Zed!

War Crimes trials for the Bushies.

jus cogens!

Angers me when on air personalities like Morning Joe state that the “average Joe” doesn’t care about the torture that is occurring
in our name.

Impeach. Convict. Remove. Indict. Arrest. Convict. Imprison.

if only we had an opposition party capable of producing a candidate who would change anything.

too bad.

When Obama was asked about holding the Bush gang responsible for torture – certainly a “grave, grave breach” if there ever was one – on the very day that Bush finally admitted that he had approved waterboarding – i.e., torture – of a detainee, Obama said this:

“[O]ne of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.”

http://www.worldcantwait.net/i…..Itemid=220

Bobby,
you left out “Interrogate” -

Wilkerson pointed the finger at Cheney today, by saying that Addington would not have acted without Cheney being involved. He clearly said that Addington, Yoo, Bybee gave Rummy and his crew the backing to create the program in DOD that directly led to Abu Gharib. He said that Addington was at the apex and was the mind behind creating the legal policy to support it…it being what Rummy wanted.

Very sobering report loosehead. Thanks for helping us understand this terrible situation. We owe it to those who were falsely imprisoned, and tortured, to figure out the truth. Will there be anything left of our international reputation?

There doesn’t seem to be many in the Dem party that “oppose” anything Bush has put in place, perhaps in word but not in deed. We can have hearings out the ass, but nothing and no one suffers any consequences.

Will there be anything left of our international reputation?

No.

Another case of simple answers…

I caught a snippet of Morning Joe this A.M. as I was switching over to watch Washington Journal. What Joe said, essentially, was that it’s okay to torture if the perp is bad enough. If that squinty eyed weasel ever loses his show, it couldn’t be soon enough to suit me. The man is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

Just imagine the vicarious thrills enjoyed by Cheney and Bush as they toasted their issuing of each torture directive. Quite a pair of manly men we have in power at present. Since nothing relevant came from those tortured, it must have been done for the entertainment of the Decider and Lord Cheney.

The Bush Wing of Hell must grow larger each day to be ready for all the Bushies heading there.

thats right. Glenn Greenwald has many times, vociferously said the same thing.

to me, lack of opposition, tacit approval, passive acceptance, and even overt endorsement of torture and disappearance put someone beyond the pale on the political, and moral spectrum.

the magic of a (D) after their name does not counteract this, but hey thats just me.

Obama’s staffers rebuffed me by phone and email prior to the passage of the odious Military Commissions Act – the Senator “had not read it”, “had no position on it” etc, etc.

That to me clearly indicated a lack of any moral compass – only a fine tuned and reactive political compass.

His rhetorical opposition to the occupation, and basically all issues, is now viewed in this context.

“Average Americans” don’t seem to distinguish between ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘guilty as charged’. If a person has been “picked up” they must be guilty. Suspicion = guilt, so anyhing the US does to EC’s can be rationalized.

Dan Froomkin had this in his on-line chat today:

Charlottesville, Va.: What did you think of former Defense Department legal counsel William “Jim” Haynes’s testimony yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing? Would you say that he beat former Attorney General Gonzales’s record for being “unable to recall”?

Dan Froomkin: You forget how forgetful Gonzales was. Haynes’s performance was more an homage to Gonzales than an eclipsing.

That said, I do wonder how the senators could have gotten more out of him than they did. If nothing else, I would have liked to simply hear from him his narrative of how these decisions were reached.

Me, I’m increasingly obsessed about David Addington’s scheduled appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on the 26th (that’s eight days from now!!!!!).

How in the heck should they approach him, I wonder.

That committee meeting on the 26th could be quite something. Even if Addington clams up and keeps repeating “Executive Privilege! Executive Privilege!” it would be nice to see him smothered with questions stemming from this PHR report.

Of course, that might only change his chant from “Executive Privilege!” to “Fifth Amendment! Fifth Amendment!”

A responsible house of representatives with respect for the rule of law and following their oath of office would impeach.

Those who don’t impeach, as is their duty, are just as complicit now.

Can we IMPEACH now, can we, huh, please?????

Carl Levin’s (almost) hour long opening statement yesterday was stunning.

And today, Feith’s refusal to be on the same panel with one of the witnesses (gee could it have been Wilkerson?) showed what a real coward he is.

There better be war crimes trials right here in the United States for Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Feith, Bybee, Gonzales, and dear leader Bush. It will be to our even greater shame if we don’t act before the international community does.

And can we IMPEACH NOW?!

What’s the old joke? “If a conservative is a Liberal that’s been mugged, a Civil Libertarian is a Conservative under investigation.”

I think the time for politeness is past. Inundate Congress with Impeach Now!

It’s not a request.

Torture = Terror.
We can never defeat terror by using terror.
Remove the war criminals from our White House.

Wilkerson speaking on the subject of Feith. Go to the 44th second for the juiciest bits.

Froomkin also responded to a goofball:

Washington: How on earth can The Post put that article on the Web Site about the report from Physicians for Human Rights without even mentioning that these people are trained to lie, and that these accusations are being made with no firsthand knowledge or testimony of people who saw it happen. The Post should be ashamed. Printing these stories without verification — this is liking printing a story from Amnesty International about abuse without putting into context their position and history. This is The Washington Post, not the Huffington Post! Terrorists also say it is God’s will to kill, and they will get virgins in heaven for killing people … is this printed in The Post as fact without any counterweight?

washingtonpost.com: Report: Former detainees still suffer from trauma (AP, June 18)

Dan Froomkin: From what I understand, the whole point of the report was to determine if there was medical evidence that supported the claims of these detainees — none of whom, I might add, were ever charged with anything. And apparently there was. Furthermore, it’s not like this comes as a bolt out of the blue. There have been too many reliable reports of abuse by now for anyone even vaguely objective to deny them.

I should add, however, that the article you refer to has thus far only run on the Web site. I will be curious myself to see how this story is handled in the morning paper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01739.html

Holy Shizzola….CNN reporting the report right now!!!

Pentagon denying that it was “their” doing….

‘Brenda’ Starr and Wolfie now “reporting” on this very thing,

I’m not saying that the information in this report, or the underlying backup documentation make a triable case all by themselves. I doubt that it does.

But this is a HUGE development in terms of the feasibility of bringing a war crimes trial and actually getting a conviction.

It does appear to make the case that crimes were committed, which is a necessary first step in any criminal proceeding — or impeachment hearing.

Not being a lawyer, I will accept that you have your reasons for believing that the information in the report or the data that back it up don’t make a triable case. It’s data collected by the most widely recognized medical protocol for collecting physical and psychological data on torture and abuse, the Istanbul Protocol. While I might agree with you that there is more to the case than documenting that the torture occurred, this is how torture and abuse are documented, medically, since 1999. The protocol is also online at the PHR website, and discussions are at IRCT and elsewhere.

Just like the hearings are moving towards copies of documents and sworn testimony, the investigation at the prisoner level is moving from ICRC documentation of allegations to documenting the medical evidence.

I hope that means the noose is getting tighter.

[Mod: we trust you mean metaphorically]

Sorry to be off topic, but Larry Sinclair’s press conference was apparently one of the funniest things to ever happen at the National Press Club.

Favorite part:

his lawyer was wearing a kilt. When asked why, he said it was
because his genitalia were too large to fit in pants. I’m not making
this up – it’s on the tape.

I for one can’t wait to watch.

Also, “false flag” atrocities are now official United States of Booshie policy.

Alternative intelligence-gathering techniques and sources, such as doppelganger or pseudo operations, can be tried and used when it is hard to obtain information from the civilian populace. These pseudo units are usually made up of ex-guerrilla and/or security force personnel posing as insurgents.

