Archive for the ‘Bush’ Category

Thinking Clearly About Bush Atrocities, War Crimes and Torture

January 27, 2009

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It seems like only yesterday that the Brookings Institution was wringing it hands and whining about how disastrous it would be if the issue of Guantanamo detainees made it to SCOTUS. Brookings declared: ‘the Courts Can’t Fix Guantanamo’. Brookings not only got it wrong but often shot themselves in the foot.

As the case heads towards the Supremes, you’ll no doubt hear a lot about suspension of the Great Writ of habeas corpus–the ancient device by which courts evaluate the legality of detentions. And you’ll also hear a lot about Guantanamo as a legal “black hole.” It’s all a lot of rot, really, albeit rot a majority of the justices might well adopt. Cut through it, and Guantanamo poses a set of difficult policy problems, not legal ones. And, while judges have a role in the solution to those problems, that role isn’t the one most liberals seem to want them to play.

Brookings, which apparently pulled its own paper —Total Acts of Terrorism in the US 1980-98, America’s Response to Terrorism –works backward from conclusions, not a recipe for getting to the truth. In the meantime, I challenge them to re-post their above mentioned article obviously pulled because it supports a proposition that Brookings was and remains politically uncomfortable with: terrorism is worse under GOP regimes.

Brookings, like everyone who supported George W. Bush’s so-called ‘war on terrorism’, tried to have it both ways. Brookings shills called Bush’s acts of terrorism against the people of Iraq ‘war’ whenever doing so allowed the Bush regime to accrue the arbitrary or illegal powers of war. With respect to other issues –GITMO prisoners, for example –it was not a ‘war’ and GITMO prisoners were, therefore, to be denied the protections afforded to prisoners of war by law and by treaty. My question to Brookings remains: was it war or was it not war? Brookings would have it both ways depending which way the winds were blowing.

… nobody seriously believed that the federal courts would entertain challenges by aliens who had never set foot in this country to overseas military detentions–or, at least, nobody thought so who had read the Supreme Court’s emphatic pronouncement on the subject. “We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction,” the Court wrote in 1950. “Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes.”

–Brookings Institution,

Brookings had swallowed the ‘Kool-aid’, the idea that somehow Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror’ was a different animal, completely unforseen by the founders, never thought of by distinguished jurists, never envisioned by great philosophers, jurists, or ordinary lawyers.

Bollocks!

The only problems with adjudicating the often unfairly labeled ‘terrorists’ at GITMO were those associated with acts of buying into Bush’s false dichotomy, his phony paradigm.

If the courts try to dictate how the executive branch should handle these detentions, they will be wading into some very deep water without a life vest. Overseas military action, after all, is an area about which judges know little and which is peculiarly resistant to principled legal decision-making. While any reasonable approach to this problem would likely make use of judges, who are highly skilled at reviewing evidence and holding it up against legal standards, it’s a big leap from there to letting judges define those legal standards and set the rules for handling the relevant evidence.

The justices can pretend that the Constitution, international humanitarian law, or the laws of war answer the questions posed by the detentions. But it’s the wrong way to fix this system; it probably won’t work well, and its unintended consequences will, in any event, overwhelm whatever good it does.Ironically, the outlines of a good system are already in place. Right now, military tribunals determine whether the administration has rightly classified a detainee as an enemy combatant, and the detainee can then appeal the tribunal’s judgment to a federal appeals court. The real problem here isn’t the lack of habeas jurisdiction.

It is that these tribunals are too cursory. The detainee has no right to assistance from a lawyer and often doesn’t see the evidence against him. The consequence is that the tribunal that consigns him to indefinite detention has no clear picture of the evidence, and any reviewing court has only the most limited record to evaluate.Yet in this flawed system lies the nucleus of a procedure better than either the current one or any attempt to supplant executive power with judicial power. The compromise would beef up the combatant-status tribunals, making them fairer and more robust–and clarifying the form of judicial review that would follow them.

–Brookings Institution, The Courts Can’t Fix Guantanamo

It is the role of the courts to keep the executive ‘honest’ with respect to human rights, civil rights and matters of Constitutionality in general. If the courts don’t or won’t do this, who will? Who must? Who can? Brookings –not surprisingly –misses the point time and again!

Brookings went on to say that “human rights groups and lawyers for the detainees would have to drop their insistence on habeas corpus litigation as the essential mechanism of judicial review in this conflict”. A ‘Sacred Cow’ it is called. One wonders how many other ‘sacred cows’ Brooking would have us give up?? Due Process of Law, perhaps! The right to trial by jury, perhaps! The right to legal counsel?

It is clear to me that it was and remains the intention of the founders, the intention of those drafting US Codes criminalizing violations of our international commitments that government may not exercise arbitrary and unrestrained powers to decide what is an inviolate ‘right’ and what is but a ‘sacred cow’!

Taken to its logical conclusion, the Brookings position means that US obligations to the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg are moot, that there is no mechanism by which the US government may be held –under law –to its commitments.

Clearly –Brookings is dead wrong and indefensible. It is a fact that the illegal practice of torture was carried out at Abu Ghraib, GITMO, and various US gulags and hell-holes throughout Eastern Europe. By any Orwellian name given it by Bush or his minions, it is torture.

Recent ACLU-compelled disclosures of previously concealed DOJ documents reveal many of the details of what has been long known: that the highest levels of the Bush administration secretly implemented an illegal torture regime. But while those torture programs began in secret, we have gradually learned more and more about them. The more time that goes by and the more we learn � particularly if we do nothing meaningful to stop it � the more the responsibility for these policies shifts from the administration to all of us collectively.

–Glenn Greenwald: Growing Responsibility for the Bush Torture Regime

Torture is a crime which if it results in death, the penalty is death. That law applies to the architects and defenders of the policy of torture. It applies to Bush –its chief architect, defender and practitioner.

The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad “may be justified” and that international laws against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation” conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. “The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques,” he said. “It was analytical.”

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators’ requests to make public the memo, which is not classified, and would not discuss any possible involvement of the president.

In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last “months or even years.”

A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush’s aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.

Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush

Just as Brookings wrote doggerel about wars that were not wars and non-wars that were, Bush himself took center stage to defend practices which he had denied took place, the best clue yet to his guilt of capital crimes.

(a) Offense.� Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

US CODES, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > � 2441

Brookings contends that the US must ‘stop pretending that, legally speaking, this is a war like any other and requires no additional legislative imagination.’ Brookings does not go far enough. In fact, not only was the ‘war on terrorism’ not a ‘war like any other’, it was not a war at all. It was a the act of a mass murderer ordering acts of mass murder by proxy.

On the one hand, Brookings claims that the issues were not a matter for the courts, not a matter for the legislative branch. How convenient! Had the legislative declared war, it might have been a matter for the ‘legislative’ –but as the Constitution itself was violated when Bush ordered the war without a declaration, the matter is, indeed, a matter for the courts: the International Court at the Hague.

Given that Bush’s war was from the outset illegal –a war crime –none of the GITMO detentions were legal. Each detention is a war crime! If SCOTUS was not up to the task of ordering an immediate release, then who was, who could, who would? As the US is signatory to treaties prohibiting Bush’s actions, what has Brookings to say about the undeniable fact that George W. Bush committed war crimes violating both US Codes and US treaty commitments, crimes for which the penalty is death?

Brookings is cowardly silent!

Additional resources:

Subscribe

Subscribe in a reader<!—

–> <!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

–>

Download DivX

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,
<!— Syndicate by Content Type: Bush | War Crimes | GOP War in Iraq | Terrorism | WMD Fraud

–>

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Why Barack Obama Must Insist Upon the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Capital Crimes

January 23, 2009

AFLAC DUCK CALLS FOR BARACK OBAMA’S ARREST?

January 23, 2009

Aflac Duck protests protesting hippy chick.

After Eight Disastrous Years, Hope!

January 21, 2009

Bush’s Capital Crimes in his own words

June 23, 2008

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

June 22, 2008

Release ‘Detainees”; Charge and Imprison Bush for Capital Crimes

June 21, 2008

The Bush administration is trying once again to rewrite history and the law, specifically ‘the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees’. Typically the legal eagles in the Bush regime have it backward. Bushco should not be given a second chance to fabricate a case when it had none to begin with. Detainees have already been in detention for years in violation of US Codes and our international treaties. Bush has had years to make a case and has failed to do so. To make ‘detainees’ –illegally detained to begin with –wait still longer for justice is, in itself, another crime to be charged to George W. Bush.

A capital crimes case against Bush is better than the ‘case’ Bush has against the ‘detainees’. This is a regime that commits war crimes and tries to make them legal after the fact –a recipe for dictatorship and tyranny.

A Federal judge will review the so-called evidence against detainees in the wake of the recent high court decision. Typically, Bushies want more time to fabricate another ‘case’. What was wrong with the case they had was this: they didn’t have one!

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.

The decision follows last week’s Supreme Court ruling, which held that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court, not just before secret military panels. At a closed-door meeting with judges and defense attorneys this week, government lawyers said they needed time to add new evidence and make other changes to evidentiary documents known as “factual returns.”

Attorneys for the detainees criticized the idea, saying the government is basically asking for a last-minute do-over.

“It’s sort of an admission that the original returns were defective,” said attorney David Remes, who represents many detainees and attended Wednesday’s meeting. “It’s also an admission that the government thinks it needs to beef up the evidence.”

APNewsBreak: US asks to rewrite detainee evidence

Rather than giving the Bush administration a second chance to ‘beef up the evidence’, Bush should be preparing a defense against charges his criminal regime held the detainees for years in violation of numerous international prohibitions, laws, as well as US criminal codes. The Bush administration should be beefing up its defense against charges that it committed capital crimes.

That assumes, of course, that Bush has a defense.

To give Bushies a ‘redo’ now is absurd. The Detainees have already been held for years in violation of every civilized principle, common law, US Codes, the principles of Nuremberg and Geneva. Bush should not be given a ‘redo’. He should be given an indictment!

There is an open and shut case against Bush for his having authorized the commission of capital crimes. He even boasted about it in his State of the Union Address of 2003.

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let’s put it this way — they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

–Bush, State of the Union, 2003

Bush either has a case against the ‘detainees’ or he does not. If his criminal gang had had cases, it would have made them long ago. Some seven years or so is more than enough time when, in fact, Bushco should have had ‘probable cause’ –at the time –to imprison ‘detainees’ at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other US hell holes through the Eastern European gulag. Bush then should have been given a reasonable amount of time in which to make cases or drop them. It is past time to ‘put up or shut up! It is time, rather, to be filing capital crimes and other criminal charges against Bush.

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Google Yahoo! AOL Bloglines

<!—

—> <!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,
<!— Syndicate by Content Type: Bush | War Crimes | GOP War in Iraq | Terrorism | WMD Fraud

—>

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

How Bush Helped Establish a Corporate ‘New World Order’

June 20, 2008

Jung: Resisting the ‘New World Order ‘

June 16, 2008

The Blood on Bush’s hands

June 14, 2008