Good article Jeremy, I agree completely.

Mr. Schahill,

Your argument is convincing, but the problem is these people are untouchable. They are above the law, and insulate themselves with other crooks to legally protect them. It is a double standard in the banana republic of the United States.

Now is the time to mirror the acts of those Jeremy lists, and a bunch more. Now is the time to take them all into custody, ship them directly to Gitmo, shoot them up with truth serum, or heroin, put them all into one room and give them sixty seconds to talk. The reason: our country is in danger now more than any time before, and it isn't from foreign forces. The dangers we face are from the Bush administration and the media and morons that have backed them. I want to see Murdoch, Ailes, Limbaugh, Palin, all the neocons, et al and anyone else who balks, put into custody and forced to speak or get shot. I suggest they start shooting their feet and work their way up until we get what we want from them. Maybe the tv show 24 can run a special on this and then we will simply say, we knew they were overthrowing the Constitution, and we had no choice.

thong-girl

If there was to be a prosecution, who could begin it? According to Vincent Bugliosi, every DA in the country could initiate prosecutions. Regarding Yoo, could the DA of Santa Clara County, or Washington, DC or a US Attorney somewhere start the ball rolling? Aren't most US Attorney's tainted by association with Bush and DOJ? Is DOJ a "corrupt organization" in the context of RICO? Can officials who do nothing be prosecuted by someone? Maybe a Spanish judge will do the job no American dares touch! UCMJ calls for courts martial for military people who have knowledge of a crime and fail to act on that knowledge. Civilian law appears to be more flexible about ignoring inconvenient crimes.
In time, some DA somewhere will grab headlines by convening a grand jury to prosecute the war criminals. Honest patriotic Americans across will say "its about time". Opportunists will try to get on the band wagon and deny that they were protecting the criminals.

Despite the intentions of the Obama administration, this issue simply refuses to "go away," nor should it. What was done by these lawyers at the behest of their fascist bosses can not simply go unpunished, as it would set a truly bad precedent for the next administration that wishes to get Nixon-like on the US Constitution.

It won't happen--and not because of the pathetic call for "moving on" given by Obama, the supreme apologist for the Bush administration. It won't happen because too many Democrats will fall into the net--they knew about and sanctioned, implicitly or explicitly, whatever Bush ordered. There will be no peace or justice in this country until the people stop viewing the Democrats as the "good guys." They are as complicit in war crimes, corporate crimes, foreign policy crimes, and corruption as any Republican. If the people truly see the Democrats as representing them, then Americans are a degenerate people. Let's face it--if Americans truly wanted change, they would have voted for Kucinich. Anything else is just denial.

Torture is truly a "line in the sand" issue. In a direct and calculated affront to justice, and the security of all posterity, Obama is choosing not to prosecute our Washington war criminals, but is allowing them to regroup - so they can strike another day.

We must not allow promises of jobs or health care to bribe our complicity in this matter. WE MUST NOT ALLOW OURSELVES TO BECOME THE EQUIVALENT OF HITLER'S "GOOD GERMANS."

This is a matter of law and US obligations to its international treaties, which the Constitution explicitly states the US will respect and enforce.

The constitution of this nation is now largely an irrelevant piece of paper. Like George Wanker Bush's attitude toward the Geneva Conventions, it is "quaint". Who cares about the law when there is so much money to be made and so many inferior human beings to be killed?

My modest proposal is this:

Those who don't believe torture is wrong should be subjected to it.

Waterboarding that fatass Dick Cheney would be a fine place to start.

I agree with Jeremy as I usually do; he is offering what ought to be done. However in practice we see that existing law is often not enforced. It seems anti-trust laws have been ignored, arms export laws have been ignored, entire chunks of the Constitution have been ignored or altered, and so on...

All of those involved ought to be prosecuted according to the law, however the USA has a rather poor record of holding members of the Elite to account. The classic example that I like to cite is Dr. "Strangelove" Kissinger. The man has not only been shielded from prosecution, he is lauded as a super-genius and revered by many, including some so-called Democrats. He remains a free man with a lot of power and wealth.

I am afraid similar fates are awaiting the latest batch of criminals, however if I am proven wrong I will be very happy.

As an example to anyone who wants to try and usurp the constitution, treaties, rule of law, bring calamity down on innocents in any way...we should uncover, make known and DO SOMETHING, so(hopefully) the thought will not be entertained again...what kind of messages are we sending to the kids? We were all brought to paradise here to love, laugh, grow in knowledge and wonder and praise whatever force got us here in the first place, not destroy, frighten, intimidate and hate and rationalize it...I want to look into a child's eyes and truly say "You are welcome here as long as you behave and if you don't there will be consequences"...same with everyone...with negative consequences for evil behavior, there is assurity of some guide lines for justice and faith in the future...othewise, chaos...

Justice attorneys rendered an "opinion"--determined the interrogation methods to be utilized to be legal--end of story

Also--the treaty may have been signed--not ratified--US not bound--three (3) instances of waterboarding--would Mrs Pearl or Mr/Mrs Berg have preferred that rather than what their loved ones were subjected to? its a nasty world--treat thugs accordingly

What in the US' historical record would lend itself to the presumption that any treaty would be honored by us if it did not appear to be in "our" (the top one half on one percent, that is) own best self interest to do so?

It is quite clear that the country was settled and continues to be directed by people who wrote laws, treaties and set legal precedents only meant to be adhered to by someone else, and ignored if they appeared to get in the way of "manifest destiny". (There's that pesky and primitive, tribal, fascist tendency of the ruling capitalized elite that no high-faluting declaration of independence or Magna Carta seems to have been able to squelch!. Darn!)

Any progress away from the presumption that laws and treaties are only meant to be applied to the other guy has only been made through mass action and real civil disobedience, and people writing, like Mr.Scahill, with an eloquent, elegant and inarguable, stance of common sense and truth.

And time. Usually more than there is to spare... and long, long after the damage is done and any chance of recompense or authentic conciliation is squandered and too belated to mean much of anything.

Not very optimistic... though there is movement forward, just never in anything that could be called a timely fashion.

Scahill is right on the money. One of the problems is the MSM has convinced much of the electorate that these cowardly sadists who commit torture and who use their positions to have torture committed are really acting for purely patriotic reasons. They need to be exposed for the anti-American sadistic cowards they are.

Anyone who can inflict or cause others to inflict serious physical and/or mental harm on an unarmed, defenseless human being is a coward and a sadist -- whether s/he drapes himself in the flag or in Allah's will. These are not US patriots or representatives of Islam who commit and/or authorize torture. They're simply cowardly sadists.

They deserve no respect and should be scorned as the dregs and cowards they are. Why should I respect anyone who is such a coward that s/he would physically and/or mentally harm an unarmed, defenseless human being or use his or her position to authorize such treatment of defenseless, unarmed human beings?

Additionally, if Holder does not prosecute he is aiding and abetting war crimes and violating US criminal law and should also be tried for criminal behavior. Obama is in effect giving de facto pardons to the most despicable, anti-American terrorists that exist in the United States by using his position to avoid prosecuting the cowardly, sadistic traitors who authorized and conducted torture during the Bush years.

The prosecution must begin by "WE The PEOPLE", if the elected officials will not act, arrest them, yes include the President. If they resist treat them as you would other criminals that resist, shoot them. If any military get in the way of the pursuit of justice, shoot them also. But get up off your knees and check out the law, stop looking for leadership from cowards like Obama. Get out and do it! YES WE CAN!!!!

Excuse me, but did all of you suddenly forget history? Like, WWII, for instance? Just what kind of penalty did Hiro Hito suffer? What about Curtis LeMay, who bragged that he would have been tried as a 'war criminal' if the US had lost the war, instead of winning (by using the latest new terror-weapon - saturation fire-bombing just wasn't affecting the millions of civilians that died in all those cities the US incinerated.) Let's get off this 'everybody must adhere to the rule of law and suffer the consequences of their actions' - that NEVER happened, and never will. Get real. Get a life.

Speaking as a practicing lawyer of 35 years experience, the three lawyers who wrote those memos should go to jail. In the aftermath of WWII we prosecuted Americans as well as Nazis and Japanese for just such offences. The "I was just following orders" gambit has never been a legitimate excuse.

Remember, the torture they condoned and recommended was against long standing statutes as well as the Constitution and international treaties by which we are bound. Consequently, they aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy and not prosecuting them makes all of us indirect accomplices. Worse yet, it sets a new and horrifying precedent for future presidents who might want to dabble in torture. Next time, it might be a more competent president and it might be us that are the victims.

If nothing else, the lawyers in question violated their express oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They certainly violated legal ethics with their frivolous arguments and theories. If they did not know they were specious arguments, then they were so grossly incompetent that their law schools should withdraw their diplomas in addition to having them disbarred.

Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]

The problem with bringing any of the current crop of cruel, sadistic, greedy thieves to justice is a grave one.

The last time I was called to jury duty I asked to be excused after recounting a previous trial that was run as a game by the attorneys. In that case, the miscreant was a thug that had committed half the crimes in town. Every time the prosecuting attorney started to produce some evidence, we were excused. When we came back, they were on another subject. In the end, we acquitted the guy. I was asked later why we had. I told him, "Why didn't you present a case?" He told me that for even the slightest evidence to be admitted, they had to give away still more.

My understanding of the American system of jurisprudence is that the truth is to be laid out before a jury of the defendant's peers so they may determine innocence or guilt. In actuality, it is a game between the attorneys, sometimes with the collusion of the judge, to see how much evidence can be hidden or obfuscated so the jury has no idea as to what really happened. They then get to select the attorney with the most charisma and give it to him/her.

Later, you will probably find the attorneys at the local bar, laughing and congratulating each other on their clever tricks. It means nothing to them. It is a game.

When I had related the story, one of the attorneys pointed to the bunch of them and said, "Don't you believe we are honest?"

I told her, "I'm in my 70's. I met an honest attorney once (He's retired now, if still alive). As there are several billion people on the planet, I'm sure there may be another one, but I don't experct to be fortunate enough to meet him in my lifetime."

The funny thing was, everybody in the jury box and most of the people in the court applauded! I was excused.

Do I expect a trial and conviction of the thieves and sadists in our government, past and present?

You figure it out.

The defense rests.

For all the hem and hawing of the right, and the DOJ report that let the lawyers skip off. Just use the Huffington Rule. What would the Right do if it was Clinton?
Would they just say. "let 'em off, after all there haven't been any more 911s".
Or would it be, "rule of law, no man is above the law"?

What is needed is a Special Prosecutor, and a an independent investigation.

If Bush and Cheney, used the harsh interrogation's to try to get False information, i.e. al-Queada links to Iraq, then the Criminality would stand on its own.

That was the reason they used a reverse engineering of SERE, which was based on Communist Torture. They didn't want true information, just the spin that would back the war.

For their own guys they could just fire the ones that didn't go along, for the detainees, they weren't let go even if they told them what they wanted to hear.

Just find the truth and put away those that broke to law.

"Anyone who can inflict or cause others to inflict serious physical and/or mental harm on an unarmed, defenseless human being is a coward and a sadist"

I could agree with this attitude on an emotional level - the truth is that torture - any form of degradation - is an outrage, most of the time - especially when it is happening TO 'us' - and perpetrated by 'them' ...

The ugly reality is that there is little difference between 'them' and 'us' - it is a lie we tell ourselves, that we are morally superior to 'them' - but history, experience, and research has shown that many people can easily bring themselves to not only commit atrocties, but to also justify them. These are NOT bad people - but their behavior is atrocious. We have to learn to separate the act from the person, and stop judging people by their behavior.

These lawyers - and their bosses - commited these heinous crimes simply because they could - with absolute impunity. That is how the Germans came to such a point that 'crimes against humanity' - and the Imperial Japanese as well. It is how and why the US has perpetrated heinous crimes for all of my life - usually with impunity. We create bullies in society when we don't stand up for the rights of the most vulnerable. (Nazis experimented with mass-murder models using the disabled - usually the mentally ill, since they were the most vulnerable.) Too many Americans blame the unfortunate for their dire circumstances, even though it is our failed society that has created the problem. That is why we have so many people in prison - most for political crimes, and many innocent people are intimidated into plea bargains, as well.

This has still not reached the limits of barbarism of which humans are fully capable - I thought we'd reached that limit in Southeast Asia, but nobody was held responsible for those heinous crimes either. I don't know that a society that has so completely abandoned morality can ever bring themselves back from the brink - injustice seems to be SOP in the US, just as it was in Nazi Germany (my closest experience with sadism). But we must realize that most of us are capable of justifying such horrors, or we will NEVER reform. The lies and propaganda we tolerate has turned our society into an asylum - madness prevails. Kissinger is free - and highly paid, I'm told - even admired. Americans just don't 'get it' - if you let the little lies slip by, the lies become bigger and bigger - until they're monstrous, and atrocity becomes the new norm. Zimbardo's experiment explained how this happens - even HE had to be told to STOP the 'experiment' - that's profoundly enlightening, in itself.

If this could happen with subjects chosen at random (to be jailors or inmates), imagine how propaganda affects 'normal' people - even lawyers - under highly-charged emotional conditions. We all must challenge 'authority' - and support everyone else who does. People will be threatened, beaten, imprisoned, and tortured - intimidated by others. If we don't draw a line and stick together against 'authority' we will all be consumed by the insanity that lurks in all of humanity. Milgram's experiments are informative on this aspect - it's hard to challenge 'authority' face-to-face, so imagine if that 'authority' is also very powerful, and probably well-armed (and protected by thugs). Lord Acton's observation is imperative - we really are living under tyranny and corruption now, and the road back (if that is even possible, at this stage) will be difficult. There is no global military machine strong enough to knock some sense into the US - that kind of impunity is very insidious. We are all infected to some degree - the propaganda is so pervasive and persistent that even the strongest people are tainted by it.

However good an idea this idea of trying the lawyers might be, the circumstances are clearly different than at Nuremberg, where the VICTORS forced the trial of the LOSERS. (And arbitrarily chose who would face trial - and who would be excused, for whatever reason (many of them objectionable). 'We' are NOT the powerful here - and we know it. There is no such thing as 'justice' without equality - or this situation would never have arose in the first place.
I tried to imply this before, but apparently it went right over most people's heads - sorry about that. So how do the weak and vulnerable confront a corrupt government? Through THEIR corrupt courts? THEIR 'justice' system? Is that even realistic? Maybe millions of people in the streets - but that didn't happen in Nazi Germany either (the millions in the streets SUPPORTED the government!)

I knew that sweeping Vietnam under the rug would come back to haunt us - it wasn't 'Morning in America' - it was the beginning of the end. And I knew that heinous atrocities would come out of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions - and that millions of 'innocent' soldiers would be party to heinous war-crimes that would haunt many for the rest of their lives. They are brainwashed, after all - what do you expect? Most Americans are brainwashed - so how do we deprogram ourselves? Blaming these lawyers will not cure what ails our society - so what is the point? Maybe, if a few presidents had been impeached, the situation might look brighter - but that wasn't done. We lost the battle a long time ago - we lost our freedom, our rights, and any hope of justice (let alone morality), bit by bit, as we allowed injustice to flourish. Blaming a few lawyers will not absolve us of our collective guilt. Only by exposing our previous errors and atrocities - and apologizing for our transgressions - will we ever redeem ourselves. And I don't see even the first step being taken towards that.

"johnco May 7th, 2009 9:01 pm

For all the hem and hawing of the right, and the DOJ report that let the lawyers skip off. Just use the Huffington Rule. What would the Right do if it was Clinton?
Would they just say. "let 'em off, after all there haven't been any more 911s".
Or would it be, "rule of law, no man is above the law"?"

ACTUALLY, the torture, extraordinary renditioning for purposes of torture and/or murder, began under the President Clinton administration, around 1996, the administration and CIA having renditioned detainees to Egypt and several or more other countries where it was known that brutal torture and death were regularly and freely applied. This is according to the following article by Sherwood Ross, who I believe to be a respectable writer, not a liar, etcetera. And to find the paragraph in which he writes of this people can simply load the page and search for 'clinton' (minus the quotes).

"Numerous Bush Administration officials committed crimes involving the torture of prisoners captured in the Middle East",
by Sherwood Ross, July 10, 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9558

Wikipedia says the following:

QUOTE:

Historical instances

While the US has used legal rendition increasingly since the 1980s as a method for dealing with foreign defendants[citation needed], extraordinary rendition is a wholly extra-legal process that differs in its nature and usage as a tool in the US-led "war on terror".[10] Modern methods of rendition include a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on US soil, and without involving the rendering country's judiciary; they have been termed "extraordinary rendition".[citation needed] The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive signed by US President Bill Clinton in 1995.[11]

...

20th Century

...

The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that extraordinary rendition was developed during the Clinton administration by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda [19].

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

"'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [20]"

Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. The policy later expanded.

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[21] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[22] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,

"This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes."[23]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

21 Century

...

END QUOTE

So, johnco, do you think you want to re-think your question, now? Your question of, "What would the Right do if it was Clinton?", to be specific. Given that the Right evidently did nothing against or about President Clinton's administration during his two terms in office, your question doesn't seem to fit with what I believe you intended by or in posting it.

