WP: Detainee Abuse Charges Feared (War Crimes)

[deminks]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield was needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

[MadMaddie]

1. And again...if it is a war crime atrocity why would we protect

criminals....?

[LynnTheDem]

2. "actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order"

But golly gee, bush & his MFing Cabal insist they knew nuthin' what so ever 'bout what all them "bad apples" wuss up to.

[WhiteTara]

16. George Bush, War Criminal

IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE

[cgrindley]

30. but

Shouldn't we get Kissinger first? Before he dies of natural causes? Bush is in pretty good shape. He can wait a few more years for justice.

[Rose Siding]

3. Newsweek covered this some-

There's more, but here's a hefty snip>

But while top White House officials publicly talked about trying Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes, the internal memos show that administration lawyers were privately concerned that they could tried for war crimes themselves based on actions the administration were taking, and might have to take in the future, to combat the terrorist threat.

The issue first arises in a January 9, 2002, draft memorandum written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that "neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions" would apply to the detention conditions of Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The memo includes a lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which it concludes has no binding effect on the president because it would interfere with his Commander in Chief powers to determine "how best to deploy troops in the field." (The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a question by the Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.")

But while the discussion in the Justice memo revolves around the possible application of the War Crimes Act to members of the U.S. military, there is some reason to believe that administration lawyers were worried that the law could even be used in the future against senior administration officials.

One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

They worried about a Democratic Congress even then.

[rodeodance]

18. " given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Dept"!!

.....One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

[tanyev]

33. Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please.

"The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said.

[Straight Shooter]

4. Someone please explain, again, why we can't compare them to Nazis?

AFAIC, they're cut from the same cloth.

[bleever]

9. Because Nazis

won elections without obvious indicators of massive fraud?

[cgrindley]

29. Because it's offensive

Nazis caused a world war in which over 50 million died. Nazis engineered the greatest attempt at genocide the world has ever seen. Nazis really were Nazis, and nothing, absolutely nothing compares to them. To use the term in the context of someone like Bush is to do a grave disservice to everyone who lived through the second world war, and to all of those people who didn't.

You can call Bush a fascist. I think a pretty good case can be made for that, but Nazi isn't really appropriate.

In addition, there's Godwin's Law to consider.

[erknm]

37. Completely agree

Because the holocaust and the exploits of the Nazis are so completely incomparable to any other atrocity every performed, making the comparison not only stops the discussion, but provides a solid reason for opponents to ignore the substance of what you may have been saying.

FH

[lfairban]

39. I disagree with your premise.

Part of the popular mythology is that the Nazis did something that was completely different than anything that has gone before or happened since. This is not true. Where they may have been the most prominent or quantitatively excessive practitioners, the qualitative differences are absent.

Assigning blame to one party for the ensuing military conflict is usually the apparatus for vindicating all others, like saying that Hezbollah forced Israel to bomb Lebanon by capturing two soldiers. It is sort of like an abusive husband asking his wife why did you make me beat you.

"Nothing compares to them"? Many things compare to them in that time frame and the times before. What? You don't like genocide? That's How the West Was Won!

The Nazis were an anachronism in their own time, and so is Bush.

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. I'm sure the Germans

had all kinds of reasons not to compare Hitler to other dictators before him when he was in power. How dare anyone make such a comparison. Bush has only killed 100,000+ people at least so far. Except Bush has also destroyed two countries, the WTC, and an American city - New Orleans. Not bad in just 6 years.

[erknm]

42. Please give reality a chance

Qualitative vs quantitative?
I don't even see qualitative similarities. I obviously don't like W, but I do not accuse him of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And if we put all the 2,500 + US soldiers on his shoulders, this is still less than the Nazis killed in an average day. Each one a tragedy, to be sure, but not even comparable. Just because there are some similarities do not mean that they are comparable. Wait, I can just see it, Hitler drank German beer. I also drink German beer. Now I understand why people call me a Nazi, the comparison is obvious.

It seems that some people on this blog never learn: There is enough factual evidence to hate W and punish republicans for his behavior. There may be enough evidence to bring up talk of war crimes, so that some future president can pardon the entire lot. But outlandish and ridiculous exaggerations do nothing but allow people to feel okay about labeling accusers as raving lunatics and dismissing anything they say. Hyperbole will not get democrats elected. So it really depends on whether an accuser wants to scream for its own sake, or wants to have a meaningful dialogue.

Frankly, I cannot say it better than Godwin himself from his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, where he argued that "hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact".

[Senator]

5. Any Lawmaker Who Supports this is Committing a War Crime

Conspiracy after the fact is still criminal.

Rubber may actually be getting near road in the aftermath of the Hamdan bombshell.

(Willful) ignorance may not be quite as blissful as it has been in recent years.

--

[hang a left]

6. Somebody quick....call Arlen

he knows how to handle these retroactive thingies.

[babylonsister]

11. Yeah, he's the "go-to" guy.

:rofl:

[chill_wind]

13. "And blanket amnesty for all. Hooooray."

I smell sweat.

[hootinholler]

7. SIGN IT!

Pass it around! This is what I'm fearing, that we will be prevented from prosecuting the criminals.

How is it possible to pass a retro-active law?

Sign the petition!

-Hoot

[Miss Chybil]

8. No worry about laws. We just make them up as we go!!! Woohoo!!!

My country 'tis of thee... sweet land I can't remember you... For thee I weep.

[Peace Patriot]

10. I hope the tortured prisoners who are still alive are able to sue them

and take all their money. That would be a beautiful thing to see. I want there to be RECOMPENSE. Same with their crimes against the American people. Make 'em pay hard cash! I would also like to see the whole lot of them get life sentences of community service, say, cleaning bed pans in Veterans Hospitals. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, Rove, Libby, Hadley, the lot. Wouldn't that be something?

But in the case of this dreadful, unlawful, illegitimate regime, I would draw a line at prosecuting soldiers. We have a grinning lunatic in the White House, and a cabal of vultures around him. I believe in restoring order (one reason I want to see a Gore/Kerry ticket--restoration! )--but there has been such uncommon disorder, I think it would be extremely unfair for lower orders under command to be held accountable for torture and mistreatment in most situations. What we know of Abu Ghraib, for instance, is that chain of command was extremely confused--there were people giving orders whom nobody knew (shadowy military contractors and Pentagon or CIA operatives)--and the people who committed the actual crimes were untrained and unprepared in every way. If you have psychos like Bush and Rumsfeld giving the orders, and a setting the tone, and a command situation where purges of good people are occurring (loyalty oaths, blackmail, extreme pressure)--when, in short, you have criminals running things--the lower order commanders and those under them must have been (and probably still are) in a constant state of confusion and anxiety, ADDED to the other dangers they face. Disorder at the top--what do you expect at the bottom? I know the Nuremberg principle that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. But I think CONFUSION is an excuse.

You had the Secretary of Defense stating that freedom = the freedom to loot. You had the company of the Vice President of the U.S. stealing billions of dollars. You had the President of the U.S. making jokes about WMDs--WMDs that people were dying over. You had the whole cabal in the White House outing a CIA agent, and the entire WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed, putting all associated US covert agents/contacts at risk of getting killed, and disabling all projects. You had a war going on between the Pentagon and the CIA. You had a bunch of "loyalty oath" young Republicans who couldn't even speak Arabic running things in Iraq. And you had an absolute goddamned disaster in Iraq from Day One. Can you expect soldiers and lower order commanders--the people in the line of fire--to figure out whose orders they should be following on the Geneva Conventions? MORAL confusion. Legal confusion. Chain of command confusion. And these were not Nazis, with their orderly, efficient death machine. These were kids from some poor neighborhood who went into the military to get a job or an education. And many young commanders with no experience of war. I would exempt all but the criminally liable generals.

I think there also ought to be a special medal created for those defied this unlawful government's orders--especially those who got punished for it. I'm thinking of the military lawyers, who fought against the torture policy behind the scenes. There is no worse crime, in my opinion, than destroying someone's soul, spitting on, and besmirching, their sense of justice and ethical behavior, and, in the case of these military lawyers, sullying their life's work, their devotion to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. And there is no greater courage than resisting such an assault, and standing up for your principles, despite extreme pressure and unknown dire consequences. They must have felt such despair! And I'm sure there are others like them, who have put up heroic fights against this criminal regime. Some day--after we have restored our right to vote, and our rightful control of our government, we must recognize and reward them.

[bleever]

12. Brava. Please remember to add this to your journal.

A diamond.

[Canuckistanian]

14. There was a potential case for this just this morning on CBC

There was an Algerian, arrested in 2001, who, just after 9/11, was cleared of any charges in Nov. 2001.

But he was held without charge since that time until last week. He claimed that he was beaten, had sleep deprivation torture and was shuttled from jail to jail.

The New York facility was the worst, he said.

He is currently in Canada, seeking refugee status.

IMO, he's ripe for a lawsuit against the US government.

[WhiteTara]

15. These decisions should be made in the Hague

After they are found guilty, we can decide if the sentence is death. I say thumbs down, feed them to the lions.

[Peace Patriot]

36. No, no, no! We have to find a new way! Violent retribution is what they

EXPECT, because they are such callous killers themselves. So, treat them with the respect that they DENIED to "enemy combatants," and mete out truly appropriate punishment--confiscation of all war profits, and community service to benefit wounded vets. (I wasn't kidding about that. I really want that to happen. Rumsfeld carrying bedpans. Ye-e-e-es! And NOT for humiliation! Rather, to revive his frozen soul.)

You see, I've been thinking a lot about South America, recently, and also South Africa. What prevented bloodbaths in those countries--after the fascists were disempowered? What prevented public hangings of the dictators' bodies from the rafters? What prevented the excesses of the French Revolution? Think of the horror those peoples' endured! Violent retribution seemed INEVITABLE. But it did not happen. Instead, these societies are constructing better governments out of the ashes of the past. In South Africa, it had a formal name: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In South America, we've seen seeming miracles, like Michele Batchelet--who was tortured by the US-backed dictator Pinochet--elected president of Chile! And a full-blooded, indigenous, Andes Indian elected president of Bolivia! And a US-backed military coup FAILING in Venezuela, because their democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez, was so revered--tens of thousands of people pouring into the streets to stop the coup. And Fidel Castro (utterly reviled by our corporate news monopolies) helping to solve the problem and preventing a revolutionary bloodbath.

It's as if some beneficent spirit has floated over these countries, whispering, "Peace, peace, peace!" into everybody's ears. End the cycle of violence. Make love, not war!

I think that we, in this country, are at the center of the vortex of change--from humanity's brutal past, to a different and better future. We are THE most heavily propagandized people on earth (except maybe North Koreans), and THE most heavily burdened with war profiteers and other nefarious parties. The global corporate predators who are causing all the trouble were spawned HERE, and they have taken measures to disempower us, so that we cannot use our sovereign rights as a people--especially our right to vote--to curtail them and/or dismantle their inhuman corporate monopolies (as we should be doing). It is very, very difficult for us to see out of this vortex. It's as if they have put blindfolds on us, and told us to shut up and don't move. "You are powerless! You can do nothing!" And we are vulnerable to that message, as a people, because our forms of communication have been hijacked, and we are only just developing alternative forms (word of mouth, and our "Committees of Correspondence," the internet).

WONDERFUL things are happening in other places--truly amazing developments, like the triumph of democracy in Latin America, and also what appears to have been world unity on preventing the Bush junta's nuking of Iran (which included our own military's opposition to it). The Bush junta is in truth a very rickety regime with almost no support in the U.S., and none in the rest of the world. I think 35% approval among Americans is probably a kindness (of the corporate news monopolies). They're down to their small wingnut base and its multi-billionaire promoters--and have been in that dungeon for at least 1.5 years, beginning with a dismal and unprecedented 49% on the very day of Jr.'s second inauguration, and going into a steep fall thereafter, with no bounce, no matter what they do. Likely this will start being fiddled again as we approach Diebold II in November, but still, the upshot is that the great majority of Americans despise these criminals. The propaganda is now so transparent, it nearly evaporates before they open their mouths.

