SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Torturer-In-Chief
Former President George W. Bush
may be indicted for torture.
Far fetched? Not anymore.
In March Baltasar Garzon, a
Spanish judge, asked prosecutors to determine whether there is enough evidence
to charge six former members of the Bush administration with torturing
prisoners. Should they be indicted as
now seems likely it will be hard to argue that their superiors up to and
including the former President himself should not be indicted as well.
Apr 12, 2009
Former President George W. Bush
may be indicted for torture.
Far fetched? Not anymore.
In March Baltasar Garzon, a
Spanish judge, asked prosecutors to determine whether there is enough evidence
to charge six former members of the Bush administration with torturing
prisoners. Should they be indicted as
now seems likely it will be hard to argue that their superiors up to and
including the former President himself should not be indicted as well.
Imagine if that should happen and
a trial take place. It would rivet the attention of the world like no legal
action since the prosecution of German and Japanese officials after World War
II. More importantly, it would provide
credence to the concept of universal jurisdiction championed by Judge
Garzon.
Universal jurisdiction is the
principle that certain crimes are so egregious and/or such a threat to world
peace that those who commit them may be arrested and tried in any country of
the world. Torture is one of those
crimes.
Who was most responsible for the
torture during Bush's "war on terror?" Was it the functionaries who carried it out,
the members of the administration who justified it, or the Torturer in Chief
who authorized it? And if any or all of
them are left unpunished what does it say about the commitment of our nation to
the rule of law and human rights? The
world knows we can talk the talk. The
question it is asking is will we walk the walk.
Walk the walk would mean leading
the charge to bring those who violated our laws and international law by
torturing prisoners to justice. That is
what President Obama should be doing.
Instead he says "look forward not back."
We tortured native
Americans. We tortured slaves. We tortured prisoners under the Phoenix
program in Vietnam.
At the School of the Americans we taught future dictators to torture. We supported governments that torture their
opponents. Nevertheless, because in our
words if not always in our actions we also promoted human rights and the rule
of law, the Statue of Liberty was the icon of our country for more than 100
years.
George Bush changed that. Now, because he authorized the torture of
people he termed "illegal enemy combatants" the icon of our country
is a hooded prisoner with wires attached standing on a box in a prison in Iraq. Still, President Obama says, "let's
just ignore all that."
Baltasar Garzon, on the other
hand, says, "let's not."
Garzon is best known for bringing
about the arrest of the former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, under the doctrine of
universal jurisdiction. Pinochet was
apprehended in 1998 while visiting England. It was the first time the doctrine was
applied for crimes against humanity.
Now Garzon is asking the public
prosecutor in Spain
to determine if a David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, William Haynes,
John Yoo, and Aberto Gonzales may be charged with violating laws that prohibit
the mistreatment of prisoners by providing President Bush with the legal
rationale for ordering "harsh interrogation" techniques. "Harsh interrogation" is a
euphemism for torture.
Harsh interrogation meant being
chained for days with hands extended over the head, being denied toilet
facilities, prolonged nudity, waterboarding (a form of torture in which the
victim is suffocated to the point of dying), severe beatings, sleep
deprivation, exposure to cold temperatures, prolonged solitary confinement, and
more. That, according to a Red Cross
report, is how suspected terrorists held by the U.S.
were treated.
Yet after pictures of U.S.
army personnel torturing prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison in Iraq
surfaced on the web in 2004 the Bush administration maintained that they
depicted the actions of a few rogue soldiers.
"We do not torture," the President said in 2005 even though
his administration had long before sought and obtained legal cover from the six
former officials now being investigated by Garzon for interrogators to use
"harsh interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorists.
"Behind much of the savagery
of modern history," wrote Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, "lies impunity.
Tyrants commit atrocities, including genocide, when they calculate they
can get away with them." If
President Obama heeds those words he will join Baltasar Garzon's effort to bring
to justice all those responsible for torturing prisoners in Bush's war against
terror.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Former President George W. Bush
may be indicted for torture.
Far fetched? Not anymore.
In March Baltasar Garzon, a
Spanish judge, asked prosecutors to determine whether there is enough evidence
to charge six former members of the Bush administration with torturing
prisoners. Should they be indicted as
now seems likely it will be hard to argue that their superiors up to and
including the former President himself should not be indicted as well.
Imagine if that should happen and
a trial take place. It would rivet the attention of the world like no legal
action since the prosecution of German and Japanese officials after World War
II. More importantly, it would provide
credence to the concept of universal jurisdiction championed by Judge
Garzon.
Universal jurisdiction is the
principle that certain crimes are so egregious and/or such a threat to world
peace that those who commit them may be arrested and tried in any country of
the world. Torture is one of those
crimes.
Who was most responsible for the
torture during Bush's "war on terror?" Was it the functionaries who carried it out,
the members of the administration who justified it, or the Torturer in Chief
who authorized it? And if any or all of
them are left unpunished what does it say about the commitment of our nation to
the rule of law and human rights? The
world knows we can talk the talk. The
question it is asking is will we walk the walk.
Walk the walk would mean leading
the charge to bring those who violated our laws and international law by
torturing prisoners to justice. That is
what President Obama should be doing.
Instead he says "look forward not back."
We tortured native
Americans. We tortured slaves. We tortured prisoners under the Phoenix
program in Vietnam.
At the School of the Americans we taught future dictators to torture. We supported governments that torture their
opponents. Nevertheless, because in our
words if not always in our actions we also promoted human rights and the rule
of law, the Statue of Liberty was the icon of our country for more than 100
years.
George Bush changed that. Now, because he authorized the torture of
people he termed "illegal enemy combatants" the icon of our country
is a hooded prisoner with wires attached standing on a box in a prison in Iraq. Still, President Obama says, "let's
just ignore all that."
Baltasar Garzon, on the other
hand, says, "let's not."
Garzon is best known for bringing
about the arrest of the former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, under the doctrine of
universal jurisdiction. Pinochet was
apprehended in 1998 while visiting England. It was the first time the doctrine was
applied for crimes against humanity.
Now Garzon is asking the public
prosecutor in Spain
to determine if a David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, William Haynes,
John Yoo, and Aberto Gonzales may be charged with violating laws that prohibit
the mistreatment of prisoners by providing President Bush with the legal
rationale for ordering "harsh interrogation" techniques. "Harsh interrogation" is a
euphemism for torture.
Harsh interrogation meant being
chained for days with hands extended over the head, being denied toilet
facilities, prolonged nudity, waterboarding (a form of torture in which the
victim is suffocated to the point of dying), severe beatings, sleep
deprivation, exposure to cold temperatures, prolonged solitary confinement, and
more. That, according to a Red Cross
report, is how suspected terrorists held by the U.S.
were treated.
Yet after pictures of U.S.
army personnel torturing prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison in Iraq
surfaced on the web in 2004 the Bush administration maintained that they
depicted the actions of a few rogue soldiers.
"We do not torture," the President said in 2005 even though
his administration had long before sought and obtained legal cover from the six
former officials now being investigated by Garzon for interrogators to use
"harsh interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorists.
"Behind much of the savagery
of modern history," wrote Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, "lies impunity.
Tyrants commit atrocities, including genocide, when they calculate they
can get away with them." If
President Obama heeds those words he will join Baltasar Garzon's effort to bring
to justice all those responsible for torturing prisoners in Bush's war against
terror.
Former President George W. Bush
may be indicted for torture.
Far fetched? Not anymore.
In March Baltasar Garzon, a
Spanish judge, asked prosecutors to determine whether there is enough evidence
to charge six former members of the Bush administration with torturing
prisoners. Should they be indicted as
now seems likely it will be hard to argue that their superiors up to and
including the former President himself should not be indicted as well.
Imagine if that should happen and
a trial take place. It would rivet the attention of the world like no legal
action since the prosecution of German and Japanese officials after World War
II. More importantly, it would provide
credence to the concept of universal jurisdiction championed by Judge
Garzon.
Universal jurisdiction is the
principle that certain crimes are so egregious and/or such a threat to world
peace that those who commit them may be arrested and tried in any country of
the world. Torture is one of those
crimes.
Who was most responsible for the
torture during Bush's "war on terror?" Was it the functionaries who carried it out,
the members of the administration who justified it, or the Torturer in Chief
who authorized it? And if any or all of
them are left unpunished what does it say about the commitment of our nation to
the rule of law and human rights? The
world knows we can talk the talk. The
question it is asking is will we walk the walk.
Walk the walk would mean leading
the charge to bring those who violated our laws and international law by
torturing prisoners to justice. That is
what President Obama should be doing.
Instead he says "look forward not back."
We tortured native
Americans. We tortured slaves. We tortured prisoners under the Phoenix
program in Vietnam.
At the School of the Americans we taught future dictators to torture. We supported governments that torture their
opponents. Nevertheless, because in our
words if not always in our actions we also promoted human rights and the rule
of law, the Statue of Liberty was the icon of our country for more than 100
years.
George Bush changed that. Now, because he authorized the torture of
people he termed "illegal enemy combatants" the icon of our country
is a hooded prisoner with wires attached standing on a box in a prison in Iraq. Still, President Obama says, "let's
just ignore all that."
Baltasar Garzon, on the other
hand, says, "let's not."
Garzon is best known for bringing
about the arrest of the former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, under the doctrine of
universal jurisdiction. Pinochet was
apprehended in 1998 while visiting England. It was the first time the doctrine was
applied for crimes against humanity.
Now Garzon is asking the public
prosecutor in Spain
to determine if a David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, William Haynes,
John Yoo, and Aberto Gonzales may be charged with violating laws that prohibit
the mistreatment of prisoners by providing President Bush with the legal
rationale for ordering "harsh interrogation" techniques. "Harsh interrogation" is a
euphemism for torture.
Harsh interrogation meant being
chained for days with hands extended over the head, being denied toilet
facilities, prolonged nudity, waterboarding (a form of torture in which the
victim is suffocated to the point of dying), severe beatings, sleep
deprivation, exposure to cold temperatures, prolonged solitary confinement, and
more. That, according to a Red Cross
report, is how suspected terrorists held by the U.S.
were treated.
Yet after pictures of U.S.
army personnel torturing prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison in Iraq
surfaced on the web in 2004 the Bush administration maintained that they
depicted the actions of a few rogue soldiers.
"We do not torture," the President said in 2005 even though
his administration had long before sought and obtained legal cover from the six
former officials now being investigated by Garzon for interrogators to use
"harsh interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorists.
"Behind much of the savagery
of modern history," wrote Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, "lies impunity.
Tyrants commit atrocities, including genocide, when they calculate they
can get away with them." If
President Obama heeds those words he will join Baltasar Garzon's effort to bring
to justice all those responsible for torturing prisoners in Bush's war against
terror.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.