therawstory
by Stephen C. Webster
Electricity had been cut off just prior to the start of a landmark war crimes conference, the goal of which was to plan the prosecution of Bush Administration officials. The first of its kind conference, already featuring a laundry-list of notable speakers, was suddenly in flux … If only for a few moments.
"We were already so effective, the government tried to shut us down," said conference organizer Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, in an interview with RAW STORY.
"Of course, when I said that at the conference opener, the power had been restored. I was only joking," said Velvel with a slightly nervous laugh. "A fuse box fried, but the local electric company fixed it before we even began."
The 'Bush war crimes conference,' according to its organizers, is a "throwback to the framers of the constitution," which aims to establish "necessary organizational structures" to pursue those guilty of war crimes "to the ends of the Earth."
"The framers didn't trust the federal government either," said Velvel. "And oddly enough, over the years and decades, a strong distrust of government was once a Republican position. It was, at least, in theory. And then Bush came along and there's this, well, my country, love it or leave it in the GOP … But now, you have people on the other side of the spectrum taking that very position.
"This is a conservative idea, to hold conferences and then take action to take power. Liberalism has been made fun of as mere self expression. I was very impressed by the desire in this group to take action."
"This is not a campaign event," said Professor Christopher Pyle of Mt. Holyoke College, during his speech to the conference. "It is a conference about how to restore governmental accountability in the wake of a criminal administration. It addresses the most serious crisis in our nation’s history — the claim that the president and his secret agents can get away with torture, kidnapping, and even manslaughter."
The two day affair was divided in half: Speakers on Saturday, and planning on Sunday.
Chief among the academics, legal experts and whistle-blowers speaking in Andover was Vincent Bugliosi, best known for successfully prosecuting Charles Manson and penning the subsequent novel, Helter Skelter. His new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, is currently available at retail.
Watch Bugliosi's opening statement to a July, 2008 House Judiciary Committee hearing on the limits of executive authority:
Other speakers included:
# Phillippe Sands, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College, London. He is the author of "Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values" (Penguin/Palgrave Macmillan), among other works.
# Ann Wright, a former U.S. Army colonel and U.S. Foreign Service official who holds a State Department Award for Heroism and who taught the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare at the Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, N.C. She is the coauthor of "Dissent: Voices of Conscience."
# Peter Weiss, Vice President of the Center For Constitutional Rights, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany and France against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.
# David Lindorff, journalist and co-author with Barbara Olshansky of "The Case for Impeachment: Legal Arguments for Removing President George W. Bush from Office"(St. Martin’s Press).# Colleen Costello of Human Rights USA.
# Christopher Pyle, a professor at Mt. Holyoke and author of several books on international matters
"We need to revers[e] a fifty-year trend towards unaccountable secret government, which can commit crimes with impunity," said Pyle in a release. "'Sending a clear signal to future Cabinet-level officials that ours is still a government under law, and that they had better obey the criminal law, no matter what their president and his legal lackeys say,' is a matter of overwhelming importance."
While video of the conference was broadcast live via UStream.tv, the footage is currently unavailable on the Internet.
Conference organizers told RAW STORY that a series of DVD's will be offered for sale at cost to interested parties. Online footage of the conference will also be made available Friday, Sept. 19, at a Web site address yet to be announced.
"Later this week we will establish a central committee which will decide which of the many ideas we came up with are practical, and we will begin asking people to undertake particular actions," said Velvel. "Once those first steps are carried out, as I hope it will be, that will be the first major accomplishment of this conference."
The plans, which will be released in a media advisory later this week, considered:
# What international and domestic crimes were committed, which facts show crimes under which laws, and what punishments are possible.
# Which high level Executive officials — and Federal judges and legislators as well, if any — are chargeable with crimes.
# Which international tribunals, foreign tribunals and domestic tribunals (if any) can be used and how to begin cases and/or obtain prosecutions before them.
# The possibility of establishing a Chief Prosecutor’s Office such as the one at Nuremburg.
# An examination of cases already brought and their outcomes.
# Creating an umbrella Coordinating Committee with representatives from the increasing number of organizations involved in war crimes cases.
# Creating a Center to keep track of and organize compilations of relevant briefs, articles, books, opinions, and facts, etc., on war crimes and prosecutions of war criminals.
