Did Bush commit war crimes? (LAT)

[kpete]

Rosa Brooks:
Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes?
Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution.
June 30, 2006


THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.

This novel theory served as the administration's legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks30jun30,0,339573.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
or:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006B.shtml

[The Magistrate]

1. Ms. Brooks, Ma'am, Is Quite Right

There is really no question both the Federal War Crimes Act applies, and that it should be enforced. Whether it will be or not, unfortunately, is an open question....

[TahitiNut]

15. We're an outlaw nation until it is.

Until Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and their cronies and toadies are impeached, indicted, and imprisoned, we're an outlaw nation.

[helderheid]

2. recommended

[Joanie Baloney]

3. I'm crossing my toes

I'm too snake-bit to think...again..."This could be it!!".

But, could this be it??




:patriot:

[The Brethren]

28. I'm thinking why isn't it?

We have a war criminal in the White House. He will ignore the SC, our Constitution, even laws he's signed. And he will do whatever he has to to turn things around in his favor and simply act like nothing has happened.

Who then polices Bush?? Congress? We all know what the repug lead Congress will do. And we also know he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. So then, who is going to make him accountable for his actions and remove him from office ..not to mention actually try him on charges? I'm serious, by law, if Congress won't stand up to him..who is left to?

[JuniperLea]

4. Prepare for the swiftboating of the LAT!!

K&R!!


Oh dear lord please let it stick!

[me b zola]

5. rhut-roh, george

from the op-ed:

"But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty."




I long for the day for the entire cabal to be imprisoned.

[msongs]

6. that silence you hear is from the congressional democrats who cannot

seem to understand we have a tyrant on our hands, a person who IMO has deliberately violated his oath to defend and uphold the US constitution, along with his party cohorts.

let us hope that soon the silence will be replaced by the battle cry "free america from the new tyranny."

Msongs

listen to our song demos!
www.msongs.com/msongsdemos.htm

[Gregorian]

7. The Supreme Court decision has nothing to do with it!

We signed on to the Geneva Convention. What the hell does the SC decision have to do with anything?


My question is- Did he not commit war crimes? There was no imminent threat. Congress didn't declare war.

Maybe this decision ads a punch. But he's just as liable as he was before that decision. Am I wrong about that?

[tavalon]

13. He's just as liable as before

This is just added confirmation of the blatantly obvious.

[Radical Activist]

8. Which nation will arrest him?

Maybe on a foreign trip.

[helderheid]

9. Question - what does this mean given the US doesn't recognize the world

court? Anyone know?

[many a good man]

10. War crimes are a violation of US law

The US Congress has passed its own laws forbidding war crimes in addition to the legally binding ratification of Geneva.

Since we did not sign the accord establishing the International Criminal Court, we cannot be tried there. US war criminals CAN be tried HERE, if we choose to prosecute. It would be a cut and dried case.

The World Court of Public Opinion will also render its judgment.

[helderheid]

21. thank you!

[texpatriot2004]

11. Yes! Prosecute the WAR CRIMINALS! nm

[Solly Mack]

12. Yes - and we didn't need a SCOTUS decision to determine that

though it does certainly add to the case

Question is:

Who has the guts to hold him accountable?

[Biernuts]

14. You guys need to come back to earth

Administration says, "I am going to do A, B, C and D.
USSC rules that you canot do B without congressional authorization.
Administration says, so be it, we'll get congressional authorization to do B, or we will handle it differently.

B of course is that they were going to try illegal combatants via tribunals. If congress passes that authority, they exercise it. If congress doesn't they still can try any of them by UCMJ court matrial, civilian court or forget about a trial and hold them until the war is over (never).

There's only a case to be made if, having been told that course of action B is not constitutional, they go ahead and do it AFTER THE USSC COURT RULING. The law in place until the ruling was from the US Court of Appeals that OK'd that process.

USSC rulings almost awways determine that someone was wrong - that doesn't equate to an act punishable via the courts or that is impeachable. For example, Judge Wapner admits the confession of a child rapist/murderer who is convicted and sentenced to death. The Appeals court upholds the use of the confession, but the USSC overrules it's use because the Miranda warning wasn't given to the rapist/murdered in Franch, his native language. Neither the trial Judge nor the appeals court Jusges, nor the police go to jail for anything they have done. The accused gets a new trial and the confession cannot be introduced.

Now I've got a challenge for all DU readers/posters. If illegal combatants are to be treated exactly as lawful combatants, what is the incentive for any adversary to conduct themselves IAW the laws of warfare? What is the penalty for unlawful combtants who intentionally target noncombatants to produce mass casualties and terror? Quite different from the legitimate targeting of adversary personnel/facilities and having deadly collateral casualties because the terrorists hid among noncombatants.

[Clyde39]

16. The problem----actually getting Congressional authorization beforehand

We here are upset that Bush/Cheney have bypassed Congress since Day 1. They're beginning to look like fascists.

[nellre]

17. Biernuts, come back to the American Way.

"Now I've got a challenge for all DU readers/posters. If illegal combatants are to be treated exactly as lawful combatants, what is the incentive for any adversary to conduct themselves IAW the laws of warfare? What is the penalty for unlawful combtants who intentionally target noncombatants to produce mass casualties and terror? Quite different from the legitimate targeting of adversary personnel/facilities and having deadly collateral casualties because the terrorists hid among noncombatants."

What was their incentive before this ruling? None.
This ruling says that we will not lower ourselves to the level of terrorists.
We won't kill the patient (America) to cure the disease (terrorism).

http://aliberallibertarian.blogspot.com/

[Biernuts]

20. So it you insist they be treated as POWs, you will allow them

written communications with whomever on the outside? When you are trying to interdict terrorist cells, it is sometimes important that they not know who has been captured.

Where is the outrage that any of our soldiers captures are not treated as Geneva Convention POWs? Look at the majority of posts the past two days and tell me with a straight face that posters are less concerned with the rights of KSM that our troops.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. You raise a red herring, sir

Where is the outrage that any of our soldiers captures are not treated as Geneva Convention POWs? Look at the majority of posts the past two days and tell me with a straight face that posters are less concerned with the rights of KSM that our troops.

Oh, yes. Everybody does it, so why shouldn't we? Two wrongs make a right, I suppose.

Not.

That al Qaida does not respect the rules of war is no more reason for the neoconservatives not to respect them than for the Nazis not to have done so. It simply makes al Qaida, the Nazis and the neoconservatives guilty of war crimes.

[DespisedIcon]

27. Biernuts

In Vietnam there were no such penalties for unlawful combatants. The same individual who was our friend by day became our enemy by night. We did not treat tehm differently. Being subject to the Geneva convention, these terrorists that are captured could be tried for war crimes themselves, however. They can face the United Nations.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. To answer your question, sir

Now I've got a challenge for all DU readers/posters. If illegal combatants are to be treated exactly as lawful combatants, what is the incentive for any adversary to conduct themselves IAW the laws of warfare? What is the penalty for unlawful combtants who intentionally target noncombatants to produce mass casualties and terror? Quite different from the legitimate targeting of adversary personnel/facilities and having deadly collateral casualties because the terrorists hid among noncombatants.

What is an "illegal" combatant? It's a loaded term in the first place.

Now, on to the point.

Why shouldn't the same laws apply to irregular forces as to regulars? Anybody who takes up arms is a combatant, regardless of his cause or the government he serves or opposes.

I agree, the diliberate targeting of civiliansis a war crime. I am saying that it makes no difference whether the bomb is strapped to the chest of a combatant in Haifa or dropped from a B52 over Falluja. There is no difference.

Does one forfiet one's human rights, which includes the right to a fair trial and the due process of law, because one is accused of war crimes? I say one does not. Human rights are natural and inalienable; they cannot be bestowed as gifts by governments nor taken away be them.

The conduct of the Bush regime in this matter is unconscionable. They should be held accountable. Bush is no less accountable for his crimes than Osama is for those he has committed.

[Prophet 451]

18. Do they still hang war criminals? n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Are fish ichthians?

Of course Bush is a war criminal. It isn't just the idea of kangaroo courts or the use of torture in Guantánamo. He lied his way into war with Iraq; it was neither part of a war on terror nor an effort ot enforce 12-year-old UN resolutions and he knew that he had nothing to support those claims. It was a piece of colonial piracy, a naked war of aggression, pure and simple.

I would prefer that these matters be taken up in the US justice system. However, if the US is unable or unwilling to bring charges against Mr. BUsh and his aides, then a special international tribunal for war crimes in Iraq and crimes against humanity arising out of the war on terror should be convened for that purpose.

[Biernuts]

22. Before you dive off from sanity into the deep end - Serbia tried

Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Wes Clark for war crimes in the 1990s. They are convicted in absentia - do you advocate extraditing them to Serbia to serve their sentences? If not, then this just a partisan rant without substance - and the more rants like this, the more difficult it will be for Democrats in November.

The USSC ruling is in one respect nothing less than a gift to the GOP. There will be House and Senate votes where members will have to go on record whether to authorize tribunals for Kalid Sheik Mohammad and his ilk. Voting against tribunals or commissions and instead resorting to the full set of rights under the UCMJ will not be a winning position with the majority of voters. It will be a wedge issue far grater than anything Rove could devise.

[Clyde39]

23. Sounds like the SC is doing their bit to make us a one-party country

Makes one wonder how it will all end?

[Jack Rabbit]

24. I said an international tribunal, Mr. Biernuts

I said an international tribunal, Mr. Biernuts, like the one that was trying Milosevic before his death. I also said that the US justice system should take care of the matter, if possible.

How dare you compare either of those institutions to a kangaroo court in Belgrade devised by Milosevic? or to the kangaroo court devised by Bush in Guantánamo?

There will be House and Senate votes where members will have to go on record whether to authorize tribunals for Kalid Sheik Mohammad and his ilk. Voting against tribunals or commissions and instead resorting to the full set of rights under the UCMJ will not be a winning position with the majority of voters.

While that is true for politicians, I am not running for public office. I regard due process of law, even for the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or even G. W. Bush or Dick Cheney to be an inviolable human right.

It will be a wedge issue far grater than anything Rove could devise.

I expect the politicians, including most Democrats, to take the cowardly route. I'll still hold my nose ans vote for Feinstein in November, although I expect her to be one of the cowards.

What the politicians say and do is one thing. What I say and do is another. I will not be silent because some nervous Nellies think what a private citizen expresses is going to be bad PR for the Democrats.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humbled_opinion]

30. A Healthy Democracy

What I personally think we saw unfold was a healthy democray in action. Bush made a decision to do something that he argued he had the power to do. SCOTUS took up a case and found that Bush made the wrong decision. Bush wants Congress to make a law in his favor. Congress will take the matter up and now the debate.

Debate:

1. Are we at war?
2. Are human rights being violated?
3. Define enemy combatant.
4. How do we treat/try enemy combatants?
5. Were we justified going into Iraq?


What tires me out most is when Brush says he is going to do whatever he wants because thats what America wants him to do. He invokes the will of the people argument however, when America is asked via the polls and the media if that is what they really want then the majority seem to answer no.

So in my view the only way to stop the atrocities is to take control.