Letters to the Editor
-
Is there any immunity from government rationalization?
Great article!
This is another expose' of the long tradition of government rationalization (here and abroad). Bush and his buddies, however, have taken it ALL to the next level!
From redefining "responsibility" to recategorizing "prison torture" as detainment, the US government is beyond belief.
I find it baffling that one of the originators for these transgressions (john Yoo) is now pontificating to the elite students at UC Berkeley. My experience at a UC campus (Santa Barbara)in the 60's had the administration trying to expel a professor (Richard Flacks) for exorting students to use their First Amendment rights to oppose apparently illegal government action (Viet Nam, police obstruction of protests & sit-ins, etc.). Now, they give people like Yoo hope for tenure?
Rationalization in America is now stranger than fiction.
Cheers.
-
So, what's it gonna be
The ball is clearly in the court of Congress and the American people. Here is an administration that has simply ignored the rule of law since day 1. I hate to bring up comparisons to Nazi Germany, but it is such a well studied piece of history that the parallels are there for all to see.
The central feature of the Enabling Act was that it gave Hitler the right to rule by decree (bypass the legislature) for 4 years. Other laws centralized authority in one office.
What we saw between 2001 and 2006 was a brazen attempt to redefine the checks and balances of the American Presidential system in a way that saw power concentrated in one office and a massive use of presidential signings, which in effect, allow the president to ignore Congress. We even saw a loose version of a propoganda ministry in the rabid-right talk shows and Fox News.
This process was only slowed by a media that finally woke up after 4 years of criminal neglect, an electorate that simply wouldn't be cowed any longer, and judges that could still think for themselves.
It seems that the tide has been stopped for a while, but the damage has been done. Will Congress and the American people settle for broken relic of a governing tradition, or will they take back their heritage and either impeach the entire administration or press for criminal charges after the elections of 2008?
-
How about Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech
in which he stated, "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."
Was I the only one who heard that line? This man is a thug through and through. His election to office has stained us all.
-
One Way To Nail G.W.Bush Et Al.
They rely on the idea that terrorists do not deserve fair treatment. And, indeed Americans do not care whether terrorists suffer.
But, it is plainly obvious that they have imprisoned and tortured many innocent people, people they swept up by mistake. This immunity will not hold up after the stories of the innocent detainees get out.
George W. Bush has been so audacious that Americans are just beginning to catch up on the story. Soon, though, the truth will out. And it will soak in. And then we can send him up the river.
-
War Crime Immunity
The Bush Administration’s search for immunity from war crimes follows an illustrious path of other dictators and sponsors of state supported torture. Witness Pinochet, who appointed himself senator-for-life to escape accountability. But his immunity had slowly eroded in recent years, and he only avoided prosecution due to poor health and now his death. And the Argentinean generals who ran the dirty war were careful to set up immunity for themselves before they relinquished power. All of these people knew full well that that they were/had acted illegally, and they desperately wanted to avoid the consequences.
Perhaps the Bushies have successfully immunized themselves from U.S. law, but I bet there will be a large number of them that daren’t set foot on European soil after they leave office. There are probably any number of EU countries who have had enough of these poseurs and would issue a warrant charging them with war crimes.
-
Bush's criminal confessions
These short sighted complaints about criminal behavior fail to appreciate the theory of the unitary executive that has guided the Bush administration. The Germans called it _Das Fuhrerprinzip_. Four justices of the current Supreme Court seem to find the idea completely acceptable.
-
Remarkable paper trail
So, I'm still not clear on this and would like readers who are lawyers to explain this. Does this mean that Bush, Cheney et al can be charged and tried for war crimes. Could we disbar the lawyers (specifically Yoo and Gonzales) that have provided the legal loopholes for the situations at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the secret prisons to arise? What legal action is open to act against the senators who voted to confirm Gonzales for his Supreme Court position?
This is what I would like to see:
Bush and Cheney impeached and tried for war crimes
Their enablers: Yoo and Gonzales (but no doubt others) disbarred and removed from their current positions
Can this happen in my lifetime?
-
what's in their minds
the thing to remember is these guys don't think they are doing anything wrong. They think god & the law are on their side. They are documenting their triumphant roles, their legacy, not confessing their sins.
At least Nixon and Reagan knew they would be in trouble if they got found out. This administration is unbelievable. And it makes me ask like I have been since Bush got into the Republican primary --- what were the people thinking who ever put him on the ballot?
-
Can they be prosecuted?
I don't understand the legal position on this - perhaps someone could enlighten me - but just because you declare yourself not bound by the Geneva Convention or by International Law, surely that doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted for breaking those laws, in other counries, if not the US?
-
Consequences of Impeachment
One thing I don't get from this article is what the consequences would be for Bush if he is impeached. In a country obsessed with defence of national security and emphatically for the death penalty, surely an investigation which finds Bush guilty of treason would see him hanged/shot/electrocuted in public? Or is the death penalty reserved for non-presidents only?
It would seem that the worst harm that can come to Mister Bush from impeachment, is the disapprobation by a population he cares nothing for and the loss of his office - which has less than 2 years to run - and which Mister Bush describes as "really hard work" at every turn. It would seem to me Impeachment is a very mild consequence for a man whos decisions have caused such suffering and death.
Perhaps if Mister Bush and mister Cheney were stacked in a naked human pyrimid with Mister Rumsfeld, beaten and sodomised with clubs, waterboarded, savaged by attack dogs while shackled to the roof of their cages in some hellish prison they would begin to understand something of the misery which they have unleashed.