Travel Advisory
By Scott Horton
Yesterday, a group of medical professionals, Physicians for Human Rights, released a comprehensive review of medical evidence concerning the treatment of detainees. The group found comprehensive evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in long-term physical and psychological damage, thus satisfying even the most stringent criminal-law definition of torture. Which raises the question of war crimes. Major General Antonio Taguba completed the single most thorough and impressive of the half-dozen studies the Pentagon has commissioned into detainee abuse. “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba says. “The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account.”
Could officials of the Bush Administration face war crimes charges? In The New Republic, I examine that question and note that, far from this being an outlandish suggestion, criminal cases are in fact being prepared. Which is why the Bush Administration torture-team members need to think twice before boarding an airplane that will take them beyond the sheltering confines of the United States.
-- 000 ---
The New Republic
Travel Advisory by Scott Horton
The U.S. isn't likely to try Bush administration officials for war crimes--but it's likely that a European country will.
Post Date Thursday, June 19, 2008
Travel Advisory by Scott Horton
The U.S. isn't likely to try Bush administration officials for war crimes--but it's likely that a European country will.
Post Date Thursday, June 19, 2008
Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing provided the latest evidence that top Bush administration officials directed the use of torture techniques on detained suspected terrorists. Three panels of witnesses traced the use of highly coercive techniques back to the high echelons of the administration. The day ended with the grilling of William J. Haynes II, the former general counsel of the Department of Defense and a protégé of Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, who is now widely viewed as the "station master" of the administration's torture policy. And in April, ABC News reported that officials including Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld had held a series of meetings to discuss the use of specific torture techniques on detained suspect terrorists. The ABC report amplified earlier stories which said the decision to destroy videotapes of interrogations of suspects in CIA captivity involved four senior White House lawyers and other senior figures.
These disclosures and others have put the issue of war crimes on the front burner. Major General Antonio Taguba just released this statement in the forward to a report just out by Physicians for Human Rights: "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account." In a House Judiciary hearing on June 5 looking into the rendition of Canadian software engineer Maher Arar, for instance, members pressed to know if sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a criminal investigation into the conduct of administration officials; all three witnesses (including the author) answered affirmatively. In other hearings, witnesses have treaded lightly and experienced frequent failures of recollection, perhaps driven by a concern over self-incrimination. And, indeed, in what may be a sign of things to come, 26 American civil servants are being tried in absentia by an Italian court inMilan for their involvement in the rendition of a radical Muslim cleric to Egypt
These disclosures and others have put the issue of war crimes on the front burner. Major General Antonio Taguba just released this statement in the forward to a report just out by Physicians for Human Rights: "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account." In a House Judiciary hearing on June 5 looking into the rendition of Canadian software engineer Maher Arar, for instance, members pressed to know if sufficient evidence had been presented to warrant a criminal investigation into the conduct of administration officials; all three witnesses (including the author) answered affirmatively. In other hearings, witnesses have treaded lightly and experienced frequent failures of recollection, perhaps driven by a concern over self-incrimination. And, indeed, in what may be a sign of things to come, 26 American civil servants are being tried in absentia by an Italian court in
Ever since the first comprehensive codification of the laws of war was issued by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, the accountability of senior commanders and policymakers has been a prickly issue. What to do when the actors committing war crimes are implementing orders or policies set by the political leadership? Since a soldier was expected to follow orders almost unthinkingly, it seemed unfair to try him for the crime. On the other hand, punishing the political leaders raises the specter of "victor's justice" or political retribution, potentially complicating the major objective of the law of war, namely the return to peace.
But the questions hanging over efforts to enforce the law of war with respect to political leaders remain. Only extremely unusual circumstances will lead a country to try one of its own leaders for war crimes. Curiously, the Bush administration is responsible for the most prominent recent case: the prosecution, before a U.S.-financed and -advised special court in Baghdad
"The Bush administration officials who pushed torture?" How about the ones who pushed the freaking invasion of Iraq-is that not Nuremburg level? But the prospects of a trial are slim-Kissinger is still walking around free. Still it's fun to think of somebody throwing a bag over Wolfowitz's head(Eichman-style)and spiriting him, say, out of a World Bank men's room to be extraordinarily-renditioned to the Hague.
lesserliz
Doug Feith in an Italian jail? Put him in Sicily, in a cell with a Sicilian mafioso. How sweet would that be!
Dave Blum
The perpetrators and enablers of the extreme measures employed by the Bush administration in their war on terror knew exactly what they were doing and deserve to be put on trial. Based upon the information available they did in all likelihood commit war crimes for which they should be imprisoned. The damage done by these individuals to our status as a nation is reprehensible. We have lost tremendous moral stature and at the same time put our soldiers at greater risk in the future due to the actions of these rogues. I only wish that we as a nation had the courage and political will to put these people on trial ourselves rather than having them only restrained to travel within the US for the remainder of their lives.
The perpetrators and enablers of the extreme measures employed by the Bush administration in their war on terror knew exactly what they were doing and deserve to be put on trial. Based upon the information available they did in all likelihood commit war crimes for which they should be imprisoned. The damage done by these individuals to our status as a nation is reprehensible. We have lost tremendous moral stature and at the same time put our soldiers at greater risk in the future due to the actions of these rogues. I only wish that we as a nation had the courage and political will to put these people on trial ourselves rather than having them only restrained to travel within the US for the remainder of their lives.
| Posted by Bart DePalma
Daydreams and fantasies. A rogue EU magistrate exercising "universal jurisdiction" to enforce treaties arresting US citizens for "war crimes" which the United States does not recognize would be an act of war against the United States on par with the Iranians seizing our diplomatic personnel for crimes against their revolution. In the unlikely event that the EU nation involved did not end the magistrate's charade immediately, there is always the Delta Force option.
| Posted by get a grip
Are you kidding me? I love how our people will be tried for war crimes, but no one at Gitmo will be? They will get rights provided to our citizens when they are not citizens themselves? It was proven when some detainees were released that they turned around and went about their business of plotting against us. You guys are sick and may God have mercy on your souls for turning against our country.
| Posted by Arch Stanton
"But, really, there's hardly a war without war crimes." Now what judiciary would accept that chickenshit rationalization?
| Posted by Jack Kalpakian
I do not think that it would be very wise for any state to try that. Chile, under a leftist government, nearly bankrupted the British warship industry by cancelling the naval contracts it awarded the UK because of Blair's decision to put Pinochet under house arrest. I think even an Obama administration would do the same. Also remember, there is a simple solution to all this -- do not leave the US. Have anyone interested come over here instead.
| Posted by Van Hook Stratton
This is fantasy. The only reason "war crimes" even entered our lexicon is because they were "perpetrated" by the Allies against Germany and Japan. Warfare and its attendant violence are morally neutral- it's in the service of what cause that has to be examined and the US is fully justified in both Iraq and Afghanistan with its judicious and intelligent application of force against an insurgency- the very kind of enemy who makes it difficult to fight a "good" or "clean" war. I don't quite fully understand the overreliance on legalese in warfare. International law is, at best, theoretical due to there being no enforcement mechanisms. In fact, the legal precepts found therein are typically only applied when the US puts some iron in the glove. It therefore follows, with a wink and a nod, that when the US decides it needs to go to war- they get their war and you can "legalize" it after the fact.
| Posted by Jose J Clavell
This article is pure BS and daydreams in the part of the author, who seems to be unaware perhaps that the US have in place what is tantamount to an open declaration of war legislation against anyone that try to push such crap upon our citizens. One of the best remnants of the Clinton administration and that unlike Europe, we have the military power to enforce it. However, I find interesting that unable to find a jury or court system in this country that will take "the proper measures" to bring the so called "war criminals" to justice. Our Tranzi friend hopes for someone else to take the burden thus proving the complete immorality of his argument.
| Posted by JWL2672
You wanna talk about freaking war crimes? How about the SOBs that murdered 3800 Americans going to work? How about the ones right now blowing up market shoppers in Iraq? How about the ones that behead journalists? How about prosecuting Mugabe for killing the wife of an opponent and for not stepping down? This is pretty fucking pathetic right here - these thumb twiddling "professors" go after the easy game cause they know deep down that they're safe from being tossed into the gulag by Bush. Why don't you do something really productive and go after the imams who put fatwas on killing infidels??? Cause that's actually dangerous and might require real courage. As far as I'm concerned, if you wage war in a manner acceptable to the Hague, then you deserve treatment as a prisoner of war (mind you, you still don't get treatment as an American citizen - that's retarded). However, if you blow up innocents and go after women and children, your ass is mine.
| Posted by secular humanist
"You guys are sick and may God have mercy on your souls for turning against our country." I love how the conjunction separates two statements which are completely at odds with one another. Also, our country turned on us, "Get a Grip".
| Posted by Jeffrey S. Frawley
We must always bear in mind that indefinite imprisonment and torture of innocent people is a highly effective means of creating new warriors against the United States. If, say, France scooped me off the streets of the US and held me in a prison in Zimbabwe for a few years, it would have a new enemy if I were ever released - or if I were ever to find one of my captors (or his countrymen) under my power. "They hate and oppose use!" is an inevitable result of indefinite, inhumane imprisonment of foreign nationals in our own gulags.
| Posted by dhauck
HA!HA!HA!...giggle...(snort!) Oh...excuse me, but that article really got me going. Regardless of actual guilt, you really think Belgium or Italy is going to imprison an ex-POTUS for war crimes? Or VP? Or even Attorney-freakin'-General? I'd like to see that, I really would. I doubt even President Obama would stand for that. At MOST, they would be given a quick, sham trial for the political benefit of some populist local party and "extradited" to the U.S.
| Posted by ernieson
It is disturbing that the persons in question are still free and profitting from appearances and book deals while the victims of their policies lie in graves, are permanently impaired, homeless and hopeless.
| Posted by Yminale
"Are you kidding me? I love how our people will be tried for war crimes, but no one at Gitmo will be?" Well that's because most of the detainees had nothing to do with the Taliban, Al Queda and 9/11. Of the 800 that were in Gitmo, over 500 have been released (most of them hating America). "They will get rights provided to our citizens when they are not citizens themselves?" Those rights are universal. All humans have them and all states (especially those that signed the UN convention on human rights) have to recognize those rights. "'But, really, there's hardly a war without war crimes.' Now what judiciary would accept that chickenshit rationalization?" The proper term is Crimes against Humanity and technically you don't need to have a war commit a CAH. As for what judicary, All the western ones except the US it seems.
| Posted by Nari224
What I find curious in the detractor's comments above is a complete absence of defending the administration on the basis of the facts. You know, something along the lines of "no they didn't" There's a bunch of macho chest pounding about how we're the US and so no-one will touch us, an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, and even an underhanded swipe at Obama "even President Obama...". Oh, I get it, even weak-kneed, snivelling, Europhile President Obama wouldn't do that! Gotcha! I mean seriously, it sounds like you' can't actually argue with the main premise and instead have to obfuscate. Not the strongest position I've gotta say...
| Posted by linda
fwiw, went to hear sy hersh a couple of weeks ago, and the question was asked about war crimes charges. hersh said there has already been planning for how to 'extract' (his word) any u.s. official taken into custody for their complicity in these crimes.
| Posted by Eric Bergerud
The author is almost certainly correct in his premise and thus explains why major countries that saw a real war in their future (like the US, Russia, China, India, Israel) would not sign or ratify the ICC. The result of a future arrest will be a political debacle of course with the world given an abject lesson on the difference between the US and Serbia. But don't expect sanity to restrain "international justice." One Spanish judge did immense damage to the concept of amnesty, the precise concept required to end civil conflicts and bring the peaceful end of oppressive regimes. If one judge is willing to do that, another will be willing to end NATO.
| Posted by koine
The idea of prosecuting these officials may be fantasy, but the idea of invading a European nation to rescue him is even moreso. I believe that anyone mentioned in the article but President Bush would be arreted traveling to the continent, and perhaps he would, too. The idea of a US attack would only be a stronger goad to doing it.
| Posted by JWL2672
#12 Untrue. If France scooped you up, tortured you, and you were subsequently freed, you'd come back to the US and piece together your life and return to normalcy. I'm assuming you're the typical westerner. Sure, you may hold a grudge and hate France. Rightfully so. But I don't see you blowing up the Eiffel tower. This myth about creating terrorism is horseshit. These animals are pre-disposed to hating us already. Giving them reason #26 of their Top #100 reasons is not going to affect anything. Last I checked, the Pan Am flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie was done in 1988. And Bush wasn't president back then.
| Posted by Krashkopf
"Impeach. Prosecute. Save America." - Naomi Wolf I agree. Krashkopf
| Posted by
"You wanna talk about freaking war crimes? How about the SOBs that murdered 3800 Americans going to work? " This has exactly zero to do with Iraq and nothing to do with us following the law and the Constitution. I not only don't care if these suspects or thier nations follow the law, it is not in any way relevant. The only thing that *is* relevant is that following the law, with NO ONE above it is what differentiates us from the rest of history and what we are fighting for. And I say this as someone who almost lost her husband in those 3000 people. No one "owns" 9/11. Americans responded with hysteria and sloppiness, which has only made us weak. What torturer throughout history has not felt perfectly entitled to torture? As if we are so different? Israel can try Eichman using due process of law, but we turn in to mindless savages at nothing compared to what Jews went through? Yes: nothing in comparison. Mindless savages who ignore all military experts who scoff at the notion that torture does anything at all but defile us as a nation. Does actual evidence that something works matter anymore or only fullfilling revenge fantasies on handcuffed *suspects*? This is cowardly, illegal and (worst) demonstrably ineffective. Sadly, I don't think anyone in the EU could actually throw one of the Torture Toads (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et all) in jail, but I'm quite pleased they will be harrassed for the rest of their lives. They more than have it coming.
| Posted by Nathan S Lord
When will the group, movement, gang, "nation", whatever you call the swine who hate us, SURRENDER? Then, only then, will the war be over. Then, not before, is when prisoners can leave. Prisoners who were captured not in uniform are lucky they remain alive. How ironic it is that scaring the hell out of Islamists is a war crime, but that Sharia law used in time of war or conflict is not. Since Iran has waged war against people like the Bahais, Israel, and others elementary notions of justice tell me the governing mullahs and their agents should be shot and their remains fed to hogs.
| Posted by Paul B
"I don't quite fully understand the overreliance on legalese in warfare. International law is, at best, theoretical due to there being no enforcement mechanisms." It follows then that Bush could commit an act of genocide without ever having to face an international tribunal. Maybe that's true - but it's also true that his lies a responsible for the murder of over 4,000 troops and that former Manson prosecuter Vincent Bugliosi has published a book detailing how pretty much any DA can charge him when he leaves office. He better make sure he stays away from the Blue states after January 2009.
| Posted by David G.
Nancy Pelosi didn't have the guts to put Bush and Cheney on trial as part of impeachment proceedings, so what makes anyone think that another country would wish to expend their political capital on our behalf.
| Posted by Fracuss
You have been watching too many Rambo movies.
| Posted by Fracuss
Yes, I would like to see it too. I can't come too soon.
| Posted by Peter Burgess
These men are responsible for systematic TORTURE and anyone who supports that has lost the right to call themselves American.
| Posted by Graham
Ooooooooooh! I'm sure they're shaking in their boots.
| Posted by Sancho
In addition to everything else, how the hell is Addington guilty of war crimes. He had no authority whatsoever for anything (being a deputy of the VP, who himself has no authority for anything). So, is it a war crime to make arguments in favor of action that you have no authority to compel? Absurd.
| Posted by jwink
I guess people get real selective about their facts on this issue. We tend to forget how this arose in the first place. Congress passed a law banning torture, but in their typical incompetence, never bothered to define what torture was. The DOD then tried to define torture, and consulted the Administration's lawyers accordingly. All this time, the people trying to work with this policy had nothing go on. While the debate went on, the Democrats just winked and nodded and went along. To this day, they refuse to pass any legislation banning any techniques that are the subject of this article. Meanwhile, Captain Ahab, (ehr, I mean Senator Levin) holds hearings in which law professors & other elites declare their own definition of torture, condemn the Administration for violating the illegitimate standard, and discuss ex-post facto application of their non-standard in some other jurisdiction. This bizarro world of the law is amusing, but tiresome. I guess if we must have cowards during a war, it is better to have them on Capitol Hill than on the battlefield. They can do considerable less damage.
| Posted by TDA2001
I agree with JWL2672. While its politically popular and cute to try to indict US Officials for enforcing UN imposed resolutions, there are plenty of serious crimes happening all over the world that would be more beneficial to pursue. Of course arresting a terrorist or murdering dictator isn't as fun as going after the US. Pathetic.