Velvel told RAW STORY that several groups have been established to force some universities to hold hearings on whether faculty members should have their jobs terminated for participating in Bush Administration crimes.
"John Yoo, the author of the infamous 'torture memo' who now works at Berkeley, comes quickly to mind," he added.
"The consensus of attendees is President Bush’s attack on Iraq is a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and that he is culpable for this as well as for torture and abuse of war prisoners held by the U.S. military and the CIA," stated a media advisory.
Other conference cell groups plan to raise up groundswells of support for district attorney candidates who would be willing to investigate or prosecute Bush Administration crimes. Conference attendees also plan to begin seeking disbarment proceedings against lawyers who assisted the administration in war crimes.
Additional measures, details of which were not immediately forthcoming, include utilizing foreign and International courts, and focused actions on state and local levels.
"The idea of using foreign and International courts is not so dissimilar to the time [Donald] Rumsfeld had to flee France to avoid arrest on war crimes charges," said Velvel. "Of course, that was a foreign court, and he just went into Germany and was fine. We were talking more about going to a true International court."
The Bush war crimes conference is in the tradition of Justice Robert H. Jackson, who prosecuted war criminals after World War II, writes Sherwood Ross.
"The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people," said Justice Jackson. "It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched."
"Obviously, we want to go beyond self expression," concluded Velvel.
(Original Article)
Since when does the United States answer to the UN?
"The consensus of attendees is President Bush’s attack on Iraq is a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and that he is culpable for this as well as for torture and abuse of war prisoners held by the U.S. military and the CIA," stated a media advisory."
We can not seceed our sovereignty to the UN and remain a sovereign nation, the UN can't fix our problems for us, we must fix them ourselves. The war in Iraq was not declared by congress, thus it is up to congress to make it illegal. If they refuse, they should be recalled and replaced by the states. I realize that an unnamed media advisory may not know the innerworkings of our government, but in a constitutional republic like ours, it's the states who have the power, not the federal government. When the states lack the fortitude to stand up for themselves, the general population must, which is what conferences like this represent. Any interference by an international court in the affairs of our nation must be resisted, not encouraged. Will the responsible individuals be found guilty, or the American people? Take a closer look at Germany at the end of WWI if you don't think it's possible. Will an international court care that I was against this attack? Or will it impose sanctions on me as happened to the people of Germany?
Comment by Rob from Ohio
Let the impeachment hearing begin,
youtube.com
"The Director Jedi" this is a great video and this impeachment has been brewing for years
since Bush/Cheney got the job.Surely were beyound expression and into another chapter
which should conclude this corruption and the war crimes of Bush/Cheney.
impeach!
Comment by Dennis M Mccullough
Rob from Ohio,
Actually the sanctions meted out during the Nuhremberg War Crimes Tribunals were not against the German people - only against the leaders who committed war crimes.
The German people benefitted greatly from the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Germany and started it along the path to it becoming one of the strongest industrialized nations in the world. The Marshall Plan also laid the foundation for Germany becoming one of the USA and Britain's finest allies over the last 63 years.
"Since when does the United States answer to the UN?" you ask.
Well… the U.S. has, unfortunately, grown less and less hospitable over the last few years to any foreign nation or international court or body. John Bolton's catastrophic term as UN ambassador was the icing on the cake of affirming the U.S. as a rogue nation in the eyes of the rest of the world, accountable to nothing and no-one.
"in a constitutional republic like ours, it's the states who have the power, not the federal government. " This used to be the case, but through a series of signing statements, Patriot Acts I & II, the Military Commissions Act and other dictatorial decrees, Bush has taken nearly all the power away from the states and brought it under the realm of the "Unitary Executive" (read dictator wannabe). For example, up until very recently the National Guard answered to the Governor of each individual state. Not any more. Now they all answer directly to the President.
The more you dig, the uglier this Presidency gets.
Comment by Mikael
Some of the clips from the weekend conference have been uploaded here: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=VoiceofAmericans2008&search_query=Bush%20War%20Crimes%20Conference
Comment by SLSmith
Mikel absolutely right "The more you dig the uglier this gets" Yep!
Bush only answer to UN when the corruption unappropiately applied.