Yes absolutely register and download a copy of that report from Physicians for Human Rights, be aware you’ll find it grim and upsetting reading. But don’t please don’t let that stop you. It really is information you need to know to push back against the pushback.

Looseheadprop Thanks for highlighting this at the risk of repeating myself can I suggest to people that they go to Global Policy Forum and download the War and Occupation in Iraq report either the whole thing or the relevant chapters:

Unlawful Detention

Abuse and Torture of Prisoners

Both very solid, thoroughly sourced, (and footnoted like nobody’s business) :-)

Can I make a point about Taguba? You’ll have to google for it, but there was an interview published with him about his report. I can’t (sorry) remember when or which publication but one thing that I remember is that while I was reading the article and the interview it became very clear that Taguba knew that he was wrecking his career when he kept on pushing …. but he kept on pushing.

General Taguba (in the quote above from the preface to the PHR report) certainly seems to thinks so.

ding!

Judiciary committee John Conyers said on cspan3 the Geneva Convention applies to the whitehouse and our military. Looks like more subpeonas and charges comming. I called and thanked his committee staf which you can do by asking for the committee’s office. I also call the officials office. I hoping for Inherent Contempt on all refusals. Keep those phones ringing…smile and dial!
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437

As impeachment advocates, including Rep. Kucinich, have pointed out, unless this president and vice president are impeached by the current Congress, any—and probably every—future president will feel empowered by unchallenged precedent to ignore laws passed by the Congress, to go to war without Congressional approval, to spy on Americans in violation of the law, to ignore court orders, to abrogate international treaties, and to lie to Congress and the American people. Unless Congress asserts its rights under Article I, it will no longer even be a co-equal branch of government, but instead will have been reduced to nothing more than a debating society.

from http://counterpunch.org/lindorff06182008.html

I know I know, Counterpuch is not a member of the Democratic Party cheerleading section of the so called Progressive Blogosphere, but try to look past this superficiality at the message, not the messenger.

This may account for Obama’s position quoted earlier, that “I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.”

As a possible future occupant of the Oval Office, he will be in a position to avail himself of all the new powers Bush/Cheney have consolidated there.

Try McClatchey search for general Taguba

It was Sy Hersh’s interview…I’ll try to find a linky.

domino effect coupled with massive amounts of schadenfreude = intense, hopeful day.

Hersh/Taguba June 2007

I think you may be thinking of Seymour Hersh’s piece in the New Yorker from last June.

The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found:

Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.

Taguba was met at the door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld’s senior military assistant. Craddock’s daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba’s two children when the officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But that afternoon, Taguba recalled, “Craddock just said, very coldly, ‘Wait here.’ ” In a series of interviews early this year, the first he has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were “only Iraqis.” Even so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was finally ushered in.

“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”

It gets worse from there.

Yep, it’s that dressing down of Taguba that I think of every time I lay eyes on Rummy’s ugly mug. Throw Rumsfeld in jail already.

Replying to all of you – yes that’s the one.

some bits – all from page 7 of the executive summary:

Many of the physical assaults reported would likely
have resulted in bruises and soft tissue injuries that
would not leave lasting physical marks. However, the
bone scan findings of six individuals, and scars and
healed lesions observed on physical examination of
all detainees corroborated their specific allegations
of physical assault. Scarring on Yasser’s thumbs was
highly consistent with the scarring caused by electric
shock. Further, reports of rape and sexual assault were
corroborated in two cases by medical examination.

One of the worst forms of humiliation detainees
reported, though, was sexual, and it was reported by virtu-
ally all of the individuals evaluated by PHR, at facilities
in Afghanistan, at Guantánamo, and in Iraq. The forms
of sexual humiliation were as varied as they were cruel:
parading men naked in front of female soldiers, forcing
them to disrobe before female interrogators, touching or
provoking them in a humiliating way, and forcing them to
watch pornography or real or feigned sexual activities.
Furthermore, nakedness became the normal mode of
operation in the Iraqi detention facilities, especially in
Abu Ghraib, where the detainees were forced to be naked
for long periods of time. Kamal stated that his genitals
were touched multiple times during interrogations in Abu
Ghraib. Further, he reported that when the American
soldiers “got me naked, they used to bring all female
soldiers to look at me and say, ‘Hello, Imam’.”

In Abu Ghraib, Rahman recounted that he was forced to watch
other detainees being forced to simulate anal intercourse
and recalled that the detainees “were begging, ‘This is a
sin against our religion, please show mercy.’ The soldiers
were pushing them into each other, and these guys were
trying to push away, and this was more than half an hour
and this was in front of our eyes.”

When Wilkerson pointed the finger squarely in the VP’s office today…Conyers had a bit of a reaction saying something like this was putting this whole situation on different footing…as if what Wilkerson’s testimony just upped the ante..

The Administration is in big doo doo.

-David Addington
-Alberto Gonzales
-William J. Haynes, II
-Our old nemesis John Yoo
-Timothy Flanigan

The Vietnamese were deathly afraid of “the men with green faces who come out of the ground.” Now the above listed individuals can be deathly afraid of the men and women who come to court with evidence.

Be afraid, motherfuckers, be very afraid. Cuz we’re comin’ and we’re comin’ for you.

And Cheney and Bush too.

schadenfreude schadenfreude schadenfreude schadenfreude schadenfreude and justice.

Honestly, I do not fault Obama for dancing around the impeachment question at this point.

a. why telegraph your intentions before the current occupants move out?
b. it’s congress’ responsibility and Pelosi should be feeling the heat.
c. he didn’t say he was against impeaching these guys, he just didn’t answer the question straight on.

JMHO.

“But he’s our war criminal!”

I can still hear the logic ringing throughout the land. Our politicians are spineless in the face of tyrannical and draconian abuses of human rights and dignity. They’ve decided that it is better to leave us living in fear of our own government than it is to end the rein of rule of Busholini’s thuggery. There is no mention by the Framers of a “Unitary Executive”…yet we have “great legal minds” telling us that is what the Constitution sez? That the Presidunce is above the law?!” Unfortunately, the joke is on us…or not so funny if you’re thrown in a cell and tortured for years on end.

Sorry if I’m repeating everyone here.

But WTF is congress going to do about it????

i might agree if he had, you know, worked even a little bit to defeat the MCA?

No, you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that this is not a triable case. To the contrary, I’m saying it makes it much more likely that there IS a triable case. it’s just that there are other elements besides proving injury to the victims. you have to get all those planets to align as well.

But being able to prove injury is a big development

Nothing.

Sinclair was arrested, also. Apparently on outstanding charges in CO.

Back on topic, please can we get some of these @#^&*s arrested and tried for war crimes? I know Tim Rutten doesn’t think Bush and Cheney should face charges after leaving office (because winners don’t arrest losers in this country, he says), but I’d like to see it go higher than it has so far.

There is some sort of dissonant cogniscence when I read this and realize it’s US abusing prisoners, not creepy nazis or japanese during WWII. It doesn’t compute.

And when it does, I feel like retching.

I don’t want to believe it. No no no, not my country.

But WTF is congress going to do about it????

we have a big problem because it looks there are dems in the leadership of congress who are complicit. and don’t forget that jane mayer reported that the policy of extraordinary rendition (where a person is kidnapped and taken to egypt to be tortured and or killed) was begun during the clinton administration.

sadly, as much as we might prefer to think otherwise, this problem is not limited to republicans. replacing Rs with Ds will not solve it. it’s going to take much much more. including the painful process of confronting our own party’s leaders.

Doh! who in your opinion was the biggest opponent of MCA? (not being snarky or deliberately stupid…)

and it gets worse. i had to stop for a bit. i seriously feel nauseous.

Which is what regular German citizens said after WWII. That you go into denial until it’s too late to do anything about it.

no one in the senate objected to the unanimous consent agreement. i’ll go look at my notes… i watch c-span all day for several days in a row while that was being voted on. and cried a lot.

also, if hugh is around – he has a bit on how reid arranged to get it passed that i missed.

On a tangent, there will probably be a continuing stream of information on this coming out over the next few months. Dem candidates should incorporate the acceptance of such lawlessness by Rethug and Blue Dog incumbents in their campaign messages. Christy and Lady Jane wouldn’t like me saying to stand ‘em up against a wall so we’ll just go after them with the Million Ton Shit Hammer.

It is not too late. We have to look this evil in the face and NOW.

Yep. Extraordinary renditions began b/c the Clinton DOJ was deeply in compartmentalization. Hence Jamie Gorelick’s “wall” between criminal and intelligence divisions in the FBI.

This desire to create accountability firewalls was a slippery slope. What has to happen is you have to examine the BEHAVIOR and ask, is this what “we” do? Is this what we OUGHT to do?

we have a big problem because it looks there are dems in the leadership of congress who are complicit.

That is becoming more and more obvious with Pelosi’s stonewalling from the get go.

and don’t forget that jane mayer reported that the policy of extraordinary rendition (where a person is kidnapped and taken to egypt to be tortured and or killed) was begun during the clinton administration.

sadly, as much as we might prefer to think otherwise, this problem is not limited to republicans. replacing Rs with Ds will not solve it. it’s going to take much much more. including the painful process of confronting our own party’s leaders.

I really don’t see a whole lot of distinction between D & R frankly. I see career pols and new players. Not much difference between them either until proven otherwise.

Probably nothing other than more hearings. But it bears repeating.

sporkovat has a rather anamolous take on things in the (D) Party captured blogosphere.

weird weird weird, I know.

But like anything, a point of view can be used to make predictions, hypotheses, and then these can be confirmed or disproved by observation.

If my point of view makes valid predictions (as it has on impeachment, funding of the war, the whole FISA fiasco,etc) then maybe its not so without foundation after all?

so here is a prediction derived from the news of the day:

No one of high rank or influence involved in the torture policies under discussion will face any consequences as a result of investigations, grandstanding, subpoenas, contempt or other actions of the Democratic controlled Congress. No resignations, no firings, no jail, certainly no impeachment. Ever.

Unlikely best case scenario: An Obama administration might, might, convene a Special Investigation, whose conclusions will cause a minor media ruffle prior to the midterms of 2010.

If proven wrong, I’ll eat crow wearing a dixie straw hat with donkey ears.

Depends on what type of Up Against The Wall you’re talking about…

Right. I am aware of this and have taken to reading books about German society during the rise of the Third Reich.

Torture is never OK. It doesn’t matter who is doing it and under what circumstances. It is just sheiss.

I can’t stand hearing people defend themselves saying they are criticized for “not being ‘nice’ to terrorists”. That’s the most unAmerican way to think.

I agree. I also think the story is much, much worse than most people would dare to imagine.

I thik the difference is with the BUsh Adminisitration. there was an editorial in Sunday’s NYTimes about how many times SCOTUS has rebuffed Shrubya on his conduct of the war and his acts towards detainees.

Way more time then aver before in history. And this is Shrubs packed court, don’t forget.

The writer concluded that is was not because this is an activist court looking to constrain the executive, but b/c the actions of this administration are so freaking unlawful.

Obama needs to on the right side of the rule of law issue, just like he is on the right side of hte end the war issue

“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice.

I don’t know enough to know whether the position would suit him, but with honor, integrity, and commitment to the core principles not just of our Republic but of Western Civilization in such severely short supply these days, I’d dearly love to see Gen. Taguba sitting in Rummy’s chair in Obama’s administration.

Now that would be change I can believe in, and a shout-out to the whole world that we really are returning to the community of civilized nations after the apostasy of the last eight years.

I agree

Who in the US would try these people for war crimes? What court?

i do think there is a difference – it’s the good cop / bad cop difference.

there are some folks who are trying to do the right thing… think about holt on fisa for example (and to a certain extent feingold and dodd). kucinich and wexler on impeachment…. and a bunch in the out of iraq caucus.

but not enough.

i guess the point i’m trying to make is NOT that there is no difference – it’s that it doesn’t make a difference if there is a D or an R after their name. we have to judge them all by their actions and not by which party they belong to. otherwise we end up missing the bad stuff our guys do because we are so focused on the the other guys.

this is exactly what the Rs do and i don’t want us to do it too. and frankly we (and especially me) did far too much of that during the clinton years.

Thank you for the note of hope (?) in an otherwise distressing thread. I do want these criminals brought to justice. It cannot stand.

Personally, I’m not interested in Congress pursuing this matter after the election. I’m interested in a full blown criminal investigation. The leadership in Congress couldn’t hit their ass with both hands so why bother with that sorry bunch of parasites.

Much as I fear Sporkovat will never get a chance to show off that dixie cup chapeau–I feel that it is necessary for us to keep up a drumbeat demanding prosecutions.

It is the only hope in hell that any will ever take place. If we don’t take to the streets with torches and pitchforks, how will Dr. Frankenstein ever know we don’t like what he’s doing in the lab?

and cruelty, too.

please stop describing me (as well as everyone else here) as captured by the D party – unless i do something to justify that claim. in which case, i hope you will call me on it. but not until then. ‘kay?

War crimes could be tried in federal district court.They are US federal Crimes under the War Crimes Act. or they could be tried at the Hague

I know you disagree marcy but in my opinion, haynes, in trying to obsolve his own culpability testifies that he was ordered to torture and to ignore the geneva convention by bush himself, not a surrogate, not an underling and everyone can see it for themselves;

haynes;

“…I would also point out, the president of the united states, with the advise of the entire cabinet, made the determination about the application of the Geneva convention”

there it is, transcribed by yours truly but to me that is crystal clear, he has with no doubt in my mind thrown bush under the bus with that statement

that is a direct indictment of the president himself, no surrogates at all, direct indictment of his commander in chief

We need Congress. The president has immunity. The remedy against him is Impeachment. the rest of them, criminal court is dandy.

Me too. Let Congress gather info now, and then go after them as civilians. Impeachment would be good in that Bush would be prevented from issuing pardons during an investigation. Another thing that possibly could happen is a Nixon scenario…resignations with pardons….and/or that they hunker down and barricade themselves in the WH with Blackwater guarding them!…That would make fun TV.

totally agree that all politicians are subject to everlasting vigilance and scrutiny…

gtg fornow pups catcha later.

Nice catch. It may take a follow up question, but you may have something there.
After all shrub is “the decider”

i gave some quotes to dosido before – they are from milton mayer’s “they thought they were free: the germans 1933-45″

already linked to them once today, but they really are on point when we are discussing our use of torture and war.

er, Sorry Selise – perhaps too broad a brush for down here in the comments – but up on the frontpager level has FDL ever come close to condoning 3rd party options, or withdrawal of support for the Democratic Party?

I know there was some debate about it wrt some posts by Howie of DWT in support of an Independent candidate for Congress – but opinion seemed at least evenly divided pro/con.

I’m also including sites like Kos, which I think is safe to say is a (D) advocacy site.

FDL more independent, more various, true.

Thanks LHP. I imagine the Hague is going to be a reality, only they won’t “show”…but the’ll never be able to travel.

Gravel has an independent 9/11 Commission thing going on in NYC…trying to get signatures of NYrs to put it on a ballot or something.

Bugliosi has already prepared a case and outlined it in his book…he’s sending the book with a letter to every prosecutor and DA in the country, and has established jurisdiction in all 50 states for trying Bush.

Both of these described on Democracy Now in the last week.

Hopefully, people will come at them from all angles and something will stick.

Torture is never OK. It doesn’t matter who is doing it and under what circumstances. It is just sheiss.

it’s not only because of “the high ground”, it’s not only “the right thing to do” and it’s not only for the sake of morality

there are quantifiable and practical reasons you do not torture

1) you get more actionable information from the subject with other methods

2) you encourage future insurgents against your cause, you turn moderates into extremists and extremists into heroes

3) you reinforce the insurgents position against your cause

4) you make it impossible for a person who agrees with your position to come forward, you lose more information then you could ever gather

and the administration knew all of these facts, they knew it with no doubt, the only reason to have policies which include torture is to encourage the insurgents, to create perpetual unrest

that is the purpose, the purpose of gathering information does not exist

Tim Rutten is a freaking idiot; and that was my position long before you relating that.

Nice catch. It may take a follow up question, but you may have something there.

construct the line of questioning for waxman and send it on it’s way looseheadprop

u b the errr….person

er, another purpose of State Terror is to show that legitimacy and consent of the governed are no longer factors. And like everything else, it does not stay confined to far away, dark-complected foreigners – it’s message, and it’s usage, will spread back to the ‘homeland’ if it has not already.

another reason why some meaningful oppostions from (D) Party apparatchiks would be most welcome, and its absence is most telling.

well, not a peep on the hearing on the NewsHour

well, not a peep on the hearing on the NewsHour

I am SHOCKED, shocked I tell you

what lhp said.

(can I use an eco-friendly torch?)

did you read the previous post? about how money is being collected to use against dem party leaders?

Yikes:

“The document, which is official US Special Forces policy, directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control, restrictions on labor unions & political parties, suspending habeas corpus, warrantless searches, detainment without charge, bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations, concealing human rights abuses from journalists, and extensive use of “psychological operations” (propaganda) to make these and other “population & resource control” measures palatable. “

Oh yes. I keep thinking of Laith (killed in the Arbaeen massacres along with his wife. Who wrote this:

You should remember something else. A people and their army who behave like this abroad invariably bring this criminal and brutish behaviour home and turn it against their own people. It is not only revolutions that eat their own.

Posted By: Laith Posted On: 11.21.2006

Well, we rebuilt the WH after 1812, and the Republic survived.

check this out from think progress posted yesterday;

Mora: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are ‘first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq.’

Today, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on detainee interrogation. Testifying before the committee, former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora, who battled within the Pentagon to shut down the use of torture, blasted the Bush administration’s abusive detention practices as leading to the recruitment of new radicals and the deaths of more American soldiers:

[T]here are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

bingo

sign me up. but i’m afraid i’m not of the torch brigade. how about a camera – that’s my kind of “weapon”

note to mods: i mean to use the camera to film events, not to hit someone over the head with.

How in the hell can we ever join the world community if we don’t hold these criminals accountable for all of this and realize the Congress’ complicity and that the bulk of Americans possessed some things– profound ignorance & lack of knowledge about history, etc., fear and profound ignorance of facts?

Welcome to the so- called league of “third- world (rate) nations”, folks!

y’know – that is a great point – if it is used to support 3rd party or Independent runs against these loathsome congresscritters.

having worked on a decently funded primary campaign against a moderately sleazy, moderately significant incumbent (D), my sense is that primaries are slanted strongly against challengers.

And the message of an (I) victory against someone like Hoyer would give the other (D)’s the Frighteners, big time.

i confess to an astonishing ignorance of history. but we can’t let that be an excuse for such depravity.

Let’s try to remember that he can’t get anything at all done if he’s not elected. If hearings like these keep happening, and it looks like they will, the republicans will be begging for impeachment. Let’s assume the best about Obama at this point. He is a Constitutional lawyer.

Gotta go back to read the comments. Thanks, LHP, once again.

The President only has immunity during his term in office. After that, he’s fair game.

they are slanted strongly towards the challengers even within the party. (see ned lamont).

but it can be done (see donna edwards)

republicans will be begging for impeachment

this is just not so

the republicans believe if they endorse impeachment they will all lose their seat of power

this is the rove strategy to keep them in line and they are sheep

LHP –

If tried in a federal court (see 18 USC 2441 – I think that’s the correct citation), which Federal court would have jurisdiction? Would it be the United States District Court in the District of Columbia?

As for The Hague, is that the location of the International Criminal Court or of some other war crimes court with jurisdiction over war crimes trials involving the United States or other countries that have neither ratified nor signed the Rome Statute? Or is another overseas venue the appropriate place for war crimes trials? Please bear in mind that the United States has not signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established that court. Please read this Wikipedia article for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..inal_Court

Jus Cogens!

LHP!

Mother staying with me this week watches local news. It’s so inane. If they don’t get a missing blonde story soon, I don’t knw what they will do. How they manage to fill the time with a sufficient quantity of pablum every night, I don’t know.

selise, I do not believe that you are one of the Americans I was talking about…

at all.

Your voice, your incisive mind and your care about our country and Constitution (and the crimes that have been committed in our name) shines forth daily.

so true, so terrible.

complicity with the ongoing warcrime of the Occupation is really not very forgivable, imho.

so of course the level of (D) complicity is debatable, but if you feel as I do then one really cannot vote for or otherwise support such a craven political faction, rare exceptions like Kuchinich, Feingold, or Gravel notwithstanding.

Jus Cogens = compelling law – right?

well this is a laugh

ron paul looks like I am ghost writing for him;

Paul strongly supported the recent Supreme Court decision giving habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo inmates and criticized McCain’s comments on it, saying, “If you’d call that court ruling ‘naive,’ you’d have to call the Founding Fathers naive.”

“We’re looking for trouble,” Paul continued. “Why are we going into these foreign countries arresting people? … There’s more hostility towards us, more enemies than ever before.”

“We don’t understand exactly why the hostility is directed toward us,” Paul continued. “We think it’s being directed toward us because we’re free and prosperous — and it has nothing to do with why there’s a band of criminal, crazy people who want to kill us. … They’re very, very weak, desperate people, and if we don’t understand that and we declare war against the world, all we’re going to do is create a greater threat. Al Qaeda is bigger than ever before.”

Paul then returned to the problem of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. “The one thing you don’t do is that you assume they’re terrorists,” he stated. “They’re all suspects, and if you don’t have reason to hold them in an American prison, they shouldn’t be there.”

“Why do we have secret prisons around the world?” Paul continued. “Do you think Guantanamo is the only one? … I think it’s a terrible way for a free country and a republic to act. I think we’re violating all the principles that the Founding Fathers tried to put into our Constitution, and we’re just too careless with personal liberty.”

the article referances a quote from paul “bin laden loves what we have done” but I can’t find it in the text, anyway, fun reading ron paul as he appears to take the roll of a “liberal blogger”

tangent – do you have a sense of how the funds being raised are to be used?

There’s a good kos diary on this here too: http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..101/537894
including the finding by one of the investigators that our torture was second to known. In these days of the falling dollar, it’s good to know we hold our own as torturers.

Once you get to war crimes, you also have to look at obstruction and there I think you have a wider field and one that people here may not be as comfortable with. Who invoked state secrets to kick out cases? Who headed up the “multiagency” review of Padilla and Zubaydah etc. and held forth on everything that had been “found out” and how well it was all (torture) corroborated, while sitting on all kinds of information that investigation would have had to reveal about torture past, present and planned for the future?

