|
|
| Next: not getting mail |
| Author |
Message |
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: War Crimes and the Bush Legacy |
|
|
| Quote: |
Andrew Sullivan
04 Oct 2007 11:28 am
After reading the investigative piece piece in the NYT today on how this administration decided on breaking America's historic ban on torture and then pursued a long, corrupting policy of ensuring that the interpretation of the Marty Lederman:
"Between this and Jane Mayer's explosive article in August about the CIA black sites, I am increasingly confident that when the history of the Bush Administration is written, this systematic violation of statutory and treaty-based law concerning fundamental war crimes and other horrific offenses will be seen as the blackest mark in our nation's recent history -- not only because of what was done, but because the programs were routinely sanctioned, on an ongoing basis, by numerous esteemed professionals -- lawyers, doctors, psychologists and government officers -- without whose approval such a systematized torture regime could not be sustained."
[...]
.... And they did it all in secret - ...
[...]
A couple of things need to be stressed, because I've learned the hard way that intelligent people simply refuse to absorb what is staring them in the face, when what is staring them in the face is so staggering:
[...]
There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes.
We have war criminals in the White House. What are we going to do about it?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/war-criminal.html |
Unfortunately, too many have listened to the fear tactics used by this Administration, and so nothing will be done about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Unfortunately, too many listen to the extremists without thinking for them selves, and get blinded by hatred. Once upon a time it was Bush hatred, now it has become hatred of any conservative. God forbid someone has a different opinion, they must be evil, deluded, or idiots, right?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| Unfortunately, too many listen to the extremists without thinking for them selves, and get blinded by hatred. Once upon a time it was Bush hatred, now it has become hatred of any conservative. God forbid someone has a different opinion, they must be evil, deluded, or idiots, right? |
The people against the Iraq war of aggression had a different opinion to bush and the bush administration.
bush and the bush administration characterised them as evil, deluded or idiots,
to defend the administrations right to attack a weak nation and steal Iraqi oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Quote: |
The War Crimes Act of 1996: Bush, Rumsfeld could be indicted under US law
Global Research, October 28, 2005
George Washington blogspot
The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.
The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.
18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time. ...
The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq. ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20...028& |
From what I've been reading, Bush has attempted to secure himself and his cohorts from prosecution for war crimes, at the same time saying we don't do that; and then behind the scenes doing exactly that.
| Quote: |
Published on Saturday, September 23, 2006
by the Chicago Sun-Times
(Sun-Times link is now gone. Reprint here.)
Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act
by Elizabeth Holtzman
Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.
The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.
Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.
Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. ...
To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.
When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.
What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. ...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0923-22.htm |
This is a big maze to go through, but it looks like Congress may have given them almost what they wanted, if this 5 year statute of limitations is somewhere in all the stuff they've handed to Bush on a silver platter.
| Quote: |
2007
On tonight’s Countdown Former White House Counsel for Richard Nixon, John Dean, joined Keith Olbermann to discuss the recently revealed 2004 Bush DoJ secret memo endorsing torture. As always, Dean gets at the heart of the Bush administration crimes, giving a stellar rundown on their shameless behavior, shameful interpretations of the Geneva Conventions and their attempts to persuade Congress to change the laws in order to gain immunity for their crimes — to which Dean adds:
Dean: “…Not only should the congress not cede to their requests, they ought to extend the statute of limitations for another five years, make it a ten year statute of limitations so people would have vulnerability if these can be surfaced and dug out, because it’s the only way to make the point that indeed, these are real laws. Otherwise it’s a joke to even have them.”
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/04/john-dean-to-congress-extend-...tute-of |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
As usual, I see the blogs and opinion pieces. I see opinions pasted by people who write books like "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens." I see Kieth Oberman. In other words, as usual, I see opinions from extremists posted here as if they were facts.
You extremists and their true believers out there have been creaming about this for years, yet have NEVER provided any real proof of any crime, just allegations that have been repeated so many times that you think they are the truth.
I have to wonder why. Is just hatred for Bush? Are you so mad that he won? Are you never going to get over it? Or are you sill mad about Clinton and are trying to get revenge?
When Clinton was in power, there were those on the right who couldn't stand it. And you on the left label them as haters and extremist wackos. Guess what - the shoe's on the other foot now. Repeating the same old accusations without proof for years makes you the extremist, hate filled wackos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mommabear
Joined: Feb 20, 2003
Posts: 6319
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
They might be just "opinion" pieces but they also have a chronology of facts and events written into them.
Post your rebuttals from Republicans. I don't care if they're opinions or writings on a bathroom wall as long as they are written well. Say something besides just attacking the messengers!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Rebuttal to what? To the same attack that you and others have been posting for years without proof?
Post proof of any one of these allegations, then maybe I'd listen. Until then, you and all the others are just repeating the Hate Bush (and anyone who doesn't hate him) talking points.
Like I said, there's no point in "discussing" blind hatred from extremists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: War Crimes and the Bush Legacy [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Bush confesses to war crimes
| Quote: |
George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.
These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.
At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.
His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.
The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors. |
The extremists are those that promoted this illegal war of aggression on Iraq which has lead to the deaths of more than a million Iraqi's.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General