The Next Step: No Taxes For Torture
An Open Letter to Democrats
To Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Howard Dean, Out of Iraq Caucus:
As the Democrats struggle to define their next step after the President’s veto, I would like to suggest an additional approach to those under discussion: end US taxpayer support for sectarian police state actions carried out by branches of the Iraqi government.
I propose an amendment to a forthcoming military appropriations bill:
- Banning or suspending any funds for training, advising and equipping official Iraqi units carrying out sectarian killings, torture, secret detentions on a sectarian basis, or ethnic cleansing in violation of human rights standards and treaty obligations such the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR]
- Specifically banning or suspending U.S. funding of the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, U.S. Task Force 6-26 at Camp Nama detention site and any other U.S.-funded entities advising, training, equipping or deployed with Iraq ministries or security forces identified as persistent human rights violators by qualified agencies including but not limited to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq [UNAMI].
- On human rights grounds, explicitly reject the “Salvadoran model” in training and counter-insurgency plans for Iraq, both at present and as American combat troops are withdrawn.
If there is a coming battle over “benchmarks,” Democrats should focus attention on whether the U.S.-supported Baghdad regime is capable of progress on ending sectarian killings, torture, mass detentions and ethnic cleansing, or whether it an un-reformable American-assisted sectarian police state. It appears that the Democratic position is to continue funding thousands of American trainers after the withdrawal of most combat troops, a path that will integrate our government with a sectarian regime harboring torture, killing of civilians and ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
While it is true that all sides are committing human rights violations in Iraq, the U.S. government is funding and backing only one side, the side that is in power and responsible for policing, prisons, the judicial system, and the armed forces. There is no question that the U.S. is backing a sectarian state dominated by Shi’a and Kurdish parties. Perhaps 90 percent of the army is Shi’a, and the 7,700 members of the paramilitary “public order brigades” are all Shi’a. [The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2006]. In response to the CIA installing a Sunni as director of the Iraqi intelligence services, the Shi’a parties have established a massive, parallel and shadowy sectarian intelligence agency serving the state on their own. As the Baker-Hamilton Report firmly stated:
[the Iraqi National Police] routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians…the police are organized under the Ministry of Interior, which is confronted by corruption and militia infiltration.” [p. 10]
The most recent report of the UNAMI carefully notes a pattern and practice of such violations, including:
- refusal of the Iraqi Ministry of Health to provide required access to mortality rates for this period;
- apparent lack of judicial guarantees in the handling of suspects arrested in the context of the Baghdad Security Plan;
- no explicit measures guaranteeing even minimal due process rights;
- possible collusion between armed militia and Iraqi Special Forces in raids, and failure to intervene against kidnappings;
- alleged killing of civilians in operations conducted by U.S. forces jointly with Iraqi armed forces or security personnel;
- detention and killing of academics who in some cases have been held in custody of US/MNF forces;
- detentions without trial and infringements on freedom of the press in Kurdistan.
The U.S. defines its role as protecting and fostering respect for human rights by the Iraqi security forces it is training, funding and equipping. It appears that the U.S. has been directly involved, however, in tolerating torture and other violations. As the general in charge of training Iraqi security forces, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said in 2005, Iraqi “cultural practices” condone forced conventions and other abuses:
we are fighting in a very harsh environment…these guys are not fighting on the streets of Bayonne, New Jersey. [ABC, Dec. 13, 2005]
Even assuming that the U.S. role is benevolent, however, it is time to recognize the U.S. has failed. As the UNAMI report concludes, the Iraq authorities:
have yet to demonstrate the political will to hold accountable law enforcement personnel suspected of involvement in torture and ill-treatment and other abuses of authority, [citing] the Ministry of Interior’s al-Jadiriyya and Site 4 being a case in point.
At of March, there were 17,898 Iraqis being indefinitely interned in the custody of the US/MNF, out of a total population of detainees of 37,641 - 3,000 of them as a result of the Baghdad Security Plan launched in February. Without qualification, the UN report points out that:
the current legal arrangements at the detention facilities do not fulfill the requirement to grant detainees due process.