| Posted by dvcastle
Writers and many readers of the New Republic are convinced that most Americans share their convictions. This assumption allows them to fantasize how another nation could get away with taking action against our leaders or soldiers and not have catastrophic political (at least) ramifications here in the US. Americans are unimpressed by the sanctimony of the corrupt UN, the ICC, the EU or any foreign nation. The only thing that will get Republicans back in the majority faster than such a stunt as the author describes would be another successful attack by the terrorists.
| Posted by Buster Bunns
If anything was ever designed to start pushing the US back into isolationism, then the first arrest of a US politician for war crimes should do it. The Bushies certainly have a case to answer for, but their alleged crimes must be tried here in the US, not in an international court. Who the hell do these Euro elites think they are? Who voted to give them that responsibility?
| Posted by John
I suspect that the Secret Service detail is larger than most of Europe's Armies!
| Posted by one of the few
Anti-war and Bush protestors wow; look at what America has come too? Ignorant and self acclaimed truth seekers, who might I add, look at a one sided story. You liberals just never will understand the sacrifices this country gave to you. How many of you have been to third world countries, where you cant even shower with the water that come out of the faucet, because it can cause sickness. While you sit there and complain about your country's leader telling the world he doesn't do a good job. Hoping they put him on trial for war crimes. Crimes for what; for going into a country to killing a monster of a man, who's country hated him to begin with. Or was it for chasseing down a tyrant that was responsible for the second largest foreign attack in U.S. History. Cause if those action alone I don't think you have much of a chance to win. As a student and Masters in Military Science, an AA degree in Sociology, and a Bachelors in Political Science. As for the war in Iraq we chose to tell them to fight us there rather than over here. As for the torture; are you kidding me, America is great for a great reason, only now we have issues with torture. No one wanted to say anything 20-years ago. Why, because America had an understanding that The U.S. Military (the greatest military on earth) did what it had to do to win a war. I happen to be a Pro-Military person the stronger the military the stronger the country. If we have to go to war every 10-years then so be it as long as we stay on the top of the food chain who am I to complain.
| Posted by one of the few
Anti-war and Bush protestors wow; look at what America has come too? Ignorant and self acclaimed truth seekers, who might I add, look at a one sided story. You liberals just never will understand the sacrifices this country gave to you. How many of you have been to third world countries, where you cant even shower with the water that come out of the faucet, because it can cause sickness. While you sit there and complain about your country's leader telling the world he doesn't do a good job. Hoping they put him on trial for war crimes. Crimes for what; for going into a country to killing a monster of a man, who's country hated him to begin with. Or was it for chasseing down a tyrant that was responsible for the second largest foreign attack in U.S. History. Cause if those action alone I don't think you have much of a chance to win. As a student and Masters in Military Science, an AA degree in Sociology, and a Bachelors in Political Science. As for the war in Iraq we chose to tell them to fight us there rather than over here. As for the torture; are you kidding me, America is great for a great reason, only now we have issues with torture. No one wanted to say anything 20-years ago. Why, because America had an understanding that The U.S. Military (the greatest military on earth) did what it had to do to win a war. I happen to be a Pro-Military person the stronger the military the stronger the country. If we have to go to war every 10-years then so be it as long as we stay on the top of the food chain who am I to complain.
| Posted by one of the few
Anti-war and Bush protestors wow; look at what America has come too? Ignorant and self acclaimed truth seekers, who might I add, look at a one sided story. You liberals just never will understand the sacrifices this country gave to you. How many of you have been to third world countries, where you cant even shower with the water that come out of the faucet, because it can cause sickness. While you sit there and complain about your country's leader telling the world he doesn't do a good job. Hoping they put him on trial for war crimes. Crimes for what; for going into a country to killing a monster of a man, who's country hated him to begin with. Or was it for chasseing down a tyrant that was responsible for the second largest foreign attack in U.S. History. Cause if those action alone I don't think you have much of a chance to win. As a student and Masters in Military Science, an AA degree in Sociology, and a Bachelors in Political Science. As for the war in Iraq we chose to tell them to fight us there rather than over here. As for the torture; are you kidding me, America is great for a great reason, only now we have issues with torture. No one wanted to say anything 20-years ago. Why, because America had an understanding that The U.S. Military (the greatest military on earth) did what it had to do to win a war. I happen to be a Pro-Military person the stronger the military the stronger the country. If we have to go to war every 10-years then so be it as long as we stay on the top of the food chain who am I to complain.
| Posted by Sir Topham Hat
Send Bush and Cheney to Vermont and have them ex-communicated.
| Posted by Jim Ray
Would a reward posted with the indictment such as free gas for life for info leading to the arrest of subjects be appropriate? Just wondering. jr
| Posted by Lyle
If they did nothing wrong, surely they won't fear standing trial, right?
| Posted by Everett
Hey Bart, maybe Hannibal and the A-Team could come save their sorry asses.
| Posted by breakspear
Perhaps not Bush or Cheney or maybe Rumsfeld, but if anyone deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes it's one failed human being, David Addington. yes, he is the cause of many sorrows and clearly guilty (and as an American I'll brand him guilty sight unseen). no American should have any use for this wretched human being who thinks he knows what's best when it comes to tarnishing America's reputation worldwide. well, he's done a smashing good job of that, haven't you, Davy ol' fat boy!!! If there's one person I, as an American, would like to see seized in a foreign locale and tried as the true war villain he is, it's this sack of excrement. i have no use for him and i hereby discard him to the fate he deserves: oblivion.
| Posted by Everett
Ah yes, the hallowed Someone-Else-Did-Something-Worse-Than-[Insert Name of Alleged Criminal]-So-Logically-[Insert Name of Alleged Criminal]-Is-Not-Guilty defense. This is almost as effective as the I'm Rubber and Your Glue Stratagem.
| Posted by jrw
Wow, the internet tough guys are out in force here. "Your ass is mine"? Sounds like Bush administration warrior-speak at its best, spoken in comfort from behind the keyboard. I'm sure lots of bad guys are trembling in their shoes.
| Posted by awm
Anyone who thinks the Europeans won't pursue this needs to spend some time in Europe. They will be adhere strictly to rule of law, and they will be scrupulously fair. One thing they won't do is pay any attention to the US domestic sentiment expressed in these comments; and if anyone should hold out hope for a political intervention, there isn't a single politician in Europe with the political capital required to survive interfering in such a case. To those commenters still longing for a 19th century imperialist state, just consider that America recognises Universal Jurisdiction for war-crimes, and so this would not constitute casus belli; and should America threaten a military response, the response itself would constitute an attack on the entire EU. Everyone knows this, everyone knows everyone knows this, and consequently any posturing by America would be pure hubris --- in other words, you're full of it. In conclusion, yes Italy would imprison a US war criminal; and when you consider their historical cultural memory of torture and war-crimes, you had better believe that Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, or Germany would. If I was a member or ex-member of the current administration I would be planning on remaining within US controlled territory for the rest of my life.
| Posted by Steve Curry
I realize that holding the political leadership to account is a sticky business, but as an American who does believe in our stated ideals ie rule of law, justice for all(weather we like the result or not...) I feel that if there are to be prosecutions for these acts then we as a nation need to be the ones to do it. This group has much to answer for from shredding our constitution, invasion and suspension of our civil liberties, the diminishment of our national standing, and generally making the world a more dangerous and threatening place for Americans, we the nation are owed explanations and we should be the ones demanding an account. Conveience be damned.
| Posted by Steve Curry
I realize that holding the political leadership to account is a sticky business, but as an American who does believe in our stated ideals ie rule of law, justice for all(weather we like the result or not...) I feel that if there are to be prosecutions for these acts then we as a nation need to be the ones to do it. This group has much to answer for from shredding our constitution, invasion and suspension of our civil liberties, the diminishment of our national standing, and generally making the world a more dangerous and threatening place for Americans, we the nation are owed explanations and we should be the ones demanding an account. Conveience be damned.
| Posted by roger Haskett
So the comments seem to break down into two distinct camps: the first argues that Bush and company did in fact take part in war crimes and should be held accountable (for which there is ample evidence). The second camp seems to be arguing that the US is big and tough and should never be held accountable by small unimportant countries and/or that because terrorists (not connected to Iraq) attacked on 9/11, whatever the Bush administration did after that is acceptable and unremarkable. There is something wrong with one of these camps. I wonder which one? It's sooo hard to figure out... wait, give me another 8 years or so to see if I can tell... these moral dilemmas! they are so tricky!
| Posted by roger
"Warfare and its attendant violence are morally neutral"???? wow! morally neutral? Really? The only thing that is morally neutral here is you. "the very kind of enemy who makes it difficult to fight a "good" or "clean" war" What war is that? a Clean war? "I don't quite fully understand the overreliance on legalese in warfare." Well judging from your argument you don't understand much about war at all.
| Posted by Mike
The Left sure is eager to declare war on our own citizens. Shame they don't feel the same about pursuing, incarcerating and killing terrorists. But hey, arresting Republicans will no doubt bring us all together as one big happy family and help an Obama presidency get things done...
| Posted by dvcastle
Most people who want to see the President indicted for war crimes are the same ones who were against the Iraq war in the first place. Why aren't they also calling for former President Clinton to be indicted for ordering the bombing of an Aspirin factory in Africa?
| Posted by dh
Nari224 - Re #16, almost left it lie, but just couldn't pass up a quick response. First, I "can't actually argue with the main premise"? Maybe you should re-read the article. That high-level Bush admin officials will be jailed by foreign countries IS the premise, and yes, that premise is stupid on its face. Whether they are actually guilty is not being discussed here. Second, I only meant "President Obama who was completely against W's policies". The "weak-kneed, snivelling, Europhile President Obama" came from you. Finally, the chest thumping you heard was me trying to restart my heart after I laughed so hard that it stopped beating. Later.
| Posted by truthynesslover
Shouldnt even the worst of the worst have a right to defend themselves? Have we really sunk so low as to believe only americans have the right to fairness and justice?Why not just take all captives out and shoot them?Do people really think they can detain prisoners forever till they die?The idiocy of this administation is that evidence given under torture will not be admisible in any court.
| Posted by marecek
get a grip wrote: "Are you kidding me? I love how our people will be tried for war crimes, but no one at Gitmo will be? They will get rights provided to our citizens when they are not citizens themselves? It was proven when some detainees were released that they turned around and went about their business of plotting against us. You guys are sick and may God have mercy on your souls for turning against our country." Your name is apt, as you really do need to get a grip. Your post is nothing more than skewed gibberish. If people at Guantanamo are not charged for war crimes it is not because the Supreme Court prevented it, it is because the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to provide legitimate procedures by which to have such trials. Nobody has resisted the idea that people at Guantanamo be charged with war crimes, only that they not be tried before a kangaroo court. I don't understand your perspective that our citizens should get better treatment than non-citizens when it concerns war crimes or permanent detention - everybody in the world is prohibited to commit war crimes, regardless of citizenship and liberty from arbitrary detention is, next to the right to life, perhaps the most basic human right, ranking up their with human dignity, human treatment and freedom from torture. One's citizenship should NEVER has any relevance as to whether persons are afforded basic human rights. For the love of God, are we a totalitarian dictatorship? Is Guantanamo a gulag? I should hope not, but you want to have it both ways - all the features of a gulag, all the while pretending that we are behaving like a beacon of freedom to the world. It's completely deranged. With regard to released detainees turning around and engaging in more harmful conduct, I hate to be so picky, but neither you nor anybody else I have seen making this claim has EVER presented even a smidgeon of evidence to back that up. Perhaps you have learned to well from the Bush administration - when it comes to claims of terrorism, you live in fantasyland, where wanting something to be so, or believing it is so, makes it so. Pardon us who still live in the reality-based community, but we still consider some empirical proof necessary before facts are deemed established. As for your last comment, I expect you can gather from what I have written above that I consider you sick. And leave God out of this!
| Posted by marecek
To one of the few, I certainly hope that you are. You have done an astonishing job of stringing together one bit of incoherent gibberish after another. Your post amounts to little more than an attempt (admittedly entirely feeble) to intimidate by essentially saying - "Hey, we are the US of f-cking A and we can do whatever the hell we want, so don't get in our way or you know what will happen to you." I really would wish to project our national identity around the world by some better means than bullying threats. Oh and by the way, I suppose you were trying to impress us with your academic degrees, but in view of the very poor quality of your writing and arguments, it only caused me to wonder what sort of poor quality institution would have awarded you such degrees. In any case, they really don't add anything to your argument so you can just leave them out next time.
| Posted by
impeach, investigate, imprison.
| Posted by William Ainsworth
I thought you had to loose a war to be tried as a war criminal. Who ordered this?
| Posted by Bill
@JWL2672 (Comment 20). Please refrain from calling people animals. You betray your genocidal predisposition.
| Posted by Holdfast
Guess what - most Americans don't care, and chasing ex-Officials for maybe having some Jihadi detainees roughed up is a political loser. Personally, if some Jihad Johnny had to stand in a "stress position" or be yelled at or slapped on the belly (some of the alledged "torture" techniques) to prevent another 9/11, then so be it. These animals cut off people's heads with rusty knives on TV - ordinary Americans aren't going to worry about their discomfort. Most people probably already assumed we did this stuff - the only failure was the failure to keep it hidden, which is probably a comment the basic goodness of most Americans, but is no way to win a dirty war. And yes it is a dirty war - not because we want it that way, but because that's the way it is.
| Posted by a foreigner
One thing is really a novelty in the US government embrace of torture under Bush & friends: they want to make it legal, to write it into the law. They want to be torturers with a clear conscience, at least in legal terms. Down here in Central and South America, our military thugs of the late 20th century tortured and killed thousands (with US help, assistance and instruction, it begs to be remembered). But they knew it was a breach of law and basic human decency. They tought it was necessary, a dirty job that had to be done. But they assumed false names and set up shadow military units to do it, outside the legal codes and justice apparatus. They knew they were breaking any law worth its name. They just didn't care. Bush and his lawyers, instead, want to do it legally. They try to distort and mangle the law to make it allow torture and kangaroo courts. This is the last American contribution to western civilization: torture codified and "legalized". Augusto Pinochet, a murderer and an American puppet in the Cold War, spent his last years fleeing global justice. Bush and his people deserve the same.
| Posted by DWPittelli
And how many Egyptians are the Italians going to try in absentia? Or is it really the case that sending someone to Egypt is a crime because Egypt is a torturer nation, but that the torture itself is not?
| Posted by DWPittelli
And how many Egyptians are the Italians going to try in absentia? Or is it really the case that sending someone to Egypt is a crime because Egypt is a torturer nation, but that the torture itself is not?
| Posted by Van Hook Stratton
wow! morally neutral? Really? The only thing that is morally neutral here is you. ---->That stings. It really does. Please stop. What war is that? a Clean war? Well judging from your argument you don't understand much about war at all. ---->The quotes around "good" and "clean" are meant to imply that the terms don't actually apply. It's all a dirty business. I'm sorry. If I'm going too fast I'll slow down in deference to you but this is TNR, not People.
| Posted by Van Hook Stratton
It follows then that Bush could commit an act of genocide without ever having to face an international tribunal. ----->Well, incidentally, yes, it does follow but since neither Bush nor any other American president has been or will be guilty of that charge it doesn't make any sense to contemplate this hypothetical. A genocide in Iraq would take about a week, tops, and it really wouldn't be a judgment call. It would be obvious. We wouldn't need a piece of politicized hackwork from The Lancet around the time of every US election [funny how that just happens...] saying how Bush has personally drunk the blood of 14,351,153 Iraqi children since the beginning of the war- any idiot with a camera could point to an Iraqi population center of any size and see the masses of the dead. Maybe that's true - but it's also true that his lies a responsible for the murder of over 4,000 troops ---->Those soldiers weren't murdered. They were killed in a war by terror...wait, sorry, insurgen, no, sorry...ummmm- freedom fighters! What life circumstances produce people like you? How could you be so morally inverse where you don't blame the people actually doing the killing, but the President of the country for which they're fighting. Bush never told a lie and he was right about Iraq- the WMD issue aside. Sorry, all the sound and fury has died down and your constant drumbeat and echo chamber tactics can't distract from these facts. and that former Manson prosecuter Vincent Bugliosi has published a book detailing how pretty much any DA can charge him when he leaves office. He better make sure he stays away from the Blue states after January 2009. ----->If Bugliosi's position is as you state than he is a moron. Bush will go wherever the hell he likes in this country and abroad and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
| Posted by Carl
Based on your writing, if you really have completed this impressive college track , I'd suggest asking for a tuition refund.