Priest’s article on el-Masri’s kidnap/torture indicated, btw, that Rice was the person who gave the thumbs up or thumbs down to continued torture detention there.

And again going to Priest, no one has ever followed up on the death of the “young detainee” by freezing him to death that she reported. Or the Abu Ghraib death of the “detainee” whose picture Harman took. She was punished for taking the picture – but what about the killer(s)?

Taguba and others have reported rape video from Abu Ghraib – where were those charges?

Larry Thompson both signed off on the Arar rendition and took the torture trip to GITMO. Still trying to get the full list, but various reports put Chertoff, Addington, Wray, Fisher, Gonazles, Thomson and Flanigan on the trip.

Bellinger is reported to have been involved in some meetings as well that authorized abuse of detainees.

ok. here’s some more from the PHR report executive summary. from page 8:

All the detainees experienced severe, even excruciating
physical pain from being kicked, punched, choked,
shocked or sodomized, and many were terrorized by both
the experience of the assaults on them and threats of
more to come. Most of the detainees lost consciousness
at least once as a result of beatings or other physical
assaults. Some experienced bruising and trauma to
their genitals. Some of the men were not only severely
injured as a result of torture, but they then had to endure
additional pain from the exploitation of those injuries by
their tormenters. Almost all of the men PHR interviewed
continue to experience physical after-effects from the
torture they experienced, including chronic headaches as
well as persistent pain in their limbs, joints, back, muscles,
and ligaments from being beaten or kept suspended or
in other stress positions for long periods of time.
The experience of torture was horrifying to the men as
it was taking place. Men experienced shame, humiliation,
and terror that they or their loved ones would suffer even
more; others were terrified by the claustrophobic condi-
tions of isolation. These in turn brought about symptoms
ranging from chest pain to severe anxiety to sleepless-
ness. One reported: “I was having really bad nightmares…
I felt like I couldn’t breathe.” According to medical files,
during an interrogation session in Guantánamo one
detainee had a seizure and “was unresponsive and fell…
[while] his feet [were] buckled.”

My biggest concern is that he grants pardons/immunity to all of his partners in war crimes on the way out the door.

If I’m not mistaken, the only way this can be prevented is impeachment. Yes? No?

replying to my own tangent:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

Greenwald elaborating on the plans r.e. the Democratic Congressional Leadership enabling retroactive immunity.

just up in the last couple minutes.

The Senate has voted to override Bush’s veto of the Farm Bill. (80-14)

IANAL but my understanding is that Impeachment cannot be stopped by a pardon but that unless/until he is Impeached AND convicted, Bush can pardon away however much he desires.

but doesn’t accepting a pardon mean you accept guilt?

I haven’t looked at it in months, but I do recall an opinion handed down by Chief Justice John Marshall in which, if I recall correctly, he stated that pardons are subject to judicial review. When time permits, I will try to locate the citation for that opinion.

still on page 8:

The medical records of one of the former detainees,
Rasheed, illuminate the role of medical personnel at
Guantánamo, and PHR’s evaluators were able to compare
his account with entries in his medical file. The records
are largely consistent with his own account: shortly after
arriving at Guantánamo in 2002, Rasheed’s mental health
began to deteriorate; he attempted suicide and other acts
of self-harm, including self-mutilation. Mental health
staff at Guantánamo responded with heavy doses of
medication, which made him feel unbearably hot and
made his skin and joints ache. When his acts of self-
harm continued, medical staff placed him in restraints
and treated his access to bottled water and blankets as
privileges. In response to his repeated requested to be
removed from isolation, the medical files note that the
psychiatric personnel “informed him that [they] had no
control over that and told him to ask his interrogator to
have him moved.”
It is not clear exactly how long Rasheed was kept in
isolation or how long Rasheed’s interrogations continued
after his severe signs and symptoms appeared —
although it appears to have been at least one year. What
is clear, though, is that during the critical periods in
2002 and 2003 when his health severely deteriorated,
his health condition did not result in halting interroga-
tions, nor in relieving a regime of isolation and sleep
deprivation; nor do the records indicate that the medical
staff connected his ill-treatment — including use of isola-
tion, sleep deprivation, physical assault, violation of his
religious and moral codes, and the use of sexual humili-
ation — to the obvious decline in his mental condition.

Technically you have a point. But it has never happened, so we don’t know yet what the law is.

I doubt a new Preisdent will let his DOJ bring that prosecution unless he’s got political cover in the form of Congressional action. So either Congress has to appoint a Special Prosecutor and vest that person with the power to try Shrub after he is out of office, or Congress has to Impeach him and get a recommendation of criminal prosecution inlcuded in the Senate’s verdict.

Yes. Democrats are guilty too.

HOYER…no immunity.

what do they care?

Yes, according to another Supreme Court decision that we’ve discussed.

There was a great line of questioning today of Levin…he said that the international torture law thing (I’ve forgotten the name of it) trumps everything. I think he basically acknowledged that the US has violated it. It is worth finding a transcript of what he said about it. It was damning.

The Hague
*crossing fingers*

RevDeb, it’s my understanding, when Dennis Kucinich spent 5 hours reading the impeachable offenses against George Bush a week or two ago (and made the Clerk of the House also spend 5 hours reading the 35 Articles too), it put the 35 Articles of Impeachment on the Congressional record and is now a “fraud alert” on America’s “credit report”, meaning, it’s taken some of his powers away (pardoning would be one).

Kucinich isn’t finished yet either:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..hment.html

Woohoo! I hope he reads the Articles of Impeachment every week until election day in November. He’s going to make the whole House look like a bunch of traitors to the US Constitution. ;-)

otherwise you’re right, they are shameless.

if that is the case and the president pardons himself he is admitting guilt and that will be admisable abroad

a man can dream and that I will do

With respect to US District Court, I suspect any one in the country. It would probably end up in the DC District just out of habit, but his crime were on behalf of people living in every district.

The Hague idea does come from the notion that the International Criminal Court is there. I know we are not a signatory, but Nazi Germany wasn’t a signatory to an international crimes tribunal either, and they got tried.

I just thought that since there was an international criminal court sitting there anyway, we should not let it go to waste

last one. from page 9:

With one exception, the former detainees have expe-
rienced and continue to experience severe psychological
effects of torture and ill-treatment as a result of their
detention in US custody. All but one feel utterly hopeless
and isolated, and lack the ability to sleep well, work, or
engage in normal social relationships with their fami-
lies. Seven individuals disclosed having contemplated
suicide either while in detention or after being released.
Most of the released detainees, to this day, live with
severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress
disorder, including intrusive recollections of trauma
suffered in detention, hyperarousal (persistent symp-
toms of increased arousal, e.g., difficulty falling or
staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance), avoidance
and emotional numbing behavior. PHR’s clinicians deter-
mined that these symptoms were directly related to the
torture and ill-treatment reported having taken place
while in US custody, even after taking into account the
fact that the released Iraqi former detainees are living
in a war-torn environment. Amir explained, “These are
the memories that I can never forget. I want to forget,
but it is impossible.”

From what I read in Glenzilla’s post, I think it’s to do adds in Hoyer’s and other “FISA compromiser’s” home districts. Maybe it’s to fund primary challenges as well? Dunno about that.

I agree he’ll pardon his toadies but I’m not up on the ins and outs of what impeachment proceedings prohibit.

If I’m not mistaken, the only way this [pardons] can be prevented is impeachment. Yes

really? Cause PatFitz has said several times that the pardon power is unreviewable. I would love to see that case when you find it

that would be Impeachment AND conviction AND removal from office?

that is exactly have I have felt the past 2 days. Glued to the testimony, but nauseated.

but how can he pardon a person who has not been charged with a crime?

I do not believe a prophylactic pardon will hold water, I believe it was convenient for Nixon but it carries no weight

I’ll tell you right now…the American people will not have the stomach to try W….their BBQ buddy. No way. Just sayin’.

If only there was a video of Bush mocking the woman pleading for her life…

Is there? Because it would have to be looped 24/7…..

The only thing that would motivate the American people to go after these guys is if they were proven complicit somehow in the funding or planning or enabling of 9/11. I believe there is such a link somewhere…via the Saudis…Bandar Bush….Riggs Bank. I’m all for a full out investigation to make sure that they are not complicit, but I believe there are many unanswered questions and odd protective behavior for the Bin Laden family…too many connections….

Please don’t mock me relentlessly…*G*

Wow. Many of us have discussed the upcoming elections…wondering if they will be rigged, martial law etc.

Hopefully followed by criminal conviction and long term imprisonment

Nixon had a pre-emptive pardon and so did Weinberger. that’s two precedents you will have to overcome.

We should – or shouldn’t – let it go to waste? Looking at the Wikipedia article about the International Criminal Court, please tell me this: what happens if a war crimes case involving the United States is not prosecuted in this country? Would the United Nations Security Council be the only agency that could initiate an action to proceed with a war crimes trial?

There are also state level precedents as well, although not binding on the federal level obviously.

You know this is one of the things that is so horrible we have here (Copenhagen) a very famous clinic that specialises in treating torture victims. There was a programme on the radio interviewing one of the doctors a few weeks back. The internviewer asked him “but after they are treated and get therapy – do they recover? do they get over it?

His reply was so blunt:

They never get over it.

They’re living a life sentence. It seems to me the least that could be done is give the people who did this a fair trial and if convited a life sentence. That goes for the people who did it, the ones who helped, and the people who ordered it a life sentence, and I mean life. Never let them out.

Selise – those are beyond disturbing.

128 – that would be “CAT” or the Convention Against Torture – which is supposed to leave no safe harbor for torturers. I’d be interested in how Levin thinks it “trumps” all, when there is no US enabling legislation other than our reliance on our own existing laws criminal laws the DOJ has refused to enforce against their friends and pals (and no one in or leaving DOJ even bothers to publically mention their torture advocacy as a bad thing).

The next closest “protection” is in the past-torture, civilian recovery sense, under the Torture Victims Protection Act or Torture Victims Relief Act and while no one was paying much attention, Khalid el-Masri (international press reported Rice’s confession of our kidnap/abuse of el-Masri to Merkel) had his lawsuit under those acts spun after the invocations of State Secrets and the Sup Ct refused to grant cert – thereby cutting off all relief for someone who was clearly a kidnap/abuse victim, disappeared by our govt.

Congress hasn’t demanded that anyone in his case or Arar’s case be held to account. Arar’s case was pending in open court, unredacted, when Clement made his representations to the Sup Ct that the US doesn’t do things like torture. DOJ signed off on the paperwork to send Arar to torture, and DOJ signed off on the paperwork to invoke state secrets and obstruct any possibility of el-Masri receiving justice.

It passed without a whisper here, but not everywhere. That was the clear and final determination that the US courts won’t provide an avenue for justice for the victims.

If I recall correctly, Richard Nixon (to whom I am distantly related, but that is a story for another time) later admitted guilt.

They will definitely have a pardon party, a war party, or a martial law party…we should have a pre-emptive impeachment party…or we are the stoooopidist nation in history….stoooopider than the Germans, because we know better…..D’Oh….

Take yer pick.

Stephen,
This war crimes trial–if it happens at all– will more than likely be an ad hoc thing. There is no iron clad method. Most international law, and I took several semesters of it in law school and was a senior editor on an international law review, is more of a negotiation and political power thing.

It’s not like criminal law. It’s more soft focus and much more to do with what country(s) has the power to enforce it’s will

Sweet. I wonder if we can get this to be considered Treason as well. I don’t normally hold with the death penalty, but y’know, for these folks…

“128 – that would be “CAT” or the Convention Against Torture – which is supposed to leave no safe harbor for torturers. I’d be interested in how Levin thinks it “trumps” all, when there is no US enabling legislation other than our reliance on our own existing laws criminal laws the DOJ has refused to enforce against their friends and pals (and no one in or leaving DOJ even bothers to publically mention their torture advocacy as a bad thing).”

It makes sense when you listen to the questioning and his answers….but I’m unable to recreate that kind of testimony from memory…I was surprised there was no live blogging thread….just a couple of us in the comments trying to keep up….it was pretty dramatic.

Just got in and started reading. Here is the passage from the Congressional Record of Harry Reid discussing on Monday September 25, 2006 with Bill Frist how to get the MCA passed:

Mr. President, if I could just briefly respond, we would like to proceed as expeditiously as possible. We have been alerted by one of my Senators that the rule XIV legislation [S 3930 I assume] that was brought to the Senate late last week is different from the amendment [SA 5036] that was filed tonight. So some of my folks are trying to figure out what has happened. We thought what was going to be filed as an amendment to this fence bill was the same piece of legislation that was rule XIVed. So we have now a rule XIV that has been sent up, and now we have this amendment. So that has created a little bit of confusion on our side.
But I also say this: I think we could work something out if we can get to the bill. When we start late in the session like this, any one Senator weighs about 1,000 pounds because any Senator can stop anything they want. So we have to make sure we can get to this. It takes all 100 Senators to agree that is the case. If we could proceed to it, it is my understanding the majority leader would allow a limited number of amendments. We could work on this tomorrow with some time agreements on it–agreements on both sides.

I have never trusted Reid since this.

I will need some time to find that decision, which I think I have archived on another computer. I don’t think it’s ex parte Bollman, a decision handed down in 1807. I think that the opinion I’m looking for is from an 1833 case, for it may have been handed down near the end of his long tenure as Chief Justice.

That is just not right. It can be taken as an implied acceptance, for instance in perhaps a related civil action or something, but it DOES NOT mean a formal acceptance of guilt. How does that false meme keep reappearing? Jeebus.

PS. I have never, ever seen a more nervous witness than Levin…it was a disturbing, because he was trying to take responsibility for everything…I’m worried about him personally..

Was just listening to Angie (last name?) on Air America Green 960 interview Vince Bugiliosi on his book and how to bring Bush to justice. He has a very compelling argument. He was the one to try the Manson cult i believe, wrote Helter Skelter and Outraged. The bookabout Bush is getting a national print and national TV blackout, surprise surprise. he is an accomplished prosecutor and author and he’s getting blacked out.

The Prosecution of GWB for Murder

I know someone mentioned this before but here it is again. He mentioned in his interview that the ICC does not have jurisdiction because when it was formed in 2002 Bush chose not to sign up the US (gee, wonder why not?)

145 – no one challenged either of those pardons, though.

Weren’t the war crimes trials held after World War II conducted on an ad hoc basis?

Bugliosi prosecuted 22 cases of murder…never lost one of them. He is serious about this…

That is not right either. Not in the least. Where you guys getting this stuff???

Because it was pre-meditated.

lhp, I’d also hate to see that court go to waste.

On the off chance their docket fills up, however, IIRC Belgium and a few other nations in “Old Europe” will prosecute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity irrespective of the perps’ location at the time of the crimes.

Yes

But that seems to be the point; since those pardons were not challenged for Constitutionality, then the precedence has been accepted, making overturning another round that much more difficult.

Bugliosi is a HUGE publicity hound. I have seen excerpts of his book on prosecuting Bush. It is so full of shit, it oozes brown. Seriously.

Aah, be gentle, bmaz! Not all of us are attorneys… thank gawd…! ;-)

Its provenance is another Supreme Court decision that I will try to retrieve; I trust that the wording of the opinion hasn’t been misconstrued.

167 – If you have no case filed, there’s no legal precedent. Maybe a procedural precedent of letting people off, but no legal precedent.

You know, on the murder front, there is the guy who’s picture Harman took, Dilawar, and the “young detainee” reported on by Priest who was frozen to death. Somewhere there are specific cases that could be walked back to the originating authority.

but there was no charge to challenge the pardon, the pardons were not challenged because the challenge is moot without a charge

I’ll admit one thing…he did sound kinda manic…I trust your judgment about it bmaz.

As you know, I generally agree with you, but in this case I have a question: How does this fit with their fishing around in SERE for techniques if they already knew what they wanted to do?

Since when does a celebrity lawyer seek publicity? ;]

I know he’s a hound,but he seemed to be making his case. What were your problems with the excerpts? I mean, besides the ooze…

The SERE folks are the go-to guys on what works and what doesn’t… They’re the obvious ones to tap for methodology…!

I think the pitchforks have a lower CO2 footprint.

I think you may be thinking of US v. Wilson [32 U.S. 7 Pet. 150 150 (1833)].

I don’t have time to re-read it now, but your 1833 reference jogged my memory.

So. I wanna know this:

Do you think Bush is a murderer?
Do you think Bush is a torturer?
Do you think Bush was complicit in planning a type of coup of the US?
Do you think Bush participated in events with the intent of undermining the Constitution?
Do you think Bush had a problem executing more than a hundred people in Texas?
Do you think Bush enabled his oil cronies to profit from wars which he waged?

These are real questions. Do you think Bush is a criminal? If so, cite what laws he broke.

We need to get to the nitty gritty about this stuff…otherwise it is just ranting by all of us on the periphery of truth or lies.

Which is it?

I’m just a citizen, and I want to know.

What’s not right about it? That it’s not in the Constitution or are you saying Dennis Kucinich wasted his time by reading the Articles of Impeachment knowing there was no power in doing so?

You name it. Bugliosi has been on the edge for a long time; he is well on the other side of it now. I’ll take just one example. I believe he has in mind charging a murder count for each American soldier that has died in Iraq (maybe Afghanistan too, but not sure about that). Well, that is just dandy. But Congress passed the AUMF; how the hell does that not create reasonable doubt by definition? Also, you need some direct causation for a homicide charge; Bush is too remote for that. Those were some of his strong points…..

OK here’s what I heard

1. The manning memo of a meeting between Blair, Bush and others. In it, Bush is dreaming up ways to provoke Iraq.

2. Bush has no immunity after he leaves office.

3. Authorization of war by congress is based on fraud. ie. Iraq was not an imminent threat acc. to 16 intelligence agencies. The “white paper” presented to Congress left out the key conclusion: iraq is not an imminent threat.

4. It isn’t the US war etc it’s bush’s war. Murder.

OK I’m probably not doing his argument justice (no pun intended) but as someone recoiling in horror and wanting retribution, it seemed refreshing to hear how we might get some.

no shit. I am afraid it will take us a long time to regain that reputation, if ever. My international friends were willing to forgive us for Bush before 2004, but I think they really think we’re fucken nutz for re-electing him.

The pardon power remains in effect until the President is Impeached, convicted, and removed from office.

Just reading the charges into the record does nothing to halt that power.

They’re living a life sentence. It seems to me the least that could be done is give the people who did this a fair trial and if convited a life sentence. That goes for the people who did it, the ones who helped, and the people who ordered it a life sentence, and I mean life. Never let them out.

i agree. and reparations to the victims. not that we can make it up to them, but they should never have to suffer needlessly again.

Good to know. I’l start looking for some with sustainably harvested wood handles.

That case is familiar.

LHP – please look at the decision that Peterr mentioned when time permits; it may contain the opinion I was looking for.

No powers are lost or removed unless by conviction and specific finding by the Senate. Mere reading of proposed draft Articles, and they are not even really true Articles of Impeachment until voted out of the House as such, doesn’t mean squat. What you reference is not in the Constitution, nor anywhere else. Right now I sure wish it was so, but alas not.

Are you by any chance from Austin?

I agree. He was right, but saying he could be mistaken. Went off course when his daughter arrived…and he seemed to be one of the good guys.

Thank you for your reply. Well, I do understand we have members of both parties in both Houses who are pretty useless and if anything, Kucinich’s reading of the Articles makes them look like a bunch of traitors for not pursuing this matter.

I would say we’re all desperate in taking George Bush’s powers away from him! Lots of talk about that online since Kucinich read the Articles.

What happened under Clinton? As soon as the Articles were read did it go quickly to committee for a vote or did it just start there?

thank you. found it in the c-span archives. i think there needs to be a youtube.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/…..id=7504043

I’m getting the impression that Bushco has been successful in skirting “the law”….

I’m getting that even all you legal eagles can’t specify what laws they broke.

Something is really wrong with this picture.

Start coughing up the laws they broke.

It is starting to look like the greatest story ever in the history of “law”…of someone outsmarting everybody.

Addington is one hell of a brilliant criminal lawyer.

well, yeah, but my point to perris is that if they already knew that and knew what they wanted to do, why did they have to go fishing around?

You might want to read the book before criticizing it from excerpts published by ??. I haven’t read it either so I refrain from commenting about it. Just sayin’.

Instead of telling us laymen and women that we don’t understand the law…

Tell us what laws they’ve broken…how do we stop them.

“crickets”

One of you brilliant lawyers out there has a Pulitzer in you…I know it.

I know Bugliosi, and read all that I care to. I’ll stand by my take.

That’s the way I feel about friends. If they voted for Bush in 2000, okay. If they voted for Bush in 2004, I ain’t got time.

I thought that was an excellent question and I wish I could answer it. I’ll be waiting along with you. I don’t think that means that Bush didn’t break any, just that it would take a while to amass all the code numbers etc.!

bmaz, the Hill reported earlier… “Hoyer is hopeful on compromise…”

The compromise, which is being finalized behind closed doors, attempts to split the difference over the hot-button issue of whether telephone companies deserve retroactive immunity for assisting in government surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. According to people familiar with the draft, the language gives federal district courts a role in determining whether companies should be given immunity for the role they played in eavesdropping on telephone calls.

The compromise has so far not satisfied privacy-rights groups. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have called it a giveaway to the White House and the phone companies

At least Bugliosi is doing something creative with his anger that might produce something. What do we have to lose?

It is not a matter of what laws they have broken, there are a ton; the issue is how you can get them into a competent court and prove up all the elements necessary for a valid conviction. All of this is exactly why the Framers gave us the impeachment provisions in the Constitution. Our real problem is that the House, and Congress in general, has abrogated, and been otherwise completely derelict in their duty.

Here is what I think. I think that the reason no one can nail these guys is that all investigation of these people starts “after” 9/11, which enables them to use the events of 9/11 to justify their crimes….you are all missing the big story. Barkin’ up the wrong Bush so to speak. Start investigating PNAC around 1996 and bring it forward. JMHO

Won’t wast anything other than your time, intelligence and hopes; have at it. Just don’t be under any illusion that any of it is even remotely fathomable.

the language gives federal district courts a role in determining whether companies should be given immunity

Oh how freaking nice! This way Congress can kick the hot potato over the federal courts to OK immunity and keep their cozy congressional pension.

FREAKS!

Then let’s go after them for obstructing justice (since there are a ton of laws they’ve broken)…go after Pelosi and Reid.

Say what you will, I’m still signing you up to be Marcy’s moderator during the next liveblogging session, hah!

I agree. PNAC was indeed the power behind the throne. Ronnie Rayguns put a clamp on these nitwits and they’ve spent their time since implementing their version of a fascist corporate state.

Ah! I like the way you think. How can we get that done?

It is the exact compromise provisions discussed here, except with the word “District” substituted for the word “FISA” as discussed in the update at the bottom of the main post. This is a complete hosing of the public. Might as well just say “we are giving Bush, Cheney and telcos complete immunity”. Seriously, it is that bad.

Heh I am too cranky; nobody in their right mind would let me be a moderator, including marcy.

I’d read that post shortly after it was posted, I was merely pointing out that Hoyer is not backing off one iota…!

There is some strange aversion to investigating the unanswered questions…it’s like there is some strange spell on people. Just look into the opinions of experts, the evidence, the money trail, the motive, and the resulting behavior of those who have profited. What the heck kind of balls does that take? It’s just an investigation of a huge crime executed by “someone” for heaven’s sake. Get to the bottom of it. Who financed it. Why? Who has benefited????…certainly not OBL…Geez.

No, they seem oddly determined in the face of all rationality. It is really somewhat stupifying.

OK, you all just schooled me on PNAC. I’m like, duh, what’s PNAC? for those left in the dark like me, here you go from teh google:

PNAC Primer. Note this was written in 2003!

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party’s far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House — and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well — so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.

Setting Up PNAC
To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets — newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. — in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court’s selection of George W. Bush in 2000. The “outsiders” from PNAC were now powerful “insiders,” placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC’s chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP — which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad — they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”)

My hands and feet are going cold reading this. It’s been a tough day for a patriot.

From reading that, ahem, language, it seems they got the message that CONGRESS cannot grant immunity but they are still willing to get immunity done elsewhere.

God I’m sick of these criminals.

Yup. It’s all out there…but noooooo……can’t go there…can’t go there…boxcutters….

BS.

Go there.

The pnac website is down.. I hope someone with a copy of the pnac manifesto will post it on the net.. It’s must read material.

What kind of lawyers would “not” look at PNAC, those that signed on, those that control the media, those in power, everything that has happened since then…talk about koolaid.

I think they changed the name, because of all of the publicity…since my old bookmarks are gone, I don’t have the new one…yet. It is there though…somewhere.

Well, IANAL but one of the problems is that the Congress has turned its back on impeachment and further muddied the waters with the Miltary Commissions Act which modifies Title 18 Sec. 2441 also known as the War Crimes Act. There is the Nuremberg precedent for trying those accused of waging aggressive war. This Administration has also made a habit of violating the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. I list these below for convenience.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

that PNAC rabbit hole goes very deep, but is well worth exploring if you have the stomach for some unconfortable truths.

Try Justin Raimondo and Antiwar.com, who have been on the case since day one – but beware, they are antiwar first, and have not sworn allegiance to the political fortunes of the (D) faction.

but beware, they are antiwar first, and have not sworn allegiance to the political fortunes of the (D) faction.

fine with me.

thanks for the leads and info and stuff.

Thank you, LHP! I’m gonna spotlight this. Front page news!

Bob in HI
temporarily in So Cal

Stephen,
You never cease to amaze me. I look forward to reading it

Thanks ES, LS and Sporkovat.

wow, reading that stuff is like having my worst fears confirmed. chilling, truly chilling. It is upsetting this crap is happening, I’d like to think it’s a case of power drunk people losing perspective, but the fact that it is all so premeditated is really freaking me out.

I’m glad you guys are here to hold my hand and turn the night light on.

Angers me when on air personalities like Morning Joe state that the “average Joe” doesn’t care about the torture that is occurring
in our name.

What does it matter if the “average Joe” doesn’t care. That doesn’t mean the Law doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean it’s unimportant important for government to uphold the Law.

Those laws exist for very good reasons that an “average Joe” would appreciate if he were to hear learned people explain them. In fact, he might even be mightily pissed off that politicians decided to muck things up.

Wilkerson pointed the finger at Cheney today, by saying that Addington would not have acted without Cheney being involved. He clearly said that Addington, Yoo, Bybee gave Rummy and his crew the backing to create the program in DOD that directly led to Abu Gharib. He said that Addington was at the apex and was the mind behind creating the legal policy to support it…it being what Rummy wanted.

I don’t believe Dubya would have allowed Cheney to be the apex of anything unless he gave his okay first. I suspect it was Gonzales who ‘ran’ those meetings and forced the agenda, but that they all willingly worked together toward a common goal of power power power.

‘Brenda’ Starr and Wolfie now “reporting” on this very thing,

Isn’t it amazing when a cartoon character and a hairy beast can be reporters? Heh

Who in the US would try these people for war crimes? What court?

Probably a US Attorney (like Iglesias was) in a Federal District Court with a dopey judge appointed by Reagan.

Bugliosi prosecuted 22 cases of murder…never lost one of them. He is serious about this…

It’s good that he’s very good at his job. But, you don’t really want a prosecutor who WANTS the job. At best Bugliosi should be an assistant.

I think you are confusing two different courts in The Hague. There is the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. The war crimes tribunals have all been tried in the ICJ until very recently, with the newest ones (I think Charles Taylor, for instance) being refered to the ICC. The difference is that the ICC is a permanently established criminal court to which individuals may be refered for criminal prosecution at any time, the ICJ convenes tribunals when it is decided to hold a war crimes investigation and trial.

The U.S. is no longer a signatory to the Rome Statute, John Bolton withdrew our signature about the same time they started torturing Abu Zubaydah, calling it the greatest moment of his life. The reason for doing that is somewhat complicated and has to do with the Vienna Convention, which the U.S. hasn’t ratified, but which has been said to be so close to just a documentation of the way treaties are already done, that it doesn’t really need ratification, but you can bet the Bush people will make a big deal out of the U.S. not ratifying it. It says that a country that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obligated to abide by the treaty, but not to aggressively apprehend its offenders. They wanted to be absolutely certain that no one could make a U.S. offender show up at the ICC.

The Security Council can refer cases to the ICC, the prosecutor can also undertake investigations resulting in a case before the ICC, and anyone can ask the prosecutor to look at a case (for instance, any of the victims in the PHR report could ask for an investigation, and probably be taken seriously). Only the prosecutor or the Security Council and countries with jurisdiction have standing to require a case. The prosecutor will not do so if there is a reasonable belief that the country in whose jurisdiction the crimes took place still intends to prosecute. If it can be shown that they no longer will, or that they are shielding someone from prosecution, then any country can go before the court and ask for the prosecution, in the case of laws for which there is a universal obligation (grave breaches, torture, genocide). That latter route is why Philippe Sands said that modifying the War Crimes Act and Torture Act in the MCA was significant: it indicates that the U.S. is not only not interested in prosecuting, it is interested in immunizing perpetrators.

Incidentally, both the U.N. Committee on Torture and Sands have said that other countries do not care how the U.S. modifies its implementation or what commentaries it wants to write, a treaty is a treaty and they expect all of the CATCIDT to be adhered to, and believe they eventually have the right to prosecute if it’s not.

(FYI the treaties and commentaries are not that hard to read, compared to the things you lawyers read in U.S. law, I’m a humanitarian not a lawyer, but you people should find them a breeze)

I’ve written a long post today about our flag, our nation, and my hope for the future. http://www.tagg-theangrygayguy.com. Thanks.