The War Criminal President

[babylonsister]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-war-crimina.html

The War Criminal President
Andrew Sullivan
29 Mar 2008 06:46 pm


I posted about Philip Gourevitch's and Erroll Morris's superb and disturbing recent piece on Abu Ghraib here. What it shows once again is how Abu Ghraib was never, ever an exception. It was permitted, enabled, authorized and pre-meditated by Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Miller, and Addington, among many others. The techniques testified to correspond with chilling accuracy to techniques authorized by the president, for which we now have overwhelming evidence. Scott Horton reminds us what exactly some of the techniques were:

Enforced nudity. This technique is adopted for purposes of degrading and humiliating the prisoner, heightening his senses of vulnerability, weakness and shame. Enforced nudity also enhances other techniques, particularly hypothermia.

Starvation. As Davis notes, when the prisoner is entitled to an MRE, he would be given one component only of the MRE. The entire MRE constitutes a reasonable food ration which is properly balanced. Giving only one part of it reflects a decision to starve the prisoner.

Stress Positions. Perhaps the oldest and best established torture technique, widely used by the Inquisition in Europe, was the strapado. Hands would be fastened behind the back and the victim would be hoisted, causing severe stress to joints, frequent dislocation, and severe and sustained pain. The strapado would invariably get its victim to confess to anything, very quickly. During World War II, this same technique was widely adopted and used by the Germans, who called it Pfahlbinden. In the English of the Bush Administration, this technique is called a “stress position,” and it was widely used at Abu Ghraib.

Hypothermia.

snip//

For President Bush, these techniques are a part of the “Program.” More generally in the American media, you’ll hear these things referred to as “highly coercive techniques.” But they have a proper name, which is “torture.” Their use is a serious crime under international law, and under U.S. law. And that stubborn fact has driven much of the Bush Administration’s bizarre machinations relating to the Convention.

One day this president and vice-president will be prosecuted for war crimes.

[frogcycle]

1. I hope I live to see that day

One day this president and vice-president will be prosecuted for war crimes.

I would be dancing in the streets

Maybe we could stage a celebration - make a big statue of him, pull it down, and all hit it with our shoes

[TahitiNut]

2. "One day" isn't soon enough.

NOW isn't soon enough. Hundreds of thousands have been killed for the insatiable appetites of these criminals. People continune to suffer and die by the thousands. The intrusions on the civil liberties of millions continue unabated. The debt left to our children and grandchildren is enormous and getting bigger by the minute. The "land of the free and home of the brave" has seen almost NOBODY take to the streets and stand in harm's way, sheeding blood and risking life for our own liberties and honor. We don't deserve a self-governance we're unwilling to protect.

We're a nation of cowards and criminals unless and until these despicable war criminals are in prison.

[bleever]

9. "We don't deserve a self-governance we're unwilling to protect.

We're a nation of cowards and criminals unless and until these despicable war criminals are in prison."

You are correct, sir.

[Yavapai]

3. Until then, does anybody know where

I can buy small stick-on photos of DubYa for placement in restroom urinals?

My wife figures I might be able hit that instead of the floor (you know, an incentive to aim.)

[Road Scholar]

4. Wasn't that what Saddam was doing and getting rid of such a

government was one of the weak plattitudes that bushco used to invade?:shrug:

[babylonsister]

6. Good point; * is doing the same thing. nt

[malaise]

8. The irony is breathtaking

"shaking head" :shrug:

Sp.

[G_j]

5. no statute of limitations, The War Crimes Act of 1996

actually carries the death penalty in cases where the victim dies. In such cases there is no statute of limitation,s

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111407R.shtml


Beyond Mukasey's Confirmation, White House Liability Issues Loom Large
By Elizabeth Holtzman
t r u t h o u t | OpEd

Tuesday 13 November 2007

Though it failed to send his nomination the way of Robert Bork, attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey's evasiveness on the definition of torture has done something historic. It has made it unmistakably clear to mainstream observers that the president may be criminally liable for violating anti-torture laws. Criminal liability of this White House will have wider repercussions than Mr. Mukasey's confirmation. It will reverberate through his tenure as attorney general and beyond the end of the Bush administration.

We now know that the reason Mr. Mukasey refused to acknowledge that waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture, or at the very least cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, clearly had nothing to do with not being briefed about the procedure. If he didn't know at the time of the Senate committee hearing, he certainly learned afterwards that the US had considered waterboarding criminal and prosecuted it for at least a century. The real reason, as mainstream news analysts now acknowledge, was that publicly admitting waterboarding is torture or cruel and inhuman would have put the president in jeopardy of criminal charges.

The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a federal crime. In addition, a 1994 law, 18 USC Section 2340 (a), makes it a federal crime to engage in torture outside the US, and it also applies to those who conspire with (or aid and abet or order) torture outside the US. Both statutes apply to any US national, including the president, the vice president and other top officials, as well as subordinates, such as CIA officers or other US personnel. If the president ordered, directed or authorized waterboarding or other forms of torture or mistreatment, he may have violated these laws. They carry the death penalty in cases where the victim dies. In such cases there is no statute of limitations, so the president could be subject to prosecution for the rest of his life.

Some contend that imposing criminal liability for acts performed in the heat of combat is wrong and that we can't hold the administration to 20/20 hindsight. But we know these acts were not spontaneous, but part of a premeditated pattern of legal manipulation dating back years. At least since 2002, President Bush, Attorney General Gonzales and possibly others, including Vice President Cheney, knew that torture and detainee mistreatment entailed criminal liability, which they sought to defuse with novel legal theories and retroactive suspensions of established law.

..more..

[lonestarnot]

7. Dick and Red Rummy need chains.

[Road Scholar]

10. K&R nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. Not only prosecuted, but persecuted for

war crimes.

[L. Coyote]

12. Let me add: The Criminal War President