The Nation: 9 Reasons To Investigate War Crimes (Why We Can't Let The Bush Admin Get Away With It)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/92104/

Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, The Nation. Posted July 19, 2008.

Why we can't let the Bush Administration get away with its crimes.

Retired General Antonio Taguba, the officer who led the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib, recently wrote in the preface to the new report, Broken laws, Broken Lives:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Should those who ordered war crimes be held to account? With the conclusion of the Bush regime approaching, many people are dubious, even those horrified by Administration actions. They fear a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the country apart. They note that such division could make it far harder for the country to address the many other crises it is facing. They see the upcoming elections as a better way to set the country on a new path.

Many Democrats in particular are proposing to let bygones be bygones and move on to confront the problems of the future, rather than dwelling on the past. The Democratic leadership sees rising gas prices, foreclosures, and health care costs, as well as widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, as playing in their favor. Why risk it all by playing the war crimes blame game? Perhaps some Democratic leaders are also concerned that their own role in enabling or even encouraging war crimes might be exposed.

Meanwhile, the evidence confirming not only a deliberate policy of torture, but of conspiring in an illegal war of aggression and conducting a criminal occupation, continues to pile ever higher. Bush's own press secretary Scott McClellan has revealed in his book, What Happened, how deliberately the public was misled to foment the attack on Iraq. Philippe Sands' new book, Torture Team, has shown how the top legal and political leadership fought for a policy of torture -- circumventing and misleading top military officials to do so. Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, reveals that a secret report by the Red Cross -- given to the CIA and shared with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice -- found that U.S. interrogation methods are "categorically" torture and that the "abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

Despite the reluctance to open what many see as a can of worms, there are fresh moves on many fronts to hold top U.S. officials accountable for war crimes.

Courts: U.S. courts have issued a barrage of decisions against the Administration's claim that they can do anything and still be within the law. The Supreme Court ruled June 12 that the Administration cannot deny habeas corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on June 30 overturned the Pentagon's enemy combatant designation of a Chinese Muslim held in Guantánamo for the last six years. A Maine jury in April acquitted the Bangor Six of criminal trespass charges stemming from protesters' claim that the "Constitution was being violated by the Bush Administration's involvement in Iraq."

Congressional investigation: Rep. John Conyers has recently brought top policy-makers, including former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, and this week former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and former Attorney General John Ashcroft before a House Judiciary subcommittee and grilled them on their role crafting the Administration's torture policy.

Senate hearings in June revealed that treatment of Guantánamo captives was modeled on techniques allegedly used by Communist China to force false confessions from U.S. soldiers.

Impeachment: Despite Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's instruction to keep impeachment "off the table," Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the first time brought an impeachment resolution to the House floor that incorporated a devastating, thirty-five article indictment spelling out Bush Administration war crimes and crimes against the Constitution. Now Rep. Conyers has announced that the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the charges July 25. Even after the Bush Administration leaves office, the judges it appointed who appear complicit in war crimes -- notably torture policy architect Judge Jay S. Bybee -- could still be impeached.

MORE

[fasttense]

1. Just another group of people the royal bush pardon pen

will have to protect.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. k&r- I forgot about Judge Bybee, who could be removed from office, even if pardoned. n/t

[gratuitous]

3. A few thoughts . . .

If we don't prosecute these war crimes, someone will. I don't know if it will be an organized tribunal such as The Hague, or an extra-legal ad hoc group like the 9/11 hijackers. But these crimes will be answered for, just maybe not by the perpetrators. If you feel all right paying the price for aggressive wars of empire while the architects walk free, then not prosecuting is a perfectly acceptable choice for us.

If we don't prosecute these war crimes because there are other, more pressing issues, the lesson we're imparting is that if you fuck things up colossally enough, even war crimes can be glossed over. Ten years ago, the Republicans who ran Congress said that the flag was falling if Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for whatever he had been accused of doing. America would be humiliated on the world stage, and our prestige would be irreparably damaged. Well, if that was the case in 1998, how much more will the United States suffer if we excuse war crimes because we have so many other more "pressing" matters?

Next, why would holding criminals accountable "tear the country apart"? The only people who could possibly object to prosecuting crime would be . . . well, criminals. Since when do we let the accused decide whether to investigate, develop evidence and then try the offenders based on that? The unspoken but quite clear subtext here is that the foaming-at-the-mouth blowhards on the Repressive Right would be so obstructionist and make such a stink about this, that the country would just give it up. Well, I'm not willing to let the criminals get away with it, and I'm guessing that when the evidence is publicized, a large majority of the public will be on board for prosecutions. In fact, I'm quite sure a majority of the country is on board already. I'm not afraid of the war criminals, and I'm surely not afraid of them prospectively even before they've been indicted. Anyone who's against these investigations before they've even started should be presumed to be complicit.

[gratuitous]

4. One eensy weensy

Kick