LBmuskoka
Judging GW Bush
Posted on: 01/02/2009 18:28
Things are heating up in the US, particularly since Cheney's recent admission that he had prior knowledge of the use of waterboarding to interogate terrorist suspects in 2002-2003, that George W Bush should be tried, or at the very least an investigation launched, as a war criminal.
One of the reasons waterboarding is such a sensitive issue is that U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone's nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.
Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command, to the commander in chief, can be held liable for war crimes, if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.
Alternet.org - Why Was Cheney So Quick to Admit He's a War Criminal?
Law professor Jonathan Turley points out that this is a well defined legal issue: The mainstream media has bought into the concept that this is merely a political not a legal question. Indeed, media often leave the clearly misleading impression that there is an equal academic debate over whether waterboarding is torture or whether warrantless surveillance is legal. To this day, media refers to waterboarding as an 'interrogation technique' when courts have consistently defined it as torture.
The Nation - Ask Obama For a Torture Special Prosecutor
So my questions, gentle and enlightened Wondercafers, is - Do you think Obama will launch an investigation and would the Administration carry it to the final conclusion if the evidence warranted it?
LB
If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - ... - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination.
Judgment of Nuremberg - (Movie 1961)
.
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
graeme
Posted on: 01/02/2009 23:08
I'm confident Obama will do nothing. Nothing about the torture, nothing about the illegal invasion of Iraq. As to cheney's confession, I suspect this is to put pressure on Bush to hand out retroactive pardons to the whole cabinet.
graeme
Motheroffive
Posted on: 01/03/2009 03:48
I hold the same view as graeme on this, I'm afraid.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 01/03/2009 08:38
I tend to agree, I can not imagine Obama inflaming his critics by pursuing this. However I suspect that reports of torture in US army prisons are going to increase after he takes office, particularly if actual trials of prisoners take place.
If Bush pardons his subodinates for their involvement in sanctioning torture, this may actually escalate an investigation into his role, as the writers of the US constitution recognized that a President could pardon co-conspirators and this was one argument for impeaching ex-presidents. The incumbent president or Congress also have the authority to rescind pardons if they believe the pardon was an abuse of power. (GlobalResearcher.ca)
Personally this is something I think should be investigated. Reports of abuse of power, particularly over prisoners, has been escalating and there has been a mainstream media rationalizing that is worrisome.
As the Nuremberg trials showed, and numerous studies afterwards agreed, good people can do monstrous things if given the right justifications. Perhaps 65 years of silence on the subject has been too long and we all need the lessons of the past to be re-argued in the present context.
Does anyone know if the call for an investigation has to come from the President's Office or could it come from a neutral party within the US? Is this something the United Nations would involve itself?
LB
The process in place at Guantanamo Bay at the time Canadian officials interviewed K and passed on the fruits of the interviews to U.S. officials has been found by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the benefit of a full factual record, to violate U.S. domestic law and international human rights obligations to which Canada subscribes.
Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28
graeme
Posted on: 01/03/2009 09:52
The charge could come from a state or local government and, in fact, there has been some talk of that. It could come from a foreign government - as we saw in the case of Spain and Chile's ex dictator Pinochet. It could come from the UN. But a foreign government or the UN can be simply ignored by the US - and certainly would be.
graeme
riderguy
Posted on: 01/03/2009 20:20
It might be hard for Mr. Obama to do much , since he has to deal with the economic problems first, find money in he budget for the war and find out all the wrongs Mr. Bush has done. It would be prudent to wait until the economics of the day play out for a while then look at the criminal wrongs of the entire Bush administration.
The_Omnissiah
Posted on: 01/04/2009 01:46
I really wonder if obama will even close down guantanimo bay...probably not.
As-Salaamu Alaikum
-Omni
trishcuit
Posted on: 01/04/2009 03:09
I really wonder if obama will even close down guantanimo bay...probably not.
As-Salaamu Alaikum
-Omni
Unfortunately I believe they see Guatanimo Bay as a necessary evil in the fight against terrorism.
Motheroffive
Posted on: 01/04/2009 03:23
From the UK paper, The Independent -- Our role in closing Guantanamo.
Some 255 prisoners are held without charge in Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Barack Obama's commitment to close the facility is one of the most important, symbolic elements of his agenda as president-elect. It represents the rejection of a disreputable element of US foreign policy. Asked by Time magazine about criteria by which he would measure his success in office, Mr Obama said: "On foreign policy, have we closed Guantanamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our constitution?"
Let's see what happens next.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 01/04/2009 08:21
Unfortunately I believe they see Guatanimo Bay as a necessary evil in the fight against terrorism.
And there lies the problem; evil being used to fight anything.
Conventions of War were created to prevent the evil of war spreading from the battlefield; to curtail blood lust from eroding the civilizing aspects of law and justice. Guatanimo Bay and Abu Ghraib represent the breakdown of those conventions and the erosion came from the top down.
The former Bush administration knew it was skating on very thin ice with their actions. It pushed through the infamous Patriot Act to give themselves the veneer of legality. Yet in the handful of cases that have managed to make it to the US Supreme Courts, the Court has not ruled in the Government's favour.
Like the other "non" war, the War on Drugs, the euphemism that these wars are battles of righteousness and therefore justified - and yet do not fall under the provisions of the Geneva Convention - have allowed abuses of not just the Law but human beings to be carried out indiscriminately. In doing so it spreads evil throughout the system blackening everyone it touches.
Neither of these unconventional wars have won a single battle. They have not succeeded in bringing peace to the streets of the US or the world but the use of torture, confinement without representation and covert operations have eroded the old universal belief that the United States is the shining light of Law and Justice for All.
What will it take for the people of democratic countries to demand an end to this madness? When will "necessary justice" be deployed in these unnecessary wars?
LB
The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying, "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and yelling, "You want a piece of me?" Robin Williams
Punkins
Posted on: 01/04/2009 16:08
The really sad thing about this is that Bush will probably get away with lying about and condoning torture, yet the American government and public was ready to flay Clinton alive for lying about Monica Lewinsky back when. Not that what Clinton did was right, but consider the ramifications of their actions. What Bush did is far worse than what Clinton did, IMO.
graeme
Posted on: 01/05/2009 00:39
No. what clinton did was worse. It showed a deplorable lack of common sense and of taste in women.
Will Obama stop torture? I hope so, but doubt it very much. It is not just guantanamo bay. There are torture facilities all over the world. They have been in use for at least fifty years, probably much longer.
If Bush does not go on a serious trial for torture, then the torture will go on. And I don't think Americans have ever shown any taste for such a trial of a president.
graeme
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 01/05/2009 21:53
No. what clinton did was worse. It showed a deplorable lack of common sense and of taste in women.
You are so right Graeme, whatever was I thinking! Getting caught with one's pants down is so much worse than torturing another. How could I forget that sex is bad, bad, war is good, good. Where is Orwell when I need him....
LB
Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm. Unknown Cynic
graeme
Posted on: 01/05/2009 22:57
quite so. congress rose in all its Christian wrath against clinton. I see no sign of it doing so against bush.
graeme
crazyheart
Posted on: 01/06/2009 00:16
And now George Sr wants Jeb to run for President. eek!!!!
Birthstone
Posted on: 01/06/2009 09:41
Jeb- makes me think of Beverly Hillbillies, or Smokey & the Bandit - sheriff's son - ick.
Birthstone
Posted on: 01/06/2009 09:46
I would love to see Obama's government wholeheartedly close Guantanamo. What is too common in politics is to shift things. I can imagine that Guantanamo might close, the prisoners & practices will be moved to, likely, a couple of locations, Guantanamo will be sold to someone who will use it for equally vile reasons and the whole thing could be spun to look sweet.
I don't expect they will just release POWs. And if they get around to trials, I bet there is a conviction quota they need to meet to keep the sweet salespitch.
Golden Girl
Posted on: 01/06/2009 13:26
Darn it all! I wanted to be the first to say that blowjobs are way worse than torture! Someone beat me to it.
That in and of itself should answer the question about whether anything will be done. If it is, I doubt it will come from within America. I've been waiting for something to be done since way back in the good old days when the first election got stolen from Gore. The call for impeachment has been going around for years. I've read 50 zillion books by now about their wonderful administration and policy, and that's why Cheney now has the balls to confidently say that he knew about the torture.
They wanted war from the moment they got elected due to their thirst for oil, and only needed the necessary excuse to do it. Cheney, Bush, and Rice to name a few are all incredibly tied to the industry. Rice even had a tanker named after her. Plus, Hussein pissed of Georgie's daddy and tried to kill him once. He had to pay big time for that. When you are the current Roman Empire, at some point you're going to piss off somebody badly enough to give you the needed excuse. Keep the American public in fear of terrorism, and they'll agree that absolutely anything is necessary to stop it. It's very important that they still be able to drive those gas guzzling All American cars, and they require gas. Lots of gas! The States seems to be running out of theirs. Those terrorist countries have it. What's a little waterboarding when your whole entire lifestyle is at stake?
Frommian
Posted on: 01/07/2009 07:41
Just so everyone has a good idea of what was done:
Frommian
Posted on: 01/07/2009 07:47
Also:
SLJudds
Posted on: 01/07/2009 09:50
Bush belongs before the world court, but it'll never happen.
The_Omnissiah
Posted on: 01/09/2009 04:02
I hope Obama withdraws all support from israel, maybe that will level the playing field a little bit and force the Israelis to consider peaceful negotiations instead of smashing things with shiney nice new "Made in the USA" bombs and tanks.
...A lot of people belong before a world court...too bad the UN and it's affiliates don't hold any real power right now. It's the countries involved that give it power, and right now the USA doesn't seem to want to do anything but veto...
As-Salaamu Alaikum
-Omni