Spanish prosecutors reportedly will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales, Federal Appeals Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, University of California law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department general counsel and current Chevron lawyer William J. Haynes II, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith. In a particularly embarrassing moment for the United States, the Audencia Nacional court in Madrid asked if or when the United States was going to investigate and said that it would not order the investigation if such an investigation is begun — yielding to the United States. This is precisely what was discussed in previously on Countdown.
The Court noted that there was clear evidence of torture — a view shared by the vast majority of experts in the field. These men will not be able to travel freely once such charges are brought due to the threat of extradition. While the scene of a former Attorney General and a sitting judges accused of war criminals is shameful for our nation, it is far more shameful that the Obama administration has forced other nations to uphold international law because it is politically inconvenient to investigate known war crimes. This places the United States in the company with such countries as Serbia in shielding accused war crimes.
Bybee is particularly frustrating for civil libertarians. Bybee’s role in the torture program was already known when he faced confirmation. Despite objections, the democrats refused to block the confirmation, given a man accused of war crimes a lifetime appointment on the federal bench to rule on hundreds of cases.
The Spanish court has a credible claim in the investigation due to the alleged torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo. Now, the Obama Administration may actually seek to obstruct the investigation while preventing any special prosecutor from seeing the evidence in a domestic investigation.
The Investigation judge, Baltasar Garzón Real, gained international attention due to his investigation of Augusto Pinochet. I previously discussed the similarity of the status of Pinochet and George Bush due to the allegations of torture and war crimes. t Judge Garzón may have to step aside in presiding in the case given his role as investigator.
For the first story, click here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975168816518691.html
In reading this, it strikes me that someone needs to remind those twits at CIA who they work for and not capitulate to their potential hissy fit at the release of the torture memos. If they don’t like it, fire them. Even spies can be replaced. It makes your job harder you say? Too bad. You geniuses at Langley should have though about that before you started torturing for Unca Dick.
Self Delusional Neophytes bog this blog down after to much grog.
But I am curious as to why you hate our soldiers so much that you want to attack properly funding them instead of the illegal reason they were dispatched in the first place.
Can you explain that?
And not sound like a contortionist?
No?
Didn’t think so.
Buh bye.
No, you lose your case. But self delusion seems to be your only strong point.
“you should do it with people who are not trained to argue from fact, law and logic.”
Obama is a War Criminal. I rest my case.
Weak.
And you clearly don’t understand the definition of war crime.
Here, let me help with that . . .
USC § 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
(B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
(C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
(i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
(5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States obligations under that Article.
_____
Obama has done none of these, while your boys in Bush Co. have violated numerous sections. Voting for funding is not a war crime. Voting is on legislation is part of a Senator’s job description even if that legislation is to fund an illegal attack on a third party. Or would you rather our troops be sent abroad, legally or not, without proper support? As far as war crimes go, implementing systematized torture and pissing on the Geneva Convention, Bush’s doing not Obama’s, clearly are war crimes. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg of Bush Co. wrong doing.
I’m laughing alright, BVM. Squarely at you.
I’m sorry, but you’ll be leaving the show now. Enjoy your parting gift, which consists entirely of this demonstration of your ignorance of subject matter and trollish nature. Here’s a hint though – if you’re attempting the tactic of guilt by false association, you shouldn’t do it with people who are not trained to argue from fact, law and logic.
I suggest playing the kid’s version of “Propaganda Weasel” before you try to run with the big dogs. You’ll only keep hurting yourself and providing much amusement to people who know better.
Buddha you need to laugh at yourself.
Voting to Fund a War of Aggression is a War Crime. Each Aye vote to fund is a War Crime. Obama over the years has voted at least 11 times to Fund Wars of Aggression.
Obama, Bush and many of their administrations are War Criminals.
rofl S.O.
But point taken.
How about the category of “Misapplied Propaganda Techniques” for $100?
You mean he cannot advance to the next Round? What say you, that you are not being very spiritually sensitive to the person that appears to be covered by the ADA. Oh My.
At least let him pick another category so that they can excel in their Bliss.
