Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
...whether this is a battle worth fighting. My heart says it is. My head says it isn't. I plan to try and read as much as I can about Obama's position and post again. For sure, though, Glenn G.'s perspective is important--more voices with his perspective need to be heard.
The Telecom Immunity deal is just one part of the CYA program that has been established by the Administration to protect themselves from accountability for crimes they’ve committed since 911. As Tom Lasseter points out in this week’s McClatchy investigative report(s), the Administration set up a “quintet of lawyers, who called themselves the War Council." This group was responsible for drafting “legal opinions that circumvented the military's code of justice, the federal court system and America's international treaties in order to prevent anyone — from soldiers on the ground to the president — from being held accountable for activities that at other times have been considered war crimes.”
The War Council was also responsible for drafting legal opinions that were intended to protect government officials from potential lawsuits related to the suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, and probably many other illegal activities believed acceptable by the new imperial presidency. Up until now, the one missing piece they needed to totally protect their illegal wiretapping agenda was protection for the non-government members of their Wiretap Team (Telecoms). After next week’s approval by the Senate and the signature of the President, it appears the new FISA bill will fill that loophole for them.
It is indeed a shame that the people of this country may never know the full scope of government transgressions related to these wiretap activities. The Telecom court cases would most certainly have provided us with that insight, and perhaps led to the conviction of those responsible for so blatantly trampling on our constitutional rights. However, it became apparent early-on that the War Council was effective in gaining the complicity of enough congressional supporters (on both sides of the aisle) to prevent this program from ever seeing the light of day.
But, still there’s hope! It is time to look beyond the three branches of the U.S. government, and consider presenting our case against the War Council to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Let’s face it, we can’t expect anything positive to come out of congressional investigations into any of these activities. My Congressman told me (after he voted for the FISA bill on Friday) that congressional investigations will provide us with full accountability on the illegal wiretap issues (Yah, Right!). The pathetic performance presented by the Democratic members of Congress this week certainly negates any hope in this area.
The War Council may have been effective in protecting everyone around them, but based on the evidence that has recently come to light, they may not have been effective in shielding themselves, especially in regard to their torture memos which are clearly in defiance of international laws against war crimes.
The McClatchy investigation has already uncovered at least five War Council legal memos that clearly outline instructions for torture:
(1). “A Jan. 9, 2002, memorandum for Haynes, co-author Yoo opined that basic Geneva Convention protections known as Common Article Three forbidding humiliating and degrading treatment and torture of prisoners didn't cover alleged al Qaida or Taliban detainees.”
(2). “A memorandum to Bush dated Jan. 25, 2002, Gonzales said that rescinding detainees' Geneva protections "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
(3). “A Feb. 7, 2002 Bush memorandum declared that alleged al Qaida or Taliban members wouldn't be considered prisoners of war and, further, that they wouldn't be granted protection under Common Article Three.”
(4). “A memorandum that Gonzales requested from the Justice Department (on August 1, 2002) defined torture as ‘injury such as death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions,’ a high bar for ruling interrogation techniques or detainee treatment illegal.”
(5). “A memorandum that Yoo prepared (on March 14, 2003) at Haynes' request concluded that even if an interrogation method violated U.S. criminal statutes — such as the one against war crimes — the interrogators involved most likely couldn't be prosecuted because they were operating within the scope of Bush's constitutional authority to wage war against al Qaida and other militant groups.”
Every day, more and more evidence is coming forward in regard to the War Council’s intentional disregard for international law.
There are three potential classifications for ICC jurisdiction over international criminal cases. The second (and most applicable) classification is in cases “where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party.” State party refers to any of the 160 countries that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC. Afganistan is a member of this group, and perhaps other Eastern European countries where CIA torture took place (incidentally, the ICC cannot prosecute crimes committed prior to 7/01/02 – the Rome Statute enforcement date) .
Armed with the mounting evidence against the War Council Five (Addington, Gonzales, Haynes, Yoo, and Flanigan), it would seem that an experienced team of international lawyers could bring a strong case into the ICC against them. There doesn’t appear to be any restrictions in regard to trying them in absentia (it’s unlikely they would voluntarily take the stand).
Unfortunately, the likelihood of them serving time for their crimes (if found quilty) is currently very slim, since the U.S. hasn’t ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. But, who knows, we came close to ratification during the Clinton administration. Perhaps an Obama presidency (with a Democratic controlled Congress) may succumb to strong global pressure to see that justice is done in this case.
Regardless of the outcome, however, the world would know that the citizens of this country are serious about holding our leaders accountable for their transgressions, and (more importantly) future administrations would have to think twice before trampling on domestic and/or international civil liberties.
Many republicans I know claim that there's no reason to switch parties because all politicians are the same and we can't trust any of them...
And I'm sure they're all chortling right now...
And what exactly are we supposed to say to them?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
