Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for the heads-up regarding the Joke-Line, um, I mean Joe Klein piece in Time.
One passage to note:
"I would say that there's some theoretical exposure here" to a war-crimes indictment in U.S. federal court, says Gene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. "But I don't think there's much public appetite for that sort of action."
I don't know who Gene Fidell is, but I'm curious why he thinks there's no "public appetite" to see Bush/Cheney/et al. indicted for war crimes. Seems like he's pulling a David Brooks and just making up conventional wisdom.
I think It is very important to now advocate for current federal law enforcement & national security whistleblowers. These whistleblowers would like to come back and serve and/or be made somewhat whole again, some of them have been terminated, and some are still serving and subject to constant subtle reprisal.
Given recent "Pay to Play" political corruption indictments in Illinois, the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme scandal in which whistleblower complaints went ignored by the Securities & Exchange Commission, the billions of dollars of rescue funds being dispersed with uncertain accountability, and the ever growing threat of terrorism -- the new incoming administration can send a loud message early that it will not tolerate whistleblower retaliation, not against future whistleblowers nor against current whistleblowers. If the new administration expects would-be whistleblowers to disclose violations of law, corruption, and dangers to public safety and national security, it should give IMMEDIATE relief to the current whistleblowers.
Please excuse me, but I can't help but post this video.
He gets into some political lyrics. My personal favorite part is when he says, "Well, I'm afraid of that gay marriage. Ohhhhhhhhh". That's at around 2:30 in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mpub4qnEBg&feature=related
Yeah, I'm not sure about that either (whether the public supports prosecutions or not). I don't know if there are any public polls on the matter.
Of course, it doesn't really make a difference anyway, except for the likelihood of getting politicians behind it. For the legal arguments, it doesn't make a difference if the public supports it or not.
Glenn wrote "That's all part-and-parcel of the broader trend whereby we now believe that the U.S. President is empowered to do anything and order anything -- from declaring someone an "enemy combatant" to proclaiming torture techniques to be legal -- and that the mere fact that he does so makes it legal."
I haven't went through all the comments yet, so I don't know if anyone has posted this, but I'd like to add a minor correction. Glenn forgot to put Republican in front of president. If Obama orders a crime to be committed while President, the republicans and our "liberal" media will have new found respect for the rule of law. A US president is only allowed to break the law, is if he's a republican.
With all due (great) respect to Amnesty International, in the document cited by Glenn (and all due great respect for Glenn's column today) the document is too gentle. In particular, it talks about,
Hundreds of people remain detained without charge, trial or judicial review of their detentions at the US air base in Bagram, Afghanistan.
That's very bad. It's more prisoners than at Guantanamo. All accounts are that the conditions are worse than Guantanamo too. Just to get some perspective: In its January report, the ICRC noted 10,171 prisoners in Afghanistan registered with the Red Cross. Since some other observers put the total as high as 15,000, that meant many, in fact thousands, of prisoners held incommunicado without registration. It's hard to say what has changed to the present. But the ICRC in its October 2008 report documents, "95 places of detention holding nearly 12,300 people". One would have sincerely hoped that this meant the newly registered prisoners were a diminution of the number kept off the books. But since it also documents visiting or following up on "2,941 people arrested in connection with the conflict or the security situation" this year, it is probably not the case.
Conditions at the 95 prisons are not equal. Not all are permanent structures like Kandahar and Bagram. Cages are very harsh in a country which has very cold winters and very hot summers. Even in some permanent structures, conditions are bad, as Amnesty rightly points out about Bagram. The same could be said of Pol-e-Charki, Kandahar and many other locations. They are resort hotels to only the same people who believe that Guantanamo is Club Med.
As a baseline figure, the infamous Taliban, who famously ruled with a lot of fear, especially against women, and arbitrary summary punishment, had 600 prisoners, total, in jails across the country when the U.S. invaded in 2001.
Even accepting, which, like Glenn, I don't, that punishments are undeserved and people were just following orders, and that they kept the country safe: These guys are 12 days from leaving office in an 8 year term. From what I have cited above, we aren't just talking about crimes from back in the John Yoo days, we're talking about right now in the present. We don't know whether the current crimes are "just following orders" because we've been so focused on the past and on Guantanamo (all the landmark decisions have been about Guantanamo, and some of them are so specific to it that nobody knows if they apply in, say, Pol-e-Charki), that we don't know what the current orders are, or whether there is anyone still giving them.
[ ICRC figures are from: 10-11-2008 Operational update Afghanistan: ICRC activities from January to September 2008 located here: http://icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/afghanistan-update-101108?opendocument ]
that ALL mean are created equal.
This means that the Pres.as an officeholder for the CIC-is still a person-and NOT and office by himself personally..
which in turns means he is not above the law..
It is also an abuse of power to install loyalists over competence..as CIC.
So Kit B. assertion that the govt. is always right--is patently wrong..
In fact the American public is usually many times smarter-and knows in fact, the propaganda of networks like Fox and talking points are being used...
There's also that little fact that the POTUS (the man and office) have been consistenetly WRONG on every issue that presented itself in the last 8 yrs...so the secrecy and lack of transparency (Israeli govt. listnin?)only further added to public opinion that corruption, illegal activity werre being covered up as a result of the loyalists, POTUS himself- lack of reality.
This cause a major breakdown in the public trust.
This was not only for GW's decisions either...this was for all parts of govt enabling GW & the GOP to continue thier drunken-driving catastrophes of the US as a once-powerful nation..
ie: both Houses-and Intel Coms which Feinstein/Rock served on).
erosion of public trust..losing the propaganda world..is far-reaching: I hope Pres-elect Obama realizes this (in re; to prosecution of GW/Cheney/Yoo/Rummy/ Feith/Addington/Bybee.
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
