Elizabeth Holtzman: Crimes in High Places

[babylonsister]

Elizabeth Holtzman
Crimes in High Places

Posted February 27, 2008 | 09:26 PM (EST)


Despite President Bush's frequent claim that "we don't do torture," top officials of the US government this month admitted that waterboarding was used on at least three detainees. The White House reaction was to announce that, if needed, waterboarding would be used again.

Since crimes in high places have now been admitted, those responsible must be held accountable. There are only two ways to do this: prosecution or impeachment.

Most experts agree that waterboarding, which was used at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition, is torture. As such, it violates the US anti-torture law 18 USC Section 2340 (a) as well as US treaties. Although it bars torture overseas, it covers any US national who order, directs, or conspires with those who engage in it abroad, including, for example, a president or vice-president. Thus, all administration officials involved in the waterboarding, including President Bush, could be guilty of violating that law.

Given the recent admissions and the White House's refusal to condemn the practice, it is most likely that the president, the vice president and other high level officials authorized the waterboarding. At the very least this was not -- and is still not -- viewed by them as a "rogue" activity.

Notwithstanding those who deny that waterboarding is torture, no one can seriously dispute that waterboarding constitutes cruel and degrading treatment of detainees, a practice that was outlawed by the War Crimes Act of 1996. That act was designed to carry out US obligations under the Geneva Conventions and makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the War Crimes Act.

It is indisputable that the president and then Attorney General Gonzales, as well as other members of the Bush administration, understood that "enhanced interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, could violate the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act.

It was the fear of criminal prosecution that motivated at least in part the president's rejection of Geneva Convention applicability to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. The thinking was that if the Geneva Conventions didn't apply, then the War Crimes Act did not apply. But administration officials were still haunted by the possibility of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act for waterboarding and other mistreatment of detainees, so in the fall of 2006, just as it became clear that the Democrats were going to win control of the House, the Bush administration snuck through legislation retroactively nullifying the War Crimes Act.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/crimes-in-high-places_b_88825.html

[Demeter]

1. How About Both Prosecution AND Impeachment?

and punishment with teeth in it! Asset stripping, just like common drug dealers, gets my vote.