Comment by Dennis M Mccullough
"Velvel told RAW STORY that several groups have been established to force some universities to hold hearings on whether faculty members should have their jobs terminated for participating in Bush Administration crimes."
Grab the pitchforks, Pa! It's a good old-fashioned WITCH HUNT!
In fact, let's go after everyone who voted for Bush! They're clearly guilty of treason.
Comment by Mimi
I too am convinced that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the U.N. Charter. And because the U.N. agreed three times to it we must impeach the U.N. too. The problem is getting a responsible international body of progressives who will answer to the people, and who cannot be bought by the petrodollars of the Bush Crime family.
Perhaps the only answer is to have an international judiciary body which is not elected but is made of judges appointed, on a rota basis, from progressive law schools. They would have the ability to interpret the law as it changes in response to international incidents to ensure justice. In times of stress a true democratic process might have to be abbreviated to insure justice, because as we know from the 2000 election, reactionaries are very good at buying votes, and silence. The only bulwark that I see is progressive law professors.
Perhaps in consultation with sociologists and mental health professionals.
Comment by Hadrian
Mikael,
I am confused, mayhap you can clarify something for me. You stated in comment #3:
"Well… the U.S. has, unfortunately, grown less and less hospitable over the last few years to any foreign nation or international court or body. John Bolton's catastrophic term as UN ambassador was the icing on the cake of affirming the U.S. as a rogue nation in the eyes of the rest of the world, accountable to nothing and no-one."
This is in response to a query of "Since when does the United States answer to the UN?" Now, please correct me if I'm wrong but I take your response to mean that the US does need to answer to the international community, be accountable to the rest of the world, and take direction from the rest of the world from the 'stage' (for lack of a better word) of the UN.
Yet further in your comment you go on to say:
"Bush has taken nearly all the power away from the states and brought it under the realm of the "Unitary Executive" "
So Bush has taken the autonomy of the state and crushed under the authority of the federal government. So now the states, according to this last statement, answer to the federal government, and are held accountable by the federal government for not being in lockstep with them.
Are you saying that the states rights above federal powers, but UN power above all? For if states comprise a nation and the nation is subordinate to the UN, then states are subordinate to the UN as well. Are you advocating the turning over the autonomy of the United States to a foreign body?
Comment by O'Brien
" I take your response to mean that the US does need to answer to the international community"
Not in the sense of taking orders from the international community, but in honoring international law and treaties and seriously consulting with allies before taking drastic action.
While retaining our sovereignty and the ability to make decisions in our own national interest - especially regarding national security - yes, we should make decisions in community with nations from around the world.
The problem is that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs, etc., covered up evidence, and now it is coming out even CREATED FALSE DOCUMENTS to convince Congress, the nation and the rest of the world of our need to invade and occupy Iraq. All of this was based upon falsehoods - that is indisputable fact now - so the world has no reasons to trust us.
"Are you saying that the states rights above federal powers, but UN power above all?"
Not at all. What I am revealing is that the checks and balances of our government - Congressional oversight of the Executive, Executive accountability to the Judicial as well as the power of Governors to have authority of their own National Guard troops - have all been usurped by the Bush Doctrine of "Unitary Executive". Also, the international treaties (to which we are legally bound by our own laws) that make preemptive war a war crime have been violated by the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.
Our Democratic Republic has been replaced by a tyrannical system in which "The Decider" is the only authority.
Bush is a wannabe dictator and should have been impeached. Now he should be held accountable for war crimes and the nation must be restored to sanity after this insane President has left office.
Comment by Mikael —
False documents? Knowing these people as I do, and they make my gut roil, I wouldn't put anything above them. But aren't documents just pieces of paper? Paper can inspire people, I know–look at the U. S. Constitution. That has inspired a lot of people. But look at how people have twisted pieces of paper too. I don't think that authenticity needs just documents, and so it doesn't matter whether they're false or not. Authenticity requires people who are true to themselves, who are not afraid to say what is true and just, and who are not bound by something that can be twisted by mere mongers of words.
The false documents were nothing but a coverup for a trail of deceit and they just used that because it was handy and because people would believe it. But authenticity demands, and I don't think that's too strong a word, demands that people who are concerned with the public weal stand up for freedom and not be shackled by pieces of paper.
Comment by Hadrian —