Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Bush Officials Face War Crimes Trials? Few Expect It
WASHINGTON - Emboldened by a Democratic win of the White House, civil libertarians and human rights groups want the incoming Obama administration to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes. They don't just want low-level CIA interrogators, either. They want President George W. Bush on down.
CONFESSED WAR CRIMINAL DICK CHENEY
"It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened," said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. "It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard pressed to see any other outcome." In the past eight years, administration critics have demanded that top officials be held accountable for a host of expansive assertions of executive powers from eavesdropping without warrants to detaining suspected enemy combatants indefinitely at the Guantanamo Bay military prison. A recent bipartisan Senate report on how Bush policies led to the abuse of detainees has fueled calls for a criminal investigation.
But even some who believe top officials broke the law don't favor criminal prosecutions. The charges would be too difficult legally and politically to succeed.
Without wider support, the campaign to haul top administration officials before an American court is likely to stall.
In the end, Bush administration critics might have more success by digging out the truth about what happened and who was responsible, rather than assigning criminal liability, and letting the court of public opinion issue the verdicts, many say.
"It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened," said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. "It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard pressed to see any other outcome."
Robert Turner, a former Reagan White House lawyer who supported several of the Bush administration's assertions of executive powers, but not the use of harsh interrogation techniques, said that war crimes "may well have been committed," given reports by human-rights organizations that some prisoners may have been beaten to death.
Turner was outraged when Bush signed an executive order in 2007 that he believes permitted highly abusive treatment, so long as the "purpose" was to acquire intelligence to stop future terrorist attacks, rather than just to humiliate or degrade the detainee.
He recalls telling senior Justice Department officials during a conference call prior to the public release of the order: "Do you people understand that you are setting up the president of the United States to be tried as a war criminal?" The conference call, he said, quickly came to an end.
Turner, who co-founded the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law in 1981, rebuts the administration's defense that waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning, isn't torture and therefore is legal.
He also challenges the administration's argument that Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, prohibiting inhumane treatment of detainees, isn't binding. "The standard is not torture. It's humane treatment. That's a much higher standard," he said, noting that after World War II, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding on American troops.
Turner, nonetheless, has concluded that prosecution of war crimes in American courts isn't the best course. Other critics of the administration join him, including retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson and retired Air Force Judge Advocate General Scott Silliman.
"From a legal point of view, it would be exceedingly difficult," Silliman said. "From a policy point of view, we would be wading into dangerous waters."
Retired Navy JAG John Hutson, the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, in Concord, N.H., said he thinks that Americans would be more likely to get the facts from inquiries modeled on the 9-11 Commission or the post-Watergate Church Committee.
"It's absolutely crucial that we have an understanding of what happened so it doesn't happen again," Hutson said. "But to some extent, making that a criminal investigation would inhibit rather than foster a thorough understanding because people would lawyer up."
"You might get some prosecutions" of low-level officials, he added. "But you would not get absolute ground truth."
Prosecuting interrogators without going after higher-ups would be divisive politically, even though following the orders of superiors isn't a valid defense against war crimes, military experts said.
Also left unanswered is whether any top congressional Democrats consented directly or indirectly to the most controversial interrogation practices after the administration disclosed them in closed-door briefings.
Americans have been reluctant to prosecute their own - no matter how appalling the atrocities. Even after U.S. Army officer William Calley was convicted for ordering the 1968 My Lai Massacre, in which as many as 500 Vietnamese villagers were killed, many Americans continued to see him as a scapegoat. He was sentenced to three years of house arrest. No other officer, including Calley's commander, was ever convicted.
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans think that waterboarding is torture, but are divided over whether it's justified in certain circumstances, such as preventing a terrorist attack.
Democrats, however, are likely to feel pressure to open some sort of broader criminal inquiry, especially given recent revelations.
Earlier this year, retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo by using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other practices.
The Taguba report concurred with a five-part McClatchy investigation of Guantanamo that was published earlier this year. Among its findings were that abuses occurred - primarily at prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were held en route to Guantanamo - and that many of the prisoners were wrongly detained.
This month's Senate report concluded that top officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - were responsible for the use of "abusive" interrogation techniques on detainees. The Senate Armed Services Committee also dismissed the Bush administration's repeated claims that the abuses were the work of a few low-level officials.
Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo detainees, said the report took "one step forward" toward a criminal inquiry, noting that it concludes the interrogations were geared toward false confessions. However, he acknowledged that the Obama administration is "clearly going to need to be pushed" for a criminal inquiry to be opened.
An aide to a senior Democrat, who didn't have the authorization to talk and asked to remain anonymous, said that the reports could fuel a new zeal in Congress to pursue administration officials but added that might depend on what the president-elect wants.
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to ask his attorney general to "immediately" determine whether an inquiry is merited. "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he told the Philadelphia Daily News.
At the same time, he said he wouldn't want his first term to be consumed by what could be perceived as a "partisan witch hunt."
"Presumably, the Obama administration is not looking to spend a lot of time or a lot of headlines going after Republicans in the opening months of his administration," the aide said. "If many Republicans are prosecuted, the question is whether half the country will call it political retribution."
Obama could avoid a political fight by instead appointing a presidential commission or ordering his administration to cooperate with a congressional inquiry.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., predicted that there wouldn't be criminal investigations in the U.S.
"I understand the frustration of these people," Leahy said in a recent interview with Vermont Public Radio of those who've pushed for a criminal inquiry. "But those things are not going to happen."
Leahy instead called for congressional oversight hearings.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, has remained steadfast in defending the legality of its anti-terrorism policies. In a recent interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney said critics who've accused the administration of endorsing torture "simply don't know what they're talking about."
"We had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross," he said. "The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful (and) wouldn't do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal."
Even if Congress and the White House mustered the political will, a criminal investigation would be legally complicated.
Bush could insulate his administration's officials against criminal charges by issuing pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office in January.
If Bush doesn't issue pardons, administration officials theoretically could be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions a war crime that can be prosecuted in an American federal court.
However, Common Article 2 of the treaties says that the conventions apply to a conflict between two states that are party to the treaties, and the administration points out that al Qaida doesn't fit that description. In addition, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 specifies what sort of conduct can be punished and appears to give administration officials cover.
Challenging that immunity is likely to be an uphill battle, because Congress has the constitutional authority to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations.
Another route would be pursuing charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which allows for the prosecution in a military court-martial of anyone who's subject to the laws of war. Under the Yamashita standard, named for a Japanese general convicted of World War II crimes, officials who "knew or should have known" that crimes were being committed by their troops could be prosecuted. The Supreme Court, however, has strictly limited military jurisdiction over civilians, making a trial of administration officials in that forum difficult, if not impossible.
Experts said that a criminal prosecution is more likely to succeed abroad if led by any one of the countries that is party to treaties prohibiting such treatment. The International Criminal Court, which calls itself "the court of last resort", could also prosecute war crimes charges. The U.S., however, refuses to cede to its jurisdiction, despite the court's recognition by 108 other countries.
"Americans need to know what pressures were brought to bear," Hutson said. "Who made late night phone calls saying, 'If you're a patriot, you've got to come up with a legal opinion that permits us to do these things?' Culpability is less important to me than finding out what made such smart lawyers come up with such a travesty of a legal opinion."
Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.
64 Comments so far
Show All"Bush signed an executive order in 2007...(its purpose) to stop future terrorist attacks"
There it is again - the 'war on terror' (to prevent future terrorism) popping up like a whacked mole in a game that never ends.
End this war and the chances improve that war criminals will be brought to justice.
End this war so that the Bush gang has to stop using it as their excuse for everything.
I ask, is it easier to bring war criminals to justice during time of ongoing war or during time of peace when their war has just been repudiated?
"The International Criminal Court, which calls itself "the court of last resort", could also prosecute war crimes charges. The U.S., however, refuses to cede to its jurisdiction"
Saddam Hussein also refused to cede to the jurisdiction to the US created Iraqi interim government's "Special Tribunal". Only 49 of the countries numbered amongst "coalition of the willing" gave the the tribunal any international credibility. The UN withheld support.
108 countries back the International Criminal Court, but none have the military or policing power to enforce their justice upon the Torture Whitehouse.
After the Bush reign, the only universal standard one can conclude is that might makes right.
Will Bush Officials Face War Crimes Trials?
If they do not then all succeeding administrations must wear the War Criminal stigmata.
No legitimate voter will have anything to do with war criminals. If at first we don't secede...
Obama doesn't need to let these criminals off the hook in order to appear bi-partisan and unifying. Most Republicans are trying to rescue their asses by turning on themselves.
As George Carlin once said - "'Bipartisan' simply means some larger than usual deception is taking place."
Obama, sic Fitzpatrick on that piece of shit in the picture. If it costs you your life (and it may) you can't let this go.
Would you rather be remembered in the company of M.L. King, Medgar Evers, Robert Kennedy, or the usual white trash that occupies the White House?
I'm older than you, my kids are grown, but I would jump at the chance to go out like a defender of the good, the right, the true, the just. Sounds corny, right? God knows we have had no heroes for so long that people are wondering if there are any more like the civil rights martyrs. There have to be some somewhere, and I'm not looking for make believe weapons of mass destruction.
This is no joke, and who knows-you may make yourself a winner-and the rest of us with you.
If you can't do it nobody can.
You don't know that. Give him a chance---AND insist that these hooligans see hard time.
When he stacks his admin with pro-MIC flacks, and he talks of escalating conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you still believe he is for change and for the people? Man, where have you been???
Look at that face and tell me you don't see pure malevolence and a contempt for light.
Don't let Cheney and his Legion of Doom get away. The big jet powered Skull is about to leave the swamp.
I agree--the face of pure evil.
Nah. Look at a photo of Joseph Goebbels sometime. Ugh. It gives me the creeps to even think about it.
The two are cut from the same mold, that is for sure.
Goebbels was like Karl Rove, if Karl Rove had been given total control of the media. Cheney is more of a Himmler type.
There are much worse things than Bush/Cheney out there, waiting their turn. Watch out.
The U.S. refusal to "cede" to the ICJ's authority would be pointless, if the People of the U.S. dictated that the Bush Administration be tried under that authority.
The refusal to cede was done in order to allow the very same behavior that the U.S. tried the former Nazi and Japanese for. The U.S. has conveniently stayed away from other trials since then.
So far as the concerns of the author about the "smart lawyers", who made such a "travesty of a legal opinion" were simply following the same false color of law of the former Nazi lawyers and judges who were found guilty at the second Nuremberg Trials; held just for them. The Legal process in this country has fallen into the same corrupt and politicized quagmire that the Nazi Legal process had.
The future of the U.S. could very well depend upon how they conduct the needed tribunals for their own Crimes against humanity, during the Bush administration.
Whether the Commander In Chief and his cabinet are tried after or before the Lawyers who advised them would be an interesting argument to be made, but one that would be irrelevant. The need for the trials is of the utmost importance, whomever is tried first is irrelevant.
Jurisdiction, whether the consensus is in agreement on this or not, would be exactly what the People of the U.S. demanded. They could, with force of their own application of the Law call upon both Houses to comply with their wishes. Since there are no statute of limitations on these crimes, the People could make a political Point of the subject in any of the forth coming elections.
In the meantime, the charges could still be filed with the ICJ, and the people named in those charges could be held up for trial, in any Federal penitentiary, or one could even be constructed. Evidential proceedings would be almost pointless since VP Cheney has already admitted to these crimes; publicly. No plea bargains should be allowed. The responsibility came from the President, and was passed down the chain, each person in turn doing their part, should also be required to answer for those deeds accordingly.
The world which has grown to fear the U.S. almost as much as they did the Nazis in many cases, would at least be notified that the "People" of the U.S. are honorable and trust worthy people. People who allowed a rogue group of criminals to take control and commit crimes against humanity in their name, but refuse to allow those crimes to go unanswered. When answered, done so in a proper court of authority where no favors could be expected. To hold these trials in U.S. courts would be as much a travesty as not holding them would be.
It is unfortunate that members of what should be an honorable profession were corrupt to the level that the Bush advisers are, but that is exactly why the profession has its own governing body. The Bar Association will revoke the license of lawyers who violate the code of ethics. When human beings are given these kinds of power, it is the responsibility of the other human beings to assure that the power is not abused. Human nature being what it is, when the power vested in those human beings is abused, they are made answer for the abuses.
A young relative of mine postulated that since there are several million people in state or federal custody. With several million more on probation. With even several million more who have lost the right to vote, own a gun, and others, after serving their sentences for felony crimes, there would be millions of people who would have the right, to see that even the highest ranking criminals answered for their crimes. This is a very good point. Even though those millions in most cases cannot vote , they still could make donations to candidates who ran for office under the "make em pay" ticket (just a small joke on the name). They could for example donate just ten dollars each, which could amount to tens of millions of dollars; and money talks in the U.S.A. The logic here even tough simplistic it is pointed; would not those who are paying for crimes have the unique right to demand that other 'do the time for their own crimes': well yea!
This subject could become as important a point as there are numbers of U.S. Citizens who want to make it important. It could also just as easily fall by the sidelines which many believe would be the "nail in the coffin" for the U.S. and its future.
When the Nazis committed the atrocities they are famous for, they did so thinking that they would have immunity. They were wrong. So should the Bush administration. If they were right, then it will be because the People of the U.S. have degenerated to the point that they no longer deserve to exist as a Nation, and they will be remembered by History in the same light.
Your silence will be your consent.
nurembergrevisited@gmail.com
I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, the Nuremburg Trials only came about because the Nazis were defeated by the Russians (and to a lesser extent, by the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain). There were no "Washington Trials" to punish the perpetrators of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. By the same token, it was Saddam and not Bush who was lynched by an angry mob of Shiites.
Until the U.S. is defeated militarily, I don't hold out much hope for the kind of victor's justice we so self-righteously mete out to others.
I see your thinking as defeatist and conventional. It has never been done, therefore it can't be done so don't even try.
If the people organize and insist on it then it will happen. Unfortunately 47% voted for McCain/Palin, but we have got to do something.
Whoa there, feller. Saying that a particular course of action is unlikely for historical reasons does not equal "so don't even try." The previous poster suggested having other countries force some kind of Nuremberg Tribunal-like arrangement on the U.S., which I see as exceedingly unlikely without some form of military conquest.
You say "If the people organize and insist on it then it will happen." And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Your plan needs a little fleshing-out.
I guess my point is that unless the majority of the population feels personally damaged by whatever crime has taken/is taking place, they will have little motivation for the kind of sustained, career-damaging action required for "real change"... in this case bringing Bush, Cheney, Pelosi -- in fact pretty much every member of the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government -- to justice.
I believe this is why Europeans and others who have seen war close-up tend to have fewer Sarah Palins. But perhaps the U.S. is on the verge of a "great education" in the form of a total economic collapse. Desperation is a excellent motivator for marches on Washington, for example.
A total economic collapse would not result in prosecution for war crimes. It would result in prosecutions for fraud. Should such occur the US will either pull together or go Merzi. Give it three years. I think the latter is in the lead since they have been organized for years by Limbaugh et al. The first move of a Merzi US would be annexation of Canada.
I've scoured the Internet for a definition of the word "Merzi," with no success. Please to educate us poor ignorant slobs as to its meaning. (From the context, I assume it's some kind of right-wing dictatorship?)
You seem awfully certain of future events. Perhaps you can also look into your crystal ball and tell me what stocks to buy.
Merzi : American Nazi
Sell all your stocks. Buy Euros.
Sioux Rose
COUNT COUP: I'd like to add to the list of "smart lawyers" the psychologists ready to submit the fruit of their career efforts to overseeing the torture methods used at Quantanomo and elsewhere.
For those who make the point that the Nazis were forced to stand before the court as they were defeated in WW II, there are paths to defeat other than war. The U.S. bankrupt status, along with its reprobate failure to utilize greener technology (thus speeding the hell aimed at others who live along the equatorial circle as seen in Cuba this past hurricane season being hit three times) will witness the result of other types of impact.
Is it possible that if enough citizens via the Internet signed a petition, say with one million verifiable signatures/names, that the World Court would proceed? As others have noted, the key figuers in any indictment might feel reasonably secure in the homeland, but when outside of it?
Anyone remember poor Sebastian in the Tennesee William's play, "Suddenly Last Summer"? (I believe that was the title. I apologize if my memory is faltering.)
We can change it all, but we need to create some new laws at the local level of government. Here is an idea: http://www.thoughts.com/RedNeckPossie/blog/a-way-to-give-power-back-to-the-people-184665/
I hope no one is holding their breath waiting for this bunch
of criminals to be punished. It's not going to happen! Bush
will leave office in Jan. with that smirk still on his face.
Nothing will happen to Bush, Cheney and any other of their cohorts. I honestly feel the country is lost. I think its too late to save it. I think we are headed into a depression that will make the "great depression" look like a picnic. I forsee American troops killing Americans. I forsee widespread and massive civil strife. And if there was a god I'd pray to him or her or it that I'm wrong. I really really hope I'm wrong.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
i'm generally optimistic about the world and human spirit...notwithstanding having to voice highly critical views about things.
but in this case -- it really also seems to me that the USA as the nation it was claimed or supposed or ought to be - the paragon of the highest ideals of any nation: is beyond redemption. the corruption, structural, political, moral, intellectual - and the WEAKNESS of the citizenry - is just too wide a gap to allow seeing that it can be "fixed" of saved. citizenship, or civil ethics is largely destroyed in general, imo...the most important basic human notions or instincts of decency, honor - are met with either cynicism, "pragmatism" (you gotta do what you gotta do) -- indifference, or silent inability to see just how fallen the society has become.
i don't know exactly how things will play out..
You have expressed my feelings and thoughts in a more articulate fashion. Thank you.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Where to begin...
"In the end, Bush administration critics might have more success by digging out the truth about what happened and who was responsible, rather than assigning criminal liability, and letting the court of public opinion issue the verdicts, many say."
Does the "court of public opinion" have the power to give criminals "the chair?" Then yes.
"...waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning..." ARGH! One might as well say "shooting, which simulates the sensation of having a bullet driven through one's body at supersonic speeds..." I almost drowned when I was three and I daresay it was a more pleasant experience than being waterboarded.
"Retired Navy JAG John Hutson ... said he thinks that Americans would be more likely to get the facts from inquiries modeled on the 9-11 Commission...."
This is a joke, right? An inquiry modeled on the 9-11 Commission would probably find that Saddam Hussein was the U.S. President during the last eight years.
"We had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross," [Dick Cheney] said.
Given that prisoners were not only tortured but murdered in U.S. custody, I would be curious to know exactly where these "bright lines" were. Let's see: "You cannot build a time machine and travel into the past to kill a prisoner's grandfather, thus preventing his birth." Or "You cannot alter the Law of Gravity so as to cause the Moon to plummet into the Earth, crushing the prisoner's testicles."
I'm not holding my breath, but I sincerely hope that someone decides to convene a commission, a grand jury, or a lynch mob and hold those ***tards responsible. Cheney's "I am the law" attitude deserves to be brought down a notch.
Of course there will be a world wide economic collapse. This our opportunity to rebuild something in the place of this insane cutthroat capitalism.
Of course it will be difficult. I say it's worth it.
"...to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes."
That is the biggest (bad) joke I've heard in a long time. Are we surrounded by
'delusionalists' or what?
Was it ever necessary to investigate Pol Pot? Or Stalin, or Hitler? Of course not.
Unless that is a rhetorical question, it is infamous.
Those people should have been aborted in the first place. The world deserves
healing, not endless wars for profit and an ever increasing exploitation of its
resources.
Last night somebody told me that I was driving "improper", backing up into a
parking lot against the 'one way' direction. I answered "Improper as in assaulting
a sovereign Nation for profit?"
So You get harassed for inconsequential nonsense, but the real criminals are let
off the hook? That's one of the things that are gravely wrong in this country.
My stand point is, which judge can punish people for misdemeanor, or even
felonies, without bringing to justice the perpetrators that are responsible for this
'evil' frenzy in the Middle East and Afghanistan?
Old common wisdom 'The little guys are hanged, the big guys are released.'
As long as there is such a contempt for justice (for killing more than One Million
foreign citizens that never assaulted the US), there is no fix for all of this madness.
And yes, I wholeheartedly agree, the biggest scam is 'Bipartisanship'. What the hell
are people voting for? Instead of getting things done right, the circle of abusers and
traitors is extended to the opposition. For a parliamentary Democracy, that is
unacceptable. But then again, democracy American style is a joke in the first place.
It's more of a show like 'american idol', with billions wasted for campaigning,
resulting in 'Bipartisanship'.
Why don't You get two presnidents in the first place? The whole thing is a farce.
Obviously justice is left to people that lose it and assassinate those C__k s__k_rs.
In other words, those criminals tell the American People to go and F__k themselves.
To the gallows this way.
The other thing is, are we all wasting our time here? All those brilliant assessments,
those comments that hit the nail on the head, for nothing?
Somebody said once, that the only state of mind that will get us through the 21st
century, is Schizophrenia.
May all Beings be blessed. Specifically the weak and ill minded.
So the prosecution is difficult and unlikely to succeed. So what? It's the right thing to do. Not only that, it is our only option. Otherwise there will be no consequences at all.
thanks frisbie.
Hitler didn't commit any crimes either. The Nazis just made some mistakes. We can't possibly figure out whether Bush and Cheney ever commited any crimes. Eight years of unmitigated hell unleashed on Iraq and Afghanistan, for things they never did but were falsely accused of doing--that's not a crime. It's just business, the perfectly justifiable business of War American style. What's the big deal? It's time to Move On, into the next chapter of American insanity. Schizophrenia is the only survival tactic left.
If this proves anything at all, it must be that our political and LEGAL apparatus are utterly bankrupt when it comes to addressing the highest of all crimes. We're simply mute and impotent before the enormity of what Bush and Cheney and company have done to this world. Leahy and the rest of these gibbering fools in the Senate really should resign and take up bowling full time. Why even have a Congress? Why the hell do any of us vote for any of these assholes?
I think now it was a big mistake not to try Nixon for crimes he committed. Even though at the time I didn't think so. It just sent a bad message to Presidents after him like Reagan and Bush II that they would never have to answer for their crimes. Can anyone imagine for a second what will happen if Obama starts behaving in the manner Bush has for 8 years?????? No doubt all those Republican's who have ignored treason, unbridled greed and corruption for 8 years will instantly regain their moral's they threw in the garbage can on January 20, 2001. And start screaming their heads off to impeach him. I have come to the conclusion Republican's have 'selective morals'. They only have them when they feel like having them or a Democrat is involved.
Marisa, the body count grows and grows over a million dead and counting, to say that the prosecution would be to difficult is breath taking bullshit.
The fact is that to admit any wrong means to 'fess up to a host of wrongs that date back to way before your pappy was still swimming in his dad's sack. Sort leaves a bunch of snot left on the national pride, tough to say the oath looking at it.
I can understand why the neo-con criminals and their hangers-on are all in favour of the NAU, the BS should theoretically be thinner and therefore less noticeable.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
This is all empty rhetoric and BS. NOTHING will happen, UNTIL specific (and airtight) charges are drafted, then indictment can occur.
Otherwise, half-assed charges by low-budget lawyers will be thrown out of court, emboldening future politicians to push the totalitarian envelope further.
What! You expect the crime family to indict themselves?
I think they'll get theirs in one way or another.
What war? War is a state of aggression of one state against another, in this case there is only one state. The “War on terrorism” is therefore a misappropriation of the term. This is the use of a state’s military against a civilian population on the basis of race, religion, origin and possibly political affiliation, if you don’t accept the idea that this comes from Islam . As such the whole use of military power is a crime against humanity. The supporters of it should be prosecuted under that concept, each and every death murder. Failing that, the consequences to the developed world are significant loss of moral authority.
We should have cyber shoes available on this Web site to hurl at pictures of the White House Sopranos, such as the one of MegaDickFace above.
Only when We the People topple the criminal oligarchy that runs our country will these animals and their appologists ever face justice for their reign of terror.
ITEM FROM THE NATIONAL INQUIRER: Vice President Dick Cheney is scheduled for cosmetic surgery soon after leaving office. The procedure is designed to have him talk out the right side of his mouth, instead of the left, as in the photo above. In "retirement", Mr. Cheney will be speaking before groups such as Americans for Punishment-Free Embezzlement, The American Heartless Association, The Charles Ponzi Foundation, Death Takes a Holiday Cruise Association and other similar organizations. His speaking fee begins at $350,000 for a perfunctory ten minute speech and increases exponentially. The audiences will be filled almost exclusively with people whose paranoia about and loathing for liberals, do-gooders, bleeding hearts, etc. might make them think that the present configuration of Mr. Cheney's mouth (habitually talking out of the left side) makes him a fellow traveler of traitors, financial fifth columnists and other UnAmericans. David Addington is credited with bringing this fact to Mr. Cheney's attention and persuading him to undergo the surgery.
Robert Alft
"Defend the Constitution Arrest Bush/Cheney for War Crimes." This is the 90 foot banner that the Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War hung on the national archives building twice. Check out www.veteransforpeace.org Come on all your Ombama supporters, let's get this done.
The rich take care of the rich. Nothing will happen to Bu-Shr or No Shamey. The bigger the criminal the more support they have from the system to keep it going. Obama is not going to save or change things. He didn't appoint ONE progressive to his cabinet and talks about bipartisanship with the Gang of Pirates. Expect more bland, mediocre, compromising "leadership". We need a change that is too big for people to accept now. There's no hope with a third party, there are still no voices for peace on the news and obviously guilty criminals in the banking industry are set free because their crime was "white collar" while the people lose their houses, jobs and savings. Financial terrorists are set free, political terrorists who steal people's freedom are not even punished.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/the-right-to-di.html
Whew! All of the above are some heavy, but honest perspectives. For the most part, I agree whole-heartedly with them. Just to add some icing to the cake, consider (as above) the suggestion:
Retired Navy JAG John Hutson, the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, in Concord, N.H., said he thinks that Americans would be more likely to get the facts from inquiries modeled on the 9-11 Commission or the post-Watergate Church Committee."It's absolutely crucial that we have an understanding of what happened so it doesn't happen again," Hutson said. "But to some extent, making that a criminal investigation would inhibit rather than foster a thorough understanding because people would lawyer up." "You might get some prosecutions" of low-level officials, he added. "But you would not get absolute ground truth."
The only thing more dangerous than a lie is a half-truth. the statement "you would not get absolute ground truth", is not only vacuously true, it is meant to suggest that getting anything less is worthless. And to suggest another commission: composed of whom? Why, none other than those who partook in the crime! The 9/11 commission was, in a word, farcical. There was no investigation; merely a documentation of events. It was like watching CNN. A vast majority of the world believes that 9/11 was orchestrated. But what do those dummies know! Just like the Warren Commission: The single (magic) bullet theory, coupled with claiming that anything and everything could not be released due to national security interests was well-received by the masses. And who would appoint a commission? Why, Congress, of course- whose leading members were complicit up to their eyeballs! Sure, another commission's just what the doctored ordered- another frontal lobotomy of the masses. And to posit that a commission would preclude such events in the future? Sure! In the same way that the "truth" Warren Commission in relation to JFK's assasination prevented those of MLK and Robert Kennedy! Either this man is unbelievably naive, or (given his stature), he has very strong ties to the Black Ops. elements who wrote his script.
The bottom line here is simple: The great US of A was founded in no small part upon genocide and slavery. In spite of the individual greatness of some of the founding fathers, it was founded upon the principles that great countries have relied on throughout history: power, greed, and the view that the masses are objects to be manipulated for those purposes. Will it change? Not likely. It is possible that it could be stemmed by a large scale revolution. But such a reprieve would be short-lived, since, as everyone knows: shit floats to the top! Face it, folks: the human species is fundamentally dysfunctional. People who are genuinely good simply do not have the genetic composition to match that of those who lust for power. No, a real revolution will not solve anything in the long run. But it WILL permit us to open our hearts and minds NOW; to achieve that dignity that we all crave, but so often compromise. It WILL be a painful and costly revolution. But the cost of not pursuing it will be far, far greater, if not for us, at least for our children. Many at this site have slammed Obama. He may, indeed, be the greatest charlatan to ever lead our country. If this turns out to be the case, then perhaps enough of the masses will really become mad as hell, and we WILL have a revolution. If he's not that charlatan, then watch for a plane accident, a sudden heart attack, or another magic bullet. To all of you: Take care. Love. And listen to your Heart.
There is no randomness. It is only our ignorance
I am AMAZED that so many of the postings here reflect a surprise that Criminals in High Places, were able to get to "high places", or/and, able to what seems to many here get away with so many crimes. It is almost like being on another planet, being here in the USA. The Amerians, will condemn others for the same things they do, hold themselves up as a "positive example"; then use the most absurd excuses for their conduct when their short comings as a nation and society are pointed out.
From the Native Americans perspective, at least this one, none of this is a surprise, none of this is new.
The only answer I can postulate is the 'Grand Delusion' that so many Americans have about their Nation, and its society. They love to be lied to. They love to send their children to school and be lied to, in fact some even pay for private schools, and if they send their children to private schools and own property, they pay taxes to send the "others" kids to school---to be lied to.
The Americans are steeped in their revisionist history and or wallow in some delusional concept that Jesus is coming back any day now; and when that happens the "Big Judgement". Well, if that does happen, according to the "doctrine" then George Bush, and his administration, and those thieves on Wall Street and the "other social criminals" enjoying high places of authority and control will simply need to "confess their sins". Ask Jesus to forgive them, and they can expect to walk the streets of "Heaven" with all of those other "fools" who did not commit crimes. Since they will not face punishment here on earth, and none in Heaven; why doesn't all Americans just go on a rampage. Just kill anyone they want to, torture, kidnap, lock them up in small cells , do the things that the Bush Administration has done. Invade Canada for trumped up reasons, or just invade them for "fun". Nuke Mexico city, so as to get at that "drug cartel" . Nuke Vietnam, "cause ya know they cheated when they won that war".
The Americans have the most amazing habit of making excuses for the crimes they commit while condemning, often to death, others who have committed the same crimes. They will lock up a person for twenty five to life for possession of a "controlled substance" while their President is expected to "walk" for committing the same crimes that they executed others for or handed over to a "rigged court" just a few months ago as with Saddam. They knew he would be executed.
In several postings in CD people have even gone so far as to use the most absurd argument "well those Germans and Japanese were defeated in war, then they were tried for crimes". Well the USA is defeated in Iraq, they have not won there anymore than they won in Vietnam. But that American habit of making exceptions for themselves, is so deeply entrenched; they will say absolutely stupid things like "we stole that country from them Indians, fair and square--so its ours". Or "well ya know them Indians wasn't Christians and we are, so we won cause God was on our side, and will forgive us if we ask for it"..........
No sooner did they change "criminals" as with Secretary of Defense, and Gen. Petraeus----did the "surge work"----no possibility that the "insurgents" just took some time off---and if the equivalent of a "Tet Offensive" occurs, it will most likely be said "its because those Iraqis ain't Christians ya know, I mean hell, we brung em democracy and they just pissed it away, ya know?" I have even heard the lame excuse that "those crimes that Bush did was not on American soil, and so he won't be charged with them"....I just love that one.
Like Yogi Bera, "I don't make predictions, specailly bout the future"---but it is a safe bet that IF the Americans do not, for the first time in their "criminal" history, handle this mess, that they made all own on their own, the World will step in, and make sure that the Americans , the ones that survive the invasion that is, are no longer a threat to world peace--ever again.
I hope that I live to see either take place. It would be much better if the USA did the right thing, but that has not occured more than once or twice, and not likely to occur now. And when the world reaches its "kindling point of fear", and invade, there will be Americans out there who will arm their little children, and send them off to fight the invaders---"cause they'll go to heaven "..............."and be with Jesus , and George Washington and the other
American heros"......
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Powerfully and clearly stated, NativeSon!
My compliments.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
NATIVE SON: I would like to offer this perspective. The people of Japan, let's call them the yellow race, experienced massive death and destruction on account of the grotesque acts of carnage associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Vietnamese people, largely Buddhist, were left with the ravages of Vietnam. In both instances a measure of understanding and immensely generous forgiveness has taken place, that allows these regions to trade with the U.S. today.
There is a gigantic debt, too, to the Black race for having had to deal with centuries of slavery and inhumane practices. Today, many Blacks are experiencing some semblance of the American "dream" (while of course a great many are not, our nation's racist prison policies attest to that) and have become asssimilated.
Then, too, there is a debt to the Jews now only on the part of Germany for the massive holocaust, but also for previous purges, pogroms and killing campaigns.
Added to this already tragic list, is the new debt to the "brown" races of the Middle East, who have been on the receiving end of America's deadly military industrial complex for more than 2 decades.
The Red Race has borne the brunt of the imperialism of the first Europeans to head to America's shores (and those of South America, as well). But here's the thing: to maintain a stance of resentment is not healthy to anyone sponsoring such a sentiment. Yes, noting where the same dark patterns remain is a good thing, and working for social justice FOR ALL is even better. And in my view, which is that of millions, all souls reincarnate, so it's impossible to say that because you were born to Indigenous people that necessarily that has been the full legacy of your soul's experience. When we consider that our eternal essences take on the many walks of life this complex beautiful planet offers, we are able to extend empathy. Ultimately we are destined to walk in a great many pairs of mocassins.
I do appreciate your postings, however, this idea of blaming today's American, particularly most of us in this forum who work as teachers and advocates for justice (The Bahai faith considers the path of the teacher one of the most spiritually advanced and helfpul to the human condition) is not productive. And harping on revenge is not either. The law of karma is inviolate, and eventually things come full circle. In the finite consciousness our egos occupy we are unable to see the big picture. Trying to find common ground with others of like mind is a good thing. That objective in no way validates the trespasses of our leaders, who represent an elite that has plundered the world as if it's its birth right. I believe that changing consciousness is the best medicine for putting an end to such abuse for far too many, like EVERY race. The coming earth changes added to a fiscal rough ride will alter thinking, and present those of us who care about humanity with new places of opportunity. This posting was offered with all due respect.
Sioux Rose
As ARDEE well-explained, you are one sick cookie, who is judgmental and argumentative and looks for contention, not the means to create understanding. I will not respond again to you. It's oil and water.