BVM,
Obama could not have been a war criminal for years as he has not been CIC for years, but merely months. Any crime going on here he’s stepped into as a clean up man, not an instigator. But it’s just like a troll to be so stupid as to not be able to read a calendar. Who ordered the invasion of a country that didn’t attack us (Iraq) and protected one that did (Saudi Arabia)?
George Bush and Dick Cheney.
BUZZZZZZZZ!
Sorry! You don’t advance to the next round.
Mike S. & Patty,
Can you give an example of any indication that Obama intends to move forward? That he intends to correct the overreaching power grab for the Executive made by the Neocons? Beyond assurances “Obama knows what he’s doing” because that’s psychic prognostication, not evidentiary.
All I see every week is more stalling, back peddling, evasion and backing of Bush’s illegalities. I’d be more supportive if he’d done something, anything (and I literally mean anything of substance), that looked progressive.
He hasn’t that I’ve seen.
For one example, how about telecom immunity? I used to work in telecom and I’ll guarantee to you that they don’t give a damn about your rights, only about whether they get the next round of fat (and VERY padded) govt. contracts. He could have handled that by saying the capacity of the Echelon and Carnivore programs was legal, but that searches and legal use of products of said searches for prosecution would require judicial review by someone like a FISA court if not approval before said searches were carried out. But he didn’t. He even went beyond Bush’s stance on that as evidenced by recent TV appearances by our host. Seeing JT talk about this subject on Countdown literally made me sick to my stomach. I was eating Tums by the handful.
What about the nebulous status of Bagram? How about there have been no assurances that prisoners captured outside the war zone will not be shipped there as a way to skirt habeas corpus in a semi-legal albeit dubious manner since as a POW prison in an active theater habeas corpus does not apply to Bagram detainees?
How about his not addressing Halliburton, the palette of missing cash and their suspicious move to Dubai in a blatant attempt to flee prosecution? True, he’s issued orders to change the contracting system, but what about taking to task those who abused it like Halliburton? Nothing I can see except moving to close the barn door after the horse’s escaped. A practical move, but hardly enough to be called justice.
Inaction is a type of action.
Obama has done nothing to contract the Executive powers illegally expanded under Bush other than lip service and indeed has gone beyond Bush in exerting those powers as shown above. If you can give me an example other than Gitmo and Holder’s placations, I’ll back off, but I’m starting to get bent on this subject.
Yes, I’ll stipulate he’s walked into a real shit storm and that it’s early – maybe even too early – for harsh criticism. But he’s not giving any indication that he intends to correct and every indication he intends to carry on Bush’s criminal expansion of Executive power. Is he just that crafty that he’s waiting until their guard is down? Ehhhhh, I don’t think so. Their guard will never be down. They’re politicians which makes them paranoid by nature. If Spanish prosecution for war crimes isn’t enough motivation to tackle the elephant of Bush Co. crime in the room, then what is? When do We the People go all Howard Beale and say, “ENOUGH! I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!” Six months from now? Maybe. A year from now? Tenable but not ideal. Two years? That’s more problematic. After his re-election? Yeah, right. Justice delayed is justice denied. It shouldn’t require pressure from our allies to do the right thing. We are supposed to be the good guys. And personally I don’t give a tinker’s damn if the GOP thinks it’s vendetta or not – that’s the price of backing criminals. Just as the Whigs faded from view, maybe it’s time for the GOP to fade out as well. They are providing a great disservice to traditional conservatives like our friends Bron and FFLEO. I’d want heads on a stick if Bush had been a Democrat just as much as I do now. I don’t care about partisanship. I care about justice for all, restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution.
I’d really like Obama to fix things. I really would. I’m even willing to give him a little more time to show he’s moving in the right direction. But I’m just not seeing enough or indeed any movement up to this point. I’d cut him some slack if he’d just give a sign he’s moving in the right direction. Any sign that wasn’t just talk, but actual action toward holding the obviously (hence my earlier use of the term of art prima facie) guilty accountable.
