It didn’t take much to set off the left-wing blogosphere. Just a sentence in the preface to a report last week by the Physicians for Human Rights on the long-term effects on former Guantanamo inmates of the torture they say they endured there, plus some new disclosures about the C.I.A.’s role in training interrogators at Guantanamo.
“After years of disclosures … there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” wrote retired Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the officer who wrote a report on the Abu Ghraib scandal that, in pointing up the chain of command, caused extreme discomfort at the Pentagon and White House. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
The administration strongly denies that it condones torture or any other war crimes, and for most Americans the idea that senior officials or military officers could ultimately face criminal prosecution remains all but unimaginable. But such prosecutions are quite possible, though not before the International Criminal Court (which the U.S. does not recognize) or any other international court, such as those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Rather, these cases are likely to be brought by human rights groups in national courts that agree to accept them, like the suit filed against Donald Rumsfeld in Paris in 2007 by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other groups. Such suits are widely regarded as “nuisance” actions and are typically dismissed, as was the Rumsfeld complaint.
But Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, was investigated and charged by a Spanish judge, Baltasar Garcon, for “crimes of genocide and terrorism that include murder” on behalf of some Spanish citizens. He was arrested in Britain in 1998 but released for medical reasons in 2000 before facing trial. But the complaint broke legal ground by introducing the concept of “universal jursidiction” to such cases, which presumably could be used against senior American officials.
Prosecution of senior officials is always problematic, but as information steadily leaks out, human rights advocates say the cases are growing stronger. Already, the “nuisance” suits filed overseas have made it risky for the highest ranking Bush administration officials to travel abroad, particularly in Europe and South America, without first consulting a lawyer. Italy — where more than two dozen C.I. A. agents are being tried in absentia — and Spain should be of special concern, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Whatever justice may be in these matters, it seems to be a dish best served cold, legal experts say. With the passage of time, the context can change, and sometimes the unthinkable becomes the norm. How many Chileans thought, 30 years ago, that General Pinochet would eventually face charges of human rights violations? (He died in 2006, under indictment in Chile but before facing a trial.) How many Argentines thought their military would ever be called to account for the torture and disappearances during the so-called dirty war of the 1970s? (It was, in Argentine courts, and several generals are now serving time.)
A rush to judgment with a spotty case, or even an effort to set the record straight through Congressional hearings or a truth commission, could backfire, legal experts say, through grants of immunity or compromises aimed at ferreting out the full story.
“I like to keep open the possibility of legal action, which is the case in Argentina, which has tried and convicted some generals,” said Karen Parker, president of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers in San Francisco. “In Chile, Guatemala and even South Africa,” places that had truth and reconciliation commissions, she noted, “perpetrators of absolute atrocities, bordering on genocidal, walk the streets.”
No one is accusing United States officials of that sort of crime. But still, legal experts say, they will always have to worry when they travel, even President Bush. “Once he is out of office,” Ms. Parker said, “I don’t think he’s going anywhere, either.”
Last week an international tribunal ended an extensive investigation and trial into the torture allegations brought against the Bush administration. It concluded that the Bush torture team .. http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2011/01/18/the_cheney_torture_team .. (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Haynes and Bybee) is guilty of war crimes.
Most Americans heard nothing about this.
Despite considerable international media coverage of this trial, especially in Asia and the Middle East, the American media have been silent on this verdict. Granted, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal’s .. http://criminalisewar.org/?p=1040 .. guilty verdict was mostly symbolic, since the tribunal cannot force extradition for prosecution. However, it does move this case one step closer to being tried in the International Criminal Court .. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/ .. in The Hague.
The evidence against the Bush torture team has been overwhelming and very well documented. The Malaysian tribunal included stunning testimony from a British man who was detained and severely tortured at Guantanamo and an Iraqi woman who was tortured at Abu Ghraib. In 2008, McClatchy .. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/06/15/38773/day-1-americas-prison-for-terrorists.html .. conducted an extensive investigation into the U.S. torture program. As I pointed out in an earlier post .. http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2011/08/31/us_torture_international_law , this investigation uncovered at least five legal memos that clearly outlined instructions for torture from the Bush administration:
(1). “A Jan. 9, 2002, memorandum for Haynes, co-author Yoo opined that basic Geneva Convention protections known as Common Article Three forbidding humiliating and degrading treatment and torture of prisoners didn't cover alleged al Qaida or Taliban detainees.”
(2). “A memorandum to Bush dated Jan. 25, 2002, Gonzales said that rescinding detainees' Geneva protections "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
(3). “A Feb. 7, 2002 Bush memorandum declared that alleged al Qaida or Taliban members wouldn't be considered prisoners of war and, further, that they wouldn't be granted protection under Common Article Three.”
(4). “A memorandum that Gonzales requested from the Justice Department (on August 1, 2002) defined torture as ‘injury such as death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions,’ a high bar for ruling interrogation techniques or detainee treatment illegal.”
(5). “A memorandum that Yoo prepared (on March 14, 2003) at Haynes' request concluded that even if an interrogation method violated U.S. criminal statutes — such as the one against war crimes — the interrogators involved most likely couldn't be prosecuted because they were operating within the scope of Bush's constitutional authority to wage war against al-Qaeda and other militant groups. Nothing, however, was said about the potential guilt of those who instructed them to perform these actions."
Thus far, however, U.S. diplomatic efforts have managed to squelch these investigations. As noted in a U.S diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks, the U.S. asked Spain to call off its torture investigations because “the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship.”
Spain subsequently stopped its legal proceedings.
It is this pressure by the U.S. government against our international allies that is keeping the Bush torture team out of jail. Some members of the team have become so emboldened and confident by these efforts that they are now publicly bragging about their torture tactics. We have all seen Dick and Liz Cheney on the talk show circuit pontificating on the profound positive impact of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Plus, many of us painfully watched the former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, Jose Rodriquez, on 60 Minutes as he pimped his new book and proudly described the torture program he helped implement:
As we move farther and farther away from the Bush era torture incidents it appears that the U.S. government and the American people are becoming less and less interested in pursuing justice in regard to these international war crimes. However, there are two inherent long-term problems associated with letting these war crimes vanish down the memory hole.
First, it is almost inevitable that sometime in the future a U.S. soldier or civilian will be captured by one of our enemies and will suffer under the same torture techniques that were prescribed by the Bush torture team.
America has always taken the high-road in regard to defending prisoners’ rights in these situations. We actively pursued the war-crime trials against the Nazis at Nuremburg, for example. And we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers .. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html .. for waterboarding American prisoners in the Pacific.
Can we rightfully prosecute foreign torturers in the future if we’re unable to prosecute known torturers in our own country today?
Second, our democracy was established under the highest principles of the rule of law. Included in these principles is the basic premise that no one is above the law. If an international law is broken by any person, regardless of his/her economic, social, religious or political standing in this country, that person must be brought to justice.
Along with the failure to bring to justice the Wall Street perpetrators of our economic collapse, the failure to prosecute our known war criminals has greatly diminished the public’s faith in our government’s ability to fairly enforce the rule of law in America.
Commission Finds President George W. Bush and His Administration Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
The Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration released its final verdict on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.
Find the full text of the verdict in PDF form here.
An unprecedented Commission of Inquiry has found the President of the United States and his administration guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The five-member panel of jurists unanimously found the administration’s actions “shock the conscience of humanity” in five areas – wars of aggression, illegal detention and torture, suppression of science and catastrophic policies on global warming, potentially genocidal abstinence-only policies imposed on HIV/AIDS prevention programs in the Third World, and the abandonment of New Orleans before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.
A delegation, headed by 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern and former US diplomat and retired US Army Reserve Colonel Ann Wright, will deliver the verdict to the gates of the White House at noon today following an 11AM press conference.
THE VERDICT
In their summary, the Commission jurists found that: “Each of these constitutes a shocking crime in itself, and taken together the full horrors are all the more unconscionable. It is also clear that this is an administration that demonstrates an utter disregard for truth and flagrantly lies about the reasons for its actions.
"In arriving at this decision the jurists were particularly alarmed by the degree to which the Bush Administration’s actions in all five indictments were informed by the extreme right. .... although the specific conduct differs among the indictments, the result is the same: human life was debased and devalued by gratuitous acts of violence, torture, narrow self interest, indifference, and disregard."
In arriving at their verdict, the Commission’s panel of jurists examined a wealth of evidence with care and rigor. Consistent standards were employed, with well-established international law referenced where applicable
The panel of jurists consisted of Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, William H. Bowen School of Law, Little Rock; former executive director, National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL). Dennis Brutus, former prisoner, Robben Island (South Africa), poet, professor emeritus, University of Pittsburgh. Abdeen Jabara, former president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Ajamu Sankofa, former executive director, Physicians for Social Responsibility-NY. Ann Wright, former US diplomat and retired US Army Reserve Colonel.
THE HEARINGS
The Commission’s year-long investigation included five days of public hearings in October 2005 and January 2006 in New York City. The 45 expert and first-hand witnesses included former commander of Abu Ghraib prison Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, former UN official Denis Halliday, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, Guantanamo prisoners’ lawyer Barbara Olshansky, and Katrina survivors.
The verdict’s release comes with war crimes again on front pages following President Bush’s defense of secret prisons, rendition, and practices constituting torture under existing law, his demand that the War Crimes Act be fundamentally weakened, and his threats against Iran.
In a preface to the printed verdict, historian Howard Zinn writes: "The Bush Administration has been following a course, which can only now be described as a series of crimes against humanity. . . . What could be a higher crime than sending the young people of the country into a war against a small country on the other side of the world, which is no danger to the United States, and in fact a war which is condemned by people all over the world and a war which results in, not only the loss of American lives and the crippling of young Americans, but results in the loss of huge numbers of people in Iraq? These are high crimes." .. http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/50 [ inoperable ] http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=17781644
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