I know we are all consumed here with what Israel has done. But Israel's invasion of Lebanon may be a symptom of the crumbling of the Bush regime. It has been the goal of the Bushites all along to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran, to gain control of some of the earth's last reserves of oil. However, EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war, and the whole world opposes it as well. So they've gone to PNAC-Plan B: get Israel to do it. And Israel, out of fear, desperation and possibly blackmail (the Bushites hold the purse strings) has gone right along with it, and become a Bush Cartel pawn. Israel's leaders may also sense the end of the Bush junta, and want to gain some strategic advantage before their only ally in the world is dethroned. Bad mistake. And bad mistakes all along the way by Israel's leadership, which has ended with Israel's only friend being the fascist, Saudi-loving, bin Laden-loving Bushites! Some friends. Israelis need to do something dramatic to disassociate their country from these pariahs. Invading Lebanon is about the worst thing they could have done. Apologizing to Iran (for helping destroy their democracy in 1954, and inflicting them with the torture-loving Shah), calling for Truth and Reconciliation in the Middle East--amnesty, forgiveness, peace--and embarking on a NEW PLAN, one say, with the goal of a Middle Eastern Cultural and Ecological Renaissance, would be the best. The world would weep for joy! Israel would instantly gain billions of new friends--and they wouldn't need the Bush Cartel, which everybody could then kick out of Iraq.

Then we put Rumsfeld to work in a VA hospital.

Positive envisionment. That's the thing. Don't think of death and retribution. That's what these criminals feed upon. Think of life, and rebirth.

[rodeodance]

17. So Conzalas/WH wants ANOTHER law made RETROspectively!

.....Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

[EST]

19. What ugly, foul creatures these animals are.

By the standard they apply, there is no behavior they can't engage in. With the "unitary executive" notion giving plenary powers to the executive and the president, along with justice department master criminals, claiming that any rejection of plans, no matter how wicked, or legal criticism amounts to a restriction on his ability to move the troops, there is no limit.
Congress cannot pass a law, and have it upheld by scotus, that interferes with constitutional prerogatives. A compliant justice department that refuses to prosecute and an assertion that any policy the executive puts in place is aimed at gaining information to inform troop movements, gives them power of life, death, occupation, employment, even marital choice over anyone at all, perfectly legal.

This is too outrageous to stand but I'm not sure how the hell we are going to stop it, especially with a republican congress.

[rodeodance]

20. If a new law is made--they will know they will not be punished-so any

thing goes mentality will reign.


....Some human rights groups and independent experts say they oppose undermining the reach of the War Crimes Act, arguing that it deters government misconduct. They say any step back from the Geneva Conventions could provoke mistreatment of captured U.S. military personnel. They also contend that Bush administration anxieties about prosecutions are overblown and should not be used to gain congressional approval for rough interrogations.

"The military has lived with" the Geneva Conventions provisions "for 50 years and applied them to every conflict, even against irregular forces. Why are we suddenly afraid now about the vagueness of its terms?" asked Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch.

Since the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, hundreds of service members deployed to Iraq have been accused by the Army of mistreating detainees, and at least 35 detainees have died in military or CIA custody, according to a tally kept by Human Rights First. The military has asserted these were all aberrant acts by troops ignoring their orders.

Defense attorneys for many of those accused of involvement have alleged that their clients were pursuing policies of rough treatment set by officials in Washington. That claim is amplified in a 53-page Human Rights Watch report this week that quoted interrogators at three bases in Iraq as saying that abuse was part of regular, authorized procedures. But this argument has yet to gain traction in a military court, where U.S. policy requires that active-duty service members be tried for any maltreatment.

[Solly Mack]

21. Just how much more of admission does anyone need?

This isn't the first time the Bush Regime's "fear" of future charges for war crimes has come up either. The ACLU papers on torture show this.

The Bush Regime almost always couch it in "worry for the troops" but fact is, they are worried about themselves. Troops have already been convicted for crimes...crimes that were war crimes. And those troops took the blame for the actions of the entire command - all the way up to Bush.

And the only reason they fear those charges is because they know they are guilty of war crimes.

The only reason they want an ad hoc protection now is because they know they've violated both federal and international law.

And ANYONE - absolutely ANYONE - that allows them to get away with war crimes is just as bad as Bush.

The idea that seeking justice against a corrupt government is somehow bad for the country is deserving of derision. I have nothing but scorn for such thinking.

[rodeodance]

22. "Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers" scary

[Vidar]

23. Here come another dozen signing statements.

[freebrew]

24. Do Not Repeat This Propaganda!!!

The 'War Powers Act' is not an obscure law!
The Geneva Convention is not 'Quaint'!
These are laws passed and signed - LEGALLY!
They need to be enforced as soon as possible.
Like maybe if'n we get us a Dem Congress and/or Senate?

[redqueen]

25. How far is this from "I was just following orders"?

U.S. officials could argue in any event, Ratner said, that they were following policies they believed to be legal, and "a judge would most likely say that is a decent defense."

I think it's close enough for war crimes charges... as Mora said, all the way up the chain of command.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. Translation: they are nervous about being prosecuted themselves

Please don't try to tell me they give two bits about the troops. As far as neoconservatives are concerned, the troops are kids from ghettoes and barrios who are supposed to be cannon fodder for the elite; as they demonstrated in the Vietnam era, they think the elite are too good to fight the wars from which they benefit.

They would rather prosecute the Lynndie Englands of the world and say "see, a few bad apples" than admit that they approved torture.

[NorthernSun]

27. Bush Sr. pardoned all the Iran-Contra witnesses against him

These guys must want more assurance against the death penalty.

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm

Bush said Weinberger -- who had been scheduled to go on trial in Washington January 5 on charges related to Iran-Contra -- was a "true American patriot," who had served with "distinction" in a series of public positions since the late 1960s.

The president also pardoned five other persons who already had pleaded guilty or had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages investigation. They were Elliott Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George, all former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

[chill_wind]

38. PS-- I read that Elliot Abrams was traveling as part of Rice's convoy

last week. The bush admin keeps moving these former accused and/or convicted felons and figures around in the admin so much I can't keep track of their assignments and promotions.

That's the Republican sense of character and "justice" for you. Crime pays.


From the *Karen Hughes on a Barstool* story


July 24, 2006, 10:01 am
An Earful in Ireland

When Condoleezza Rice’s plane stopped to refuel in Shannon airport in Ireland, en route to Lebanon, some of the secretary of state’s top aides got an earful from dozens of Lebanese-Americans waylaid there after being evacuated from Beirut.

At five in the morning, many in the group of Lebanese-Americans were sprawled on benches trying to sleep amid a fluorescent glare and jabber of TV news, much of it on the carnage in Beirut. But 20 or so caught on that an important U.S. delegation was at the bar, including public diplomacy chief Karen Hughes, top Mideast aide David Welch, and White House adviser Elliot Abrams.

The group had come to Shannon aboard a chartered plane whose engines had broken down the day before. Some had been on the move for five days. “We saw beautiful Beirut Lebanon being destroyed,” one said. A spat between the State Department and a charter company over who should pay had prevented the group from going to a hotel.

“Aren’t you a TV person?” one woman asked Hughes, a former press aide who was sitting at the bar sipping wine.

“Well you may have seen me on TV,” Hughes replied.
-snip-

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/07/24/

[Imalittleteapot]

28. My fear

is that the administration will not be prosecuted and not held accountable for their crimes against the world.

[savemefromdumbya]

31. Why don't they enforce that law then?

[originalpckelly]

32. If they have nothing to hide, why are they so worried about war crimes...

prosecution?

If they haven't done anything wrong, why be afraid?

That little argument is from the NSA wiretapping program debate, and you know it sure does work in this case.

[emmadoggy]

34. I don't even know where to start with this...

God, these people make me sick. :puke:

:kick:

[rateyes]

35. Since when did Dubya lose his power...

to pardon people? Unless he's removed from office by impeachment, he'll use the pardon more than any President in our history.

This stuff makes me vomit.

[Voltaire99]

41. Support our war criminals! No Nurembergs for the good guys!

While Congress is at it, how about rushing through protection against impeachment?

The Impeach No Lying Evil Dumbfucks Act of 2006 can ensure that, now more than ever, we stay the course toward complete and utter doom.

[redqueen]

43. *sigh*

love the way you put that.