Reply
Sun 2 Jul, 2006 01:21 pm
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.
Continued...
I wish. Nothing will happen, because there's nobody on this planet brave enough to make the charges.
Think of all the people in this world that demonstrated against the war in Iraq; they will all rejoice if they saw Bushco pay for his crimes against humanity.
I'll also bet there might be a good possibility that peace may all of a sudden become a reality; a much greater chance than Bush's "stay the course."
Did Bush Commit War Crimes?
No you silly twit!
Unless you are one of the cretinous mob who is convinced that Bush is the most dangerous figure on planet earth, try and focus your energy on the truly bad guys.
The great thing is that you can stay a Liberal and find true fault with the world's bastards.
So you can't find fault with the Chineses dictators, there's always the Sudan.
So you reject any attempt by the Establishment to turn you against the people's revolution in Cuba, there is always Mynmar.
Try, for a fleeting moment, to establish a mature perspective.
Acknowledging that the US is not perfect, is there not a plethora of other nations even less perfect that deserve your righteous anger?
Why does the US in its imperfection warrant you're fury before China, Russia, Iran, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Zaire, Haiti, Cuba, Liberia, Mexico, and Ubekistan?
Yeah, Newsweek is a twit for reporting it, because Alberto Gonzales said as much!
Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so
All them US Lawyers are twits too!
US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes
By Grant McCool
Lawyers Against the War
January 28, 2003
A group of U.S. law professors opposed to a possible war on Iraq warned U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday that he and senior government officials could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated international humanitarian law.
"Our primary concern ... is the large number of civilian casualties that may result should U.S. and coalition forces fail to comply with international humanitarian law in using force against Iraq," the group, led by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a letter to Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The group cited the particular need for U.S. and coalition forces to abide by humanitarian law requiring warring parties to distinguish between military and civilian areas, use only the level of force that is militarily necessary and to use weaponry that is proportionate to what is being targeted.
The letter, which had more than 100 signatories, said the rules had been broken in other recent wars. It said air strikes on populated cities, carpet bombing and the use of fuel-air explosives were examples of inappropriate military action taken during the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 Kosovo campaign and the 2001 Afghan conflict that led to civilian casualties and might be used again in Iraq.
The letter to Bush and Rumsfeld coincided with similar notes sent this week to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien by lawyers in those countries.
Ironically, Bush on Wednesday advised Iraqi officers and soldiers to disobey any orders to use weapons of mass destruction in the event of a conflict. "If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal," he said. On Sunday, Rumsfeld said he would favor granting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and senior Iraqi leaders immunity from possible war crimes prosecution if it would clear the way for their exile and avoid a war.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Government officials in Britain and Canada could theoretically be investigated by the new International Criminal Court in The Hague if it was determined that international laws had been broken in war. The United States has refused to cooperate with the court and has withdrawn its signature from the treaty establishing it.
The letter to Blair, dated Jan. 22, from Public Interest Lawyers said that if Britain's actions in Iraq were deemed possible war crimes, "we, and others, will take steps to ensure that you, and other leaders of the U.K. government are held accountable."
The Canadian group, Lawyers Against the War, said in its letter dated Jan. 20, that it was putting Chretien's government on notice that without explicit U.N. Security Council approval for a war on Iraq, "we will pursue all responsible government officials on charges of murder and crimes against humanity in both the Canadian and the international criminal courts."
One of the leading signatories to the letter to Bush said although Washington was not a party to the ICC, U.S. officials could still be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention. "War crimes under that convention can be prosecuted wherever the perpetrators are found," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He said the situation could be likened to the attempt by a Spanish magistrate to prosecute former Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1996 for human rights violations during his rule.
finn
Your insults are getting out of hand. Perhaps mine are too. Let's pull back for the general good.
That others commit more serious crimes does not excuse or lessen a crime committed by another. Thieves are not suddenly free from just prosecution merely because there are murders committed elsewhere.
blatham wrote:finn
Your insults are getting out of hand. Perhaps mine are too. Let's pull back for the general good.
That others commit more serious crimes does not excuse or lessen a crime committed by another. Thieves are not suddenly free from just prosecution merely because there are murders committed elsewhere.
Twit is hardly a knee-capper of an insult, but perhaps you're right. If I can scold you, you should surely be permitted to scold me.
Of course the fact that there are more serious crimes in the world does not excuse those of a lesser nature. Clearly, that is not my point.
It is not rational to argue that we should not seek to prosecute murders because the prosecuters are, themselves, jay-walkers, or even pick-pockets or, for that matter, bank robbers.
More importantly it is either incredibly ignorant or perverse to draw any sort of moral equivalence between America and the Terrorists/Insurgents in Iraq. It is obscene to even suggest that the former is worse than the latter.
I do not argue that liberals or leftist or anti-war advocates are traitors, and I will not stand for those who would engage me in debate to argue that America is a facist, war-mongering, police state.
Sorry but this sort of irrational vomitus triggers a sharp response from me.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace