to see but every representative did.
You can't pardon someone who has not yet been arrested, indicted, impeached, tried, or convicted.
YET.
#8 The US specifically refused to join the World Court based on the fact that the assembly refused to grant our soldiers and citizens immunity. The US has a well applied policy of 'Do as we tell, not as we do'
I would love to see Cheney manacled and marched off in front of a jury for his crimes. He'd probably get off, but the pictures would be priceless.
Nothing's gonna happen unless we make it happen. If Obama thinks he can get away with performing nothing more than a slap on the wrists, he will.
What we need to do as a global movement is to start having 500,000+ people protests again, once this proto-totalitarian regime leaves on 10 January 009. These protests will be specifically organized around the concept of holding said regime accountable.
It'll be like the vibe on election night after McCain ceded, except it won't end until these hateful men are in chains.
This is the only way we can begin to rebuild the damage this has done not only to the US' reputation overseas, not only to the acceptance of torture internationally, but to what America at least used to symbolize, in our hearts and minds.
http://www.newstrend.com/2006/10/war-crimes-detainees-bush.html
None of what they did would have happened without the complicity of the American people who elected them and did nothing to stop them. Killing a few won't change anything to that.
http://www.rense.com/general66/Eichmann1.jpg
"sometimes the state is involved in criminal matters, but you have to obey orders"
@Bardfinn -- Oh, you most certainly can pardon someone without those. It's exactly what the most famous presidential pardon of all was.
From the text of the pardon:
"As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor."
The key words here being "whether or not he shall be".
Did Reagan pre-emptively pardon a whole slew of Iran-Contra people in order to save himself? I think the most telling thing will be who will be on the Bush Pardon List. I also think there are a lot of people doing research on extradition agreements around the world so they know where they can go after their government careers are over a la Kissinger.
dip those sumbitches in hot tar, and hang 'em from the highest yard-arm! in a spiked iron cage! yay!
Sadly, real justice for these war criminals:
Cheney,Rumsfield,Rice, is unlikely. However, they will have to watch their backs for many years to come.
You can preemptively pardon, that is you can write the words down and sign the paper but it is ultimately meaningless. The "Law" is just an agreement backed by force. If there is a greater force that wants to change the agreement then it will do that. Despotic regimes always strive to give themselves a patina of legitimacy and the more liberal governments that usually follow them can choose to recognize the previous regime or not. It really does all boil down to who has the guns.
#20
MinTy, sometimes you are the clear voice of reason.
buddy, i assure you, no one has ever accused me of THAT before!
#8 posted by madsci:
You're correct. There's common language in Part 1, Article 2 of all four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which is reaffirmed in in both of the 1977 supplementary Protocols that refer back to that Article:
Emphasis mine. That means that the U.S. is bound to accept the Conventions even if our enemies are not signatories because our allies are signatories...but not if our enemy does not apply those provisions.
This is not unique to the Conventions. The documented history of such agreements among potentially warring European powers is replete with the same kind of language. "The Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body," of 1899, includes:
You'll find the exact same language in the "Declaration on the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons," also from 1899 (which is my favorite Declaration, because it's about balloons).
The Declaration of Paris, signed in 1856 as a means of clarifying maritime law in a time of war, concludes with:
Although the King of Iraq acceded to the four Conventions in 1956, Sadaam Hussein never did, and Iraq was never a signatory to the Conventions or the Protocols. The insurgents in Iraq are indisputably in violation of several Articles of the Conventions and the Protocols (to which the United States is, incidentally, not a signatory). Trouble is, the U.S. has violated some of them as well, and in strict legal terms it actually boils down to a matter of timing: who did it first?
However...all of that is the letter of the law. The spirit of it is another issue entirely.
The U.S. has, as a nation, moved the public debate into a more abstract realm of ethical principle. Yes, technically, we can as a matter of law take the actions we have taken. But do we want to be defined by the technicalities of 19th and 20th century law, or by our stated principles? I say the latter, but I fully understand the arguments for the former.
It's a pivotal moment in both jurisprudence and in the level of public discourse, spurred on by extraordinary circumstances.
This has been Pedantry Moment! Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next week.
Bardfinn #10: "You can't pardon someone who has not yet been arrested, indicted, impeached, tried, or convicted."
Ford did it for Nixon.
Urshrew #12: "The US specifically refused to join the World Court based on the fact that the assembly refused to grant our soldiers and citizens immunity."
While I disagree morally with the American refusal to join the World Court, I do understand it on constitutional grounds (though I think the government's objection is more political). Constitutionally, the buck stops at the Supreme Court; if we want to grant the World Court the authority to try our citizens, wouldn't we need to amend our constitution?
Madsci @ #8 ---- What is the difference between a spontaneously-formed resistance movement and a guerrilla force with no government behind them?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I sincerely want to know what you, and other bOINGERs, think.
Seems to me that the question of legitimacy central to this distinction might be precisely what is up for grabs in some armed struggles.
#17: Tak, my Dutch isn't fantastic, and I had to look up a few words, but as near as I can make out, the caption translates roughly to "many issues are difficult to explain". (I'd hope there was some degree of irony intended by the captioners.) Nonetheless, the Eichmann analogy holds, despite skirting the borders of Godwin-space...
But more directly on the topic: Wow, I didn't even expect things to get this far. I guess the only way anything is really going to happen is with the support of the senior staff of the armed forces themselves. This looks possible, at least.
prosecution for war crimes is a start. What I am looking forward to is seeing these bastards spend the rest of their lives and money in court being sued for civil damages.
#27 posted by Phil_A_Minion:
In the language of the Geneva Conventions, the rules they describe apply to 1) civilians and 2) those with combatant status.
Convention I, Article 13, Sections 1, 2 & 6 define combatants as 1) members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, or 2) members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements, provided that they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war as described within the Conventions.
After the collapse of Iraq government and the dissolution of its armed forces, #1 no longer applies, so the insurgents must fall under the second set of requirements. Convention III, Article 4, Sections 2 & 6 reiterate these requirements. At bare minimum, achieving combatant status requires that an opposing Power carry its arms openly. This is emphasized in Protocol I, Article 44, Sec. 3.
repost warning
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.
#26 nprnncbl "Constitutionally, the buck stops at the Supreme Court; if we want to grant the World Court the authority to try our citizens, wouldn't we need to amend our constitution?"
I think this is where extradition comes in; even in signatories to the International Court, the court can request a country extradite a particular person, but in the end, its up to country to make the decision to extradite them.
I don't know where the Constitution covers such things, since its a treaty, I would think its up to the legislative branch to agree to and the executive branch to enforce. I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch. But, someone can correct me on that, and be gentle, my Constitutional Law is pretty basic.
Just fyi, here is the Senate Armed Services Committee's
report (executive summary only).
I was wrong, as has been pointed out: Ford pardoned Nixon without there being an arrest, indictment, impeachment, trial or conviction.
Cccccccrap.
IANAL, but reading the Constitution, it does appear that ultimate jurisdiction over US citizens is expressly reserved to the SCOTUS.
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.
Article III, sect. 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
This appears to be saying that even though treaties have the force of law in the U.S., and must be treated as law by our courts, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction, even in cases involving those treaties.
But again, IANAL... ;-)
Torture.
We are all going to die someday: you, me, terrorists, Donald Rumsfeld, Paris Hilton, all of us. Are we so afraid of dying that we will resort to torture to stave off some (maybe) imminent attack? If anyone insists it "isn't torture" then you should allow yourself to undergo those procedures yourself, and see if you retain that opinion afterward. We didn't torture during the cold war, and yet in the USSR the KGB/GRU/NKVD/et al tortured on a daily basis as a matter of state security. Aren't we, the USA, better than that?
If we are indeed better than that, I can see only one way to prove it: bring charges against all those responsible. So congress found Rumsfeld to be the instigator, are they going to do anything about it? To do nothing is to stand by and ignore a crime, and makes us (or more precisely our congress) complicit.
I wouldn't count on it. Obama is regressing very quickly towards the "center" and selling out many of his campaign promises. I almost regret having voted for him, the only reason I don't is because the alternative would have been exponentially more horrible. Business as usual. No justice.
To understand Obama, pull back and look at the overall game. Think in longer than usual terms - at least longer than usual for the Untied Snakes of Amnesia politics. He's still in it for himself, bottom line, but reflect on what the alternative would have been.
@#38 and #39: Totally. Obama ran his campaign on change, just long enough to get the vote, and float back to center. Frankly, I was concerned about some of his policies being to left, but he floated back to the center, so everything should work out better.
Imagine if the Conservative Regime would have continued, we would float even farther to the right, and into totalitarianism (or is it fascism? I can never remember which one).
Point is, Obama is not going to be what he said he is, he won't make Bush, Cheney, and Rummy pay for what they allowed to happen. But I believe he has good intentions (for a politician anyway), and he was the lesser of two evils.
"the art of the possible"
If Obama tried to run the country to his conscience, they wouldn't need assassins. The simple truth is that most humans are not really smart - or nice. Ignore that and them and they will bury you. He's just a man, so far mostly his own man. The only realistic thing he can do given the circumstances is limit the damage.
#40 - unfortunately there is no Left of any significance in US politics.
"Obama is regressing very quickly towards the "center" "
Really? So he is moving from center right to the center? Or did you actually believe the "Obama is a liberal" media frame?
Since 'it's not torture', 2 or 3 hours of waterboarding sounds about right for these guys.
American 'center' is everyone else's 'right'
#43 I think his gun control policies are leftist, and a universal health care system is pretty socialist to me. Frankly, I agree however, the media made him out to be the "great liberal leader of our time" but he's actually quite conservative. His Pakistan tough talk (if it wasn't just campaign rhetoric) was something I could picture coming out of the mouth of McCain if McCain hadn't been ponying the "Stay in Iraq, or the terrorists win" crap.
#40 Yeah, Sen. McCarthy and Co. took care of that 60 years ago.
#44 Seems like a fair punishment, but one that will never be rendered under the U.S. Justice System; "Cruel and unusual" and all that.
people in the military get free health-care. Is the army a bunch of commies?
#46 Yes. In the sense that it is a mostly self-contained entity. But the chain of command makes it most un-commune like. People misidentify communism and socialism all the time. Obama's policies could be described as "socialist" but people might mistake him for a "communist".