Anecdotal media reports repeatedly reinforce the impression of a U.S.-funded Shi’a police state:
- for the abuse of detainees in “Hotel California” at Camp Nama under Task Force 6-26, see The New York Times, Mar. 19, 2006
- for paramilitaries under the Interior Ministry “nearly all accused of tortures and illegal killings”, see The New York Times, Mar. 7, 2006
- for Baghdad secret prisons and torture centers, see UNAMI report, Nov. 1-Dec. 31, 2006.
- for ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, see The New York Times, Dec. 23, 2006
- for U.S. advisers teamed with the Wolf Brigade [death squad], see The New York Times, May 22, 2006
- for an eyewitness account of this “all happening under the eyes of US commanders, who seem unwilling or unable to intervene”, see BBC report, Nov. 7, 2006.
- for 705 inmates detained in a space for 76 during the current surge, see The New York Times, Mar. 29, 2006.
- for advocacy of the “Salvadoran model”, see testimony of Kalev I. Sepp, adviser to the Iraq Study Group, and Congressional testimony of Gen. Peter Pace, in Los Angeles Times, Mar. 12, 2007.
Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.
© 2007 Huffington Post
Tom Hayden is right. We won’t really leave, because we’ll have our four massive bases there, plus the embassy, another military installation, and we’ll keep paying billions of tax dollars to finance prisons, torture, and murder, basically forever. Its just a coverup, just bullshit. So what’s new.
The Bush regime must be impeached. They are the most notorious criminals on the planet.
It seems to me that the mantra “support the troops” is a very difficult one for law-abiding people. When the American troops following orders from their superiors illegally invaded Iraq, not only are the leaders and superiors guilty of war crimes, but those following orders as well. *
It therefore seems that when we support people committing war crimes, we make ourselves accomplices to these crimes.
We must therefore support soldiers, who redeploy to America.
* Nuremberg Trials
The somewhat strange aspect of this good article is this: why would Pelosi, Reid and Dean take steps to stop torture *in Iraq* by the would-be U.S. puppet government there when they won’t oppose torture *by our own government* when they hold the majority in both houses? (They could start by repealing the Military Commissions Act.)
“When the American troops following orders from their superiors illegally invaded Iraq, not only are the leaders and superiors guilty of war crimes, but those following orders as well. *
It seems to be far-fetched. The troops are supposed to follow
orders, and they didn’t know that the war was illegal.
There is a difference between following the orders and throwing
people into ovens, and following the orders and invading another country.
The torture and murder will continue as long as the lice at the head of our government feel the need to do as they wish. It seems that these self-serving creatures have committed American kids in a deal to protect the OIL far into the future. It is time to send the priveleged and their children to fight for that which their avarice and cupidity lead them to covet.
“It is important to understand that war crimes fall into two classes: (1) war crimes relevant to battlefield conduct; (2) waging a war of aggression. To explain what was at that time an unprecedented focus on the second kind of war crime, war of aggression, the Nuremberg Judgment included the following statement: “The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Yes, but there is a difference between Cheney and soldiers
You’re not addressing the issue I raised.
I agree with Dr. Robert. No matter how much it hurts to say it, any soldier that goes to Iraq is a war criminal.
Dr. Z,
Thanks for the lesson in the Nuremberg Judgment. Do you suppose that was another reason why the administration kept trying to link 9/11 to the war in Iraq — so the military could feel like they were not fighting an illegal war of aggression but rather defending their country?
Now, but we were talking about those who went in 2003. There
is a difference, ladies and gentlemen, or rather gentlemen only. Don’t change the discussion.
See again below
“When the American troops following orders from their superiors illegally invaded Iraq, not only are the leaders and superiors guilty of war crimes, but those following orders as well. *
Eurobelle’s commented that “The troops are supposed to follow orders, and they didn’t know that the war was illegal.”
The essence, the core of the Nuremberg Charter is this: following illegal orders does not confer immunity for executing those orders.
Lt. Watada is the one US officer (so far) who put career and liberty on the line to abide by the Nuremberg ideals. The Nuremberg ideals are an extention of the US Constitution having been adopted by the UN.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Soldiers who participate in illegal aggressions violate the Nuremberg precedent. Prior to Nuremberg, via the “Law of Nations,” waging aggressive war was a national right. After Nuremberg that national right became an international crime.
Eurobelle, what part of Article 6 (2) of the Constitution that says “treaties made” are the “supreme law of the land” don’t you (or the troops) understand? They all made an oath to the US Constitution.
Arguably the most important clause of the most important treaty regarding the use of force is Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. It states:
“4. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member or state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
Ignorance of this law is no excuse. This Article made aggressive war “the supreme international crime.”
Not only that, the Army Field Manual make the same point:
“Treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution and statutes.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0201-30.htm
Sure, the military traditionally does not acknowledge the rights of soldiers to follow their conscience when it comes to defying presidential orders to wage illegal wars. Lt. Watada is being tried in military court in Seattle for *failing to commit* war crimes by going to Iraq. But this travesty of “justice” in violation of the Constitution can only happen when people like Eurobelle succeed in arguing that ignorance of the law excuses soldiers from culpability for the supreme international crime–waging illegal aggressive war.
Justice Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor said it this way:
“If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. . . . our definition would sound pretty partial if we are defining an act as a crime only when it is carried out by the Axis powers. That is what I have in mind: If it is a good rule of law, it should bind us all, and if not, we should not invoke it at this trial.”
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jackson/jack44.htm
We progressives need to praise the great moral heroes the past like Hugh Thompson who saved civilians from the US massacre at My Lai and Lt. Watada who knows his Constitution and his Nuremberg ideals and sticks to them.
One more comment concerning Eurobelle’s statement that: while all soldiers who violate their oath to the Constutition and participate in an illegal invasion and occupation like Iraq are culpable for their crimes, there is a difference between a private in the army and Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Rice. At Nuremberg, the higher the rank and the higher the education (in the case of Ben Ferencz’s trial) the greater the culpability. So I agree completely with Eurobell that “there is a difference between Cheney and soldiers.” It is a matter of degree, with greater culpability going with the higher the rank in the matter of participating in an illegal war. But the statement by Hayden indicating that participation in the crime of invading and occupying Iraq is a crime for whomever participates still stands as true.
Earthian,
I wasn’t talking about ignorance of the law,
I was talking about ignorance of the fact that Iraq wasn’t a threat - quite a difference.
Look, there is a difference between a premeditated murder and an accident, for example.
Cheney and soldiers - I had in mind that Cheney lied,
but soldiers didn’t know, not the difference in rank.
But, this too is an an important point.
Eurobell,
Iraq “being a threat” would not have legally justified an invasion. By that criteria, every nation on Earth could invade the US.
Had they launched missles at us, or were in the process doing so; had they sent a fleet to attack our shores; had they attacked even our allies; then the US could have invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, sent the issue to the UNSC, *while* repelling the attack with proportionate force and awaiting a determination of the Council.
But Iraq was not attacking us. The lies were about their capacity to attack us. And about support for the *past* al Qaeda attacks. So even if the lies were true, the invasion would have been illegal, for there was no visible attack to thwart, and there was no appeal to the UNSC invoking Article 51 to justify the use of force. The US *did* seek and failed to get a resolution authorizing the use of force. That’s why Kofi Annan said the attack was “illegal.”
If “a threat” justified a preventative invasion or attack, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have been legal. With our current laws, and as determined by the Tokyo Tribunal, it wasn’t.
I suggest a careful reading of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter and Tribunal, and the Tokyo Tribunal, along with an examination of Article 6 (2) of the US Constitution and a review of Hamden v. Rumsfeld. The law is clear.
Regarding taking seriously the claims of WMDs and some threat, that is laughable. Anyone who wanted to look could determine that the WMD stories were lies.
Newsweek had a cover story revealing the Hussein Kamel testified to the CIA that Iraq got rid of its WMDs and programs in the early 1990s. This from a guy who Cheney praised as a reliable source.
Anyone who wanted to know, could find that Rice said in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat:
In July 2001 Condoleezza Rice said, “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0830-14.htm
Powell said the same thing in a public forum with the Foreign Minister of Egypt on February 24, 2001:
“We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Anyone who wanted to know could have found these statements.
Again, ignorance of the law and ignorance of obvious facts doesn’t constitute an excuse for a horrendous crime that has killed over 800,000 people and destroyed a sovereign nation.
Before agreeing to an invasion, every soldier needs to do his or her homework. THAT’S WHAT WATADA DID. The same applies to Congress, to Generals, and to regular citizens.
eurobelle,
Since now, over 4 years into the war, many of the lies and crimes of the administration have been well publicized even by our corporate media, to the point that any waking person with a conscience can’t not stop and think about them; and since there is an abundance of additional damning material available on the internet, which many if not most of our armed forces have access to - do you agree that US soldiers going on new deployments to Iraq now, of their free will, are guilty of participating in war crimes?
Once again:
“When the American troops following orders from their superiors illegally invaded Iraq, not only are the leaders and superiors guilty of war crimes, but those following orders as well.”
They was a starting point of the discussion. Why can’t we focus on this issue, and see a problem there?
“But Iraq was not attacking us. The lies were about their capacity to attack us” Well, we know that, but soldiers didn’t know.
“Again, ignorance of the law and ignorance of obvious facts doesn’t constitute an excuse for a horrendous crime that has killed over 800,000 people and destroyed a sovereign nation.”
The facts were not so obvious. I don’t know anything about
you, guys, but resent when someone who deals with politics professionally, or has plenty of time, compares himself/herself with regular people who struggle to survive, and have personal responsibilities. I had an argument with a fried, a housewife, no children, Ph.D., interest in politics, a military analyst as a husband, who was proud that she knew that going to Iraq wasn’t justified. Thank you very much. Try to know the same in different circumstances
Correction
This was a starting point .
I just finished watching ‘Iraq for Sale’ and I’m still in shock. My God… these corporations are sociopathic. And they’re completely hooked into our government at the highest levels via lobbyists and the Bush Administration.
The abuses of US citizen contractors who went over in good faith (hoping to make a difference,) our troops and the Iraqi people is appalling. If you haven’t seen it, watch it. Every American citizen should watch it.
We’re losing our country to corporations with no soul, no honor and no conscience. And we’re footing the bill with our taxes. Do you realize when a Halliburton truck has a flat tire over there, the Army is expected to blow it up - and Halliburton bills our government for a brand new truck? And we pay for this with our taxes. Seriously.
Honestly, I’m in shock. Anyone with a shred of patriotism - not to mention ethics - will be appalled.
eurobelle,
I’m just a reasonably well-read person, curious about the world, not even a college degree, no special connections to academia or the military establishment. And I knew before the US invasion that it was highly suspect, and common sense told me the administration was playing on our fears. Knowing a little bit of history can also give a person tremendous perspective. And there were reasonably well-publicized statements and reports from officials of various important world bodies disputing key claims of the administration’s drive for war. On top of all that, the UN wouldn’t sanction Bush’s invasion.
Given this environment before the US attack on Iraq, are you really prepared to let the mass of the US armed forces off the hook because “they couldn’t have known”? Does being a soldier or being a busy person exempt one from paying attention to world events, applying basic logic and knowledge of human nature, and exercising the freedom to THINK FOR ONESELF? No, it doesn’t.
It’s true: US (and most) military service is largely about brainwashing, and it is often applied effectively. Yet, it is still each individual’s responsibility to learn about their world and to act morally in it. That’s the standard we held people to at Nuremberg, as Earthian pointed out.