And I agree with Jeremy Scahill, that it's important to prosecute [all] of the guilty parties, and this includes Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, ..., as well as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and so on. Plus, though perhaps I'm mistaken about this, if only the Bush Jr-Cheney administration-related jerks are prosecuted, or also everyone who's guilty in that administration, the Repub. Party could rightfully say that the Clinton administration would need to be prosecuted, else they could contest based on hypocritical, hegemonic, ... law rulings, say.

Of course the guilty members of the CIA should also be included in the prosecution targets.

Like Jeremy Scahill says, "[all]" of the guilty!

Again, I agree with Jeremy Scahill, but with some questions and perhaps an additional point or two, one already pointed out in my prior, first post in this CD page.

He says, among other things, "The US is legally bound to this convention and I would argue that the attempted legalizing and authorizing of torture, such as was done by Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury is exactly what this treaty addresses and bans".

I agree that it's "exactly what this treaty addresses and bans", but not solely. That is, I instead believe a more thorough statement would be that it's "exactly, while not solely, what this treaty addresses and bans", and Jeremy Scahill supports this by saying that [all] guilty parties, which infers the Bush-Cheney admin. members who are guilty; as well as the Dems he says supported these crimes in 2002, and the guilty members of the President Clinton administration and CIA.

BUT I WONDER about another point. If all of these people should be prosecuted for this crime they are all complicit in and directed, for those guilty of directing these crimes, that is, then what about the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq who committed torture? And what about the fact that these GWoT wars always were, are, remain wholly unjustifiable, criminal aggressions, and every U.S. soldier who partook and is partaking today in these wars, and war occupations, are guilty of following these criminal orders, which are for conducting [supreme] international criminality? Without these criminal wars, the Bush-Cheney admin. wouldn't have been committing these crimes of torture and extraordinary renditioning, or nowhwere as much as they did anyway.

I'm not reading people about the need to prosecute on the basis of these wars being totally criminal to begin with and throughout, having caused the deaths and killed well over a million people, so far, and that number is going to keep climbing ... for a long time, still.

So I'd instead suggest prosecuting these guilty people for these supreme international crimes of aggression, and add the crimes of torture and extraordinary renditioning for completion of the prosecutions.

To prosecute only based on the latter two crimes and not the [supreme] international crimes of wars of aggression, total aggression based on extremely criminal LIES, etcetera, is certainly NOT right. People seem more sensitive to the crimes of torture and E.R. than they are to the supreme crimes in all of this. The torture and E.R. are extremely criminal, but they're not the most supreme crimes in all of these crimes.

And the Obama administration [is] guilty for continuing the supreme crimes in all of this. Another related supreme crime this administration is guilty of continuing is the wholly criminal act-of-war coup d'etat against the Haitian government and its population, too!

I'm all for prosecutions of all of the guilty people on [all] of these crimes and other related crimes; [all]! There is [no] acceptable excusing for or of any of these extreme crimes.

We could also prosecute all members of Congress who criminally agreed to authorise recourse to totally unacceptable and unjustifiable war on Iraq in October 2002, too. They [all] deserve to be prosecuted at least as much as Yoo, Bybee, and so on, who could not really authorise torture, etcetera, given the laws against this already existed and apparently not only in international laws or conventions, but also U.S. law. Due to that, everything they wrote to try to make torture and E.R. legally acceptable was worthless, bunk, bs, .... They are guilty of having done this, and it is criminal, what they did; they criminally and knowingly (had to know!) acted against U.S. and international laws or conventions, both. But they did not really authorise the torture and E.R., because they were legally unauthorisable, already, and permanently; I believe.

After all, those Congress members, MANY they are too, are even more guilty than the following paragraph by Jeremy Scahill refers to.

"Then there is the precedent established at Nuremberg in the United States v. Altstoetter, which, according to constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton found "that lawyers who dispense bad advice about law of armed conflict, and whose advice predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of prisoners, are war criminals, chargeable with potentially capital offenses.""

People need to wake up. The Bush-Cheney administration did not start torture and extraordinary renditioning ... for torture and killing unnecessarily. The Bill Clinton-Al Gore administration apparently began these practices, as considerably explained in I believe my first post on this article by Jeremy Scahill.

It's never wrong to stop disinformation when this is what we are doing.

==============================

minitrue May 7th, 2009 8:40 pm,

I UNDERSTAND what you describe about attorneys, but believe there are a few more honest ones than the possibly one you allow for existing.

ALSO, I am not sure, but believe a jury would not be required regarding these crimes of torture, extraordinary renditioning to countries where governments are known to conduct torture and unnecessary as well as brutal killings, plus the too often neglected topic of GWoT wars of aggression. Enough facts are known to be able to prosecute the people guilty of these crimes without a need for juries, I've read some people say and believe.

==============================

"lawlessone May 7th, 2009 8:24 pm

Speaking as a practicing lawyer of 35 years experience, the three lawyers who wrote those memos should go to jail. In the aftermath of WWII we prosecuted Americans as well as Nazis and Japanese for just such offences. The "I was just following orders" gambit has never been a legitimate excuse."

PEOPLE have been doing that for years regarding soldiers following orders that really could never be justified from the start and which were for committing the supreme international crimes of wars of aggression. The soldiers, most anyway, aren't lawyers, but are supposed to be taught laws related to war, including that criminal orders from superiors must be rejected.

But I agree that the soldiers didn't issue the orders, evidently most were ignorant of laws of war or related to war, or else neglected to carefully consider them, while naively and negligently believing the orders received were legitimate. So I can accept them not being prosecuted; while certainly wanting them to learn to [think] about orders before carrying them out, and to start dissenting in greater numbers today.

Lawyers aren't analogous to soldiers, being scholared for years in law, and Yoo, Bybee, etcetera, knew very well that what they were writing or writing and saying could not be legally defendable, given they acted against known, established laws.

They can't be excused for these crimes they committed, but prosecuting them and not the many other guilty officials would be a major whitewash, a sick joke. So I could not support only prosecuting Yoo, Bybee, etcetera.

"armybrat May 7th, 2009 7:54 pm

Those who post on commondreams are a small - very small - minority. Most of us are on the same page, but errors do occur. I DO read all the comments - and what I saw missing (at the time I read them) was any consideration of the hoax perpetrated by the Nuremberg Tribunal. It was a 'Show Trial' put on by the victors - none of the Allies were tried for THEIR war-crimes. That's all I was trying to point out, in face of the sunny history being proclaimed by so many, including the author. "

Interesting and evidently valid point, BUT the laws and conventions established or agreed to at Nuremberg are still valid and it's these laws and conventions that are presently pertinent when people write or speak about the need to prosecute the Bush-Cheney gang and the many other parties guilty in all of these GWoT crimes; in addition to the Bill Clinton administration, as explained in my earliest post on this article by Jeremy Scahill.

Jeremy Scahill didn't state a defence for every aspect of the NT, only having referred to the laws and conventions used at the NT and to which the U.S. is a signatory or establisher.

And while all of these many prosecutions will doubtfully ever happen and justice therefore will never be served, truly and seriously, the U.S. soldier's duty, or simply the duty of every citizen, is to defend the Constitution. To do that, it's important to try to achieve these prosecutions, for which not only international laws and conventions need to be used, but also the USA's own related laws.

It will surely never happen, but if The People don't push to try to make this happen, then what people will then be rather doing will be like asking, begging, ... working for an apocalyptic ending violence to erupt or happen. That result might not happen, either, but it'ld be the way people would be acting, nevertheless.

I doubt it'll happen. Someone posted the question of what the Repub. Party would do if it was the Clinton administration that was responsible for the crimes of torture, etc., but as I already commented on this, the Clinton admin. began the torture and extraordinary renditioning ... for torture and/or unnecessary killings and the Repub. Party didn't do anything against the Clinton admin. at that time about this. Prosecuting the Bush-Cheney administration for these crimes could cause Repubs to retorque with the demand that if these prosecutions are conducted, then the Clinton administration's guilty members must also be prosecuted. The Dem. Party wouldn't want to agree to that condition, doubtfully would anyway.

So, again, I doubt the prosecutions that in theory should happen will.

But I don't think it means that people shouldn't try.

All very interesting and good points well made However the point most missed is leadership, actual action and by whom! If any move were made to prosecute the "movers" would be murdered or imprisoned. The ability to move has been hamstrung by denigration and removal of the "CONSTITUTION" it must be restored, then the entire nation will be required to act, if needs be to fight. Because the alternative is a Country surrendering to anarchy, mass murder of people (here) and diminished recognition worldwide and extremely vulnerable to invasion and terrorism carnage of "BIBILICAL" proportions, but not Biblical by any means. Who can lead?