Musings on WAR CRIMES and the United States

Let's have a good look at what we CAN Do, based on WHAT Can be DONE.

Impeachment, we are told is NOT on the table.

Further, the US has a new Attorney General who is obviously "politicized" and not taking a look at what constitutes WAR CRIMES, an Attorney General of the United States, a POWER who is at war that has a generalized (that is politicized) policy of torture. He not only overlooks certain forms of torture, but refuses to look at the fact that the US is using territory in foreign nations to torture who do not agree with this use of THEIR soil, ie, CUBA.

In addition, to turning a blind eye to domestic law violations on the part of the United States in persecuting those who oppose the war (the pictures of Lennox Yearwood's leg being broken come to mind while wearing an "I love Iraqis" button spring to mind), the US legal process has been SERIOUSLY re-routed into serving political ends. We cannot expecct much from government appointed Federal prosecutors; we all KNOW that story and we cannot expect much action from any of them. Those with conscience have already been FIRED.

There seems to be no outcry from CONgress about this. Since Mukasey was nominated as CHIEF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE of the most militarist society on the face of the planet, we actually saw Democrats cross the aisle and vote him in!! The argument being that although he allowed torture and would NOT repeal the Patriot Act, he was "the lesser of evils" and probably the best nominee that BuZh could come up with? Was he? Is that a fair question?

I think there were far far better candidates for the post of Attorney General in the legal profession, including among the Federalist Society (you can find posts about them on this blog.)

This link well illustrates the challenge of Nuremberg: The prosecutors were required to create new laws. Never before had judges been prosecuted. Similarly, it appears Members of Congress -- in an unprecedented manner, as was the case with Nuremberg in re the Judges -- have engaged in alleged malfeasance. Congress has the power to appropriate money, but this is only for two years.

That appropriation is not a blank check; the Congress shares responsibility: To ensure the funds are spent for lawful wars. Arguably, the illegal war in Iraq attaches to each Member of Congress. This may be a new legal principle; and it may be a "new" requirement which has never before been attempted. But is it not reasonable to impose a legal duty -- attached with some sort of enforcement mechanism -- on Members of Congress: The duty to oversee, investigate, and refuse to continue providing funding for what is illegal?

To suggest that war crimes liability only attaches to the primary actors -- only in the Executive branch -- would ask that Congress need not engage in any oversight; nor review any laws: Just write the checks; and "trust" the President to do what he wants. It appears this blind deference to the President has been the problem: Blind in that the Congress refuses to see where it should open its eyes; and deferential where confrontation is lawfully required, especially on grave breaches of Geneva, which it appears the Congress well knew the President's advisers were well concerned with.

The crime isn't just in the primary actor; but in those who had a shared duty to oversee. America's government isn't a single Executive Branch; power is divided. The Judges in Nazi Germany were held liable. Similarly, the US Members of Congress, relying on this Precedent of Nuremberg, must be lawfully challenged for their alleged malfeasance in re US war crimes, breaches of Geneva: Alleged failure to investigate, failure to timely gather facts, and failure to timely bring charges. These charges, in theory, should attach to the leadership in Congress who had a duty to keep all lawful options on the table. This speaker appears to have defied the House precedents, and pretended that the Vice President wasn't involved; or that the acts were from another era. No, these acts were under this Speaker's watch while the VP was in office. Inaction isn't a defense. The Nazi Judges had a duty to enforce the law. Similarly, Members of Congress had the legal obligation to read it, then oversee whether it was or was not being followed before appropriating additional funds for the alleged war crimes in Iraq, Eastern Europe, and Guantanamo.

The Nazi judges were found liable because they failed to act, and did not enforce the law; and refused to resist illegal laws of the Nazi. Congress went one step further than the Nazi Judges: It passed illegal laws, was silent while those laws of war were violated, and continued paying pretending that they were subject to "superior" orders from the President. No, they had a duty to -- as a faction -- challenge that President, not become a staff agency to the Oval Office. Game on for expanding the Justice Trial precedents of Nuremberg against Member of Congress alleged breach of their oath of office in re the laws of war.