Even if we were to grandfather the military aggression of US soldiers before a certain point in the Iraq invasion and not hold them accountable because “they couldn’t have known”, what about the ongoing aggression being committed by our nation’s finest now, 4 years and beyond into this illegal, immoral war based on highly publicized exposed lies? What about those guys and gals toting guns we STILL see on the evening news kissing their families goodbye on some dockside? What about our soldiers STILL saying that Saddam helped Al Qaeda? Keep giving them a free pass because of their stupidity? Or because of their inability or unwillingness to question authority, think for themselves, or take a moral stand?
Why do we give guns to people like this to “protect” us and kill people in other countries?
“Knowing a little bit of history can also give a person tremendous perspective.
Does being a soldier or being a busy person exempt one from paying attention to world events, applying basic logic and knowledge of human nature”
These are fine statements, but they are not descriptive.
In reality, nobody knows history, most certainly not soldiers. They are not taught history.
Being busy. If one works 70 hours, and had some responsibilities, one can’t. I am talking about reality. What are you talking about?
OK. Now some questions to easy judges.
How many of the fine participants of the discussion
don’t participate in the mobbing on the job. How many of the fine participants pretend they don’t know that they exploit people? How many of the fine participants defended a colleague, unfairly escorted past them on the job etc.?
Yes, ‘knowing a little bit of history ..”
Fine, but it’s not the young, poor kids fault that history is not taught. It’s all those adults who have allowed to kill history, and participate in this murder by repeating idiotically: “History is written by victors (no need to study history)”; oh no, we don’t want kids to memorize anything (well, certain things, such as dates and Latin - or any other - verb conjugation must be memorized; each situation is different (no need to study history again). Blaming the victims is not a good idea.
Better stop collaborating yourselves. The soldiers who went to Iraq in 2003 are tragic figures.
Laying everything aside, my sister and I both have considered not paying our taxes due to this Administrations outrageous squandering of tax dollars. We have talked numerous times at length about this issue. We object to the way they are using our hard earned money. To invade hapless countries they deem terrorist states for their own selfish purposes. I really wish there were some way we taxpayers could protest by withdrawing our tax dollars from this criminal war. Without being proscuted for not paying our taxes! So, both of us feel very stongly about this issue! Does anyone out there have any ideas???
Mass protest. Impeachment of this adminstration.
eurobelle:
“The soldiers who went to Iraq in 2003 are tragic figures.” Your point is well taken. But so are Iraqis and all other victims of American imperialism (thank God, nowadays nobody calls me crazy for using this word).
There is a great deal of difference, however, between tragedy of American soldiers and that of their victims. Americans are not even volonteers, they had chosen freely their way of making living, that is by killing others.
Do you have any further questions, comrade Eurobelle?
Well,
I am not a pacifist, and I believe that, unfortunately,
wars are unavoidable (maybe human nature has to do something with wars). I’d like also to remind that there were pacifists before WWI; there were pacifists before WWII.
I do believe that by creating more equitable societies we can avoid/limit the number of war/their atrocity.
I also would like to say that many of these young people were betrayed, and actually didn’t have many choices in life, unlike many of the baby boomers (including some of the posters here), who after taking care of their bodies (draft, genitals) focus on filling their pockets at all cost, including barbarity in the workplace.
If I understand it correctly, nothing, nothing, nothing was
done in the socio-economic area by this generation.
By the way, I am distributing free mirrors.
A question:
Why comrade Eurobelle?
Ah, I forget.
I have another question:
“Observer, do you want a mirror?”
Dulce bellum inexpertis: war is sweet to the inexperienced.
Aloud “Amen!” to you Tom, George Tenet’s denials notwithstanding. We need to attempt to restore the good name we had as a country in the community of nations, and dispense with our bully-boy diatribes and regain a sense of civility.
Anyone who doesn’t know that torture is intolerably wrong, any law or treaty whatsoever to the contrary, is a sociopath that belongs behind bars. They are not fit to be soldiers, officers, politicians, judges, or free people, period.
The Nuremberg charter was merely drawing a line in the stand regarding this - stating that, if people were found THIS far over the line, it could be reasonably concluded that they were in fact criminally responsible.