He shows a remarkable tolerance for white collar crime too. His coddling those snake-oil salesmen on Wall St. isn’t helping boost my confidence. Every manager at AIG should be unemployed sans bonus. I want to punch that smug toad Ken Lewis in the head repeatedly every time I see his snotty little smirk on TV or the Net. He strikes me as the kind of guy who used to get his butt kicked once a month in high school but got zero sympathy from the school admins as they knew he was a provocative little hammerhead that earned the beatings he got because he went out of his way to piss people off – like paying the M-L bonuses with taxpayer money. Being a douche bag has consequences. Or it should in a just world. Now why does he still have a job and Rick Wagoner is gone at GM? What does Obama do instead of cleaning house at the banks that screwed up in the first place? Fire the head of the largest manufacturing concern in the country, a producer of real wealth and jobs, not paper arbitrage garbage – fake wealth with all the stability of Monopoly money. A country is only as great as it’s physical production capacity and the only capacity we’ve been protecting is the capacity to manufacture bullshit like credit default swaps – a concept that is not only ridiculous but mathematically offensive. And I don’t want to hear about the sanctity of contracts either after what’s been done to the unions and what gets done to contracts that are modified and abrogated in courts around this country every day of the work week for being contrary to policy or on other grounds. I’m not saying Wagoner didn’t need to go, but what I am saying is let’s be fair about cleaning house. The negligence and mismanagement of the big banks like BoA far outstrips any mismanagement by Wagoner at GM so it is only fair they pay as steep or a steeper price than he did.
I see no evidence of Obama moving forward in a substantive way up to now, but much to the contrary. If he’s jogging and not running as Patty suggests, it looks to me like he’s jogging in place. It’s one thing to be subtle. It’s another thing to be ineffective.
Of course, it could just be the switch to decaf. It’s making me severely grumpy. And I do mean grumpy. Like Smaug was grumpy when the Hobbits found him. Or Dracula when Van Helsing showed up. I can’t even imagine what heroin or cocaine withdrawal is like. This is worse than quitting smoking. Much worse. Then again, I was always a light smoker (usually when out drinking and carousing) and a two plus pot a day man on the Columbian bean juice. Damn you Juan Valdez and your treacherous mule! See? I’m catching your mule aversion, Mike. I’ve even yelled at that cats. 🙁 Bad Buddha! So it could just be me being out of sorts. But if you can point to evidence that “Obama knows what he’s doing” as Patty says, I’d be glad to listen to it.
Right now? I’m liking Obama less every day. Tomorrow I may have to hit Caribou Coffee for the real deal and see if that helps improve my mood. To Hell with Doctor’s orders.
Since Obama has been a War Criminal for years I do not trust him or the U.S. Government to do investigations and prosecutions of U.S. War Crimes. Other countries will need to follow in investigations and prosecutions. These actions will open up the War Crimes of Washington D.C. – the evil city of the world. Washington is seen to the world as the Berlin of the Hitler years of atrocities. The U.S. Government has violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials. I do not advocate the death penalty but most of those Nazis were hung.
Obama, Bush and many of their administrations are War Criminals.
Most all of Congress is highly complicit too.
They all belong in the same trial.
Barack Obama should not be president. He is a Warmonger / War Criminal, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Obama’s Votes for Troop Funding
(we believe this accounting from http://www.FactCheck.org is accurate)
Within four months of being sworn in as a U.S. senator, Obama – in lock-step with fellow Senate Democrats – began a string of votes in favor of war-funding bills.
2005: Obama voted for Senate passage (Vote 109, April 21) of an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which passed 99 to 0. He also voted for the final House-Senate compromise version of the same legislation (Vote 117, May 10), which passed 100 to 0.
Later in 2005, additional war funds were contained in the regular Pentagon appropriations bill. Obama voted for the Senate version (Vote 254, Oct. 7), which passed 97 to 0 and also for the final compromise (Vote 366, Dec. 21), which passed 93 to 0.
2006: Obama supported another emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which included war funding and much else, voting for a cloture motion to end debate and schedule a vote (Vote 103, May 2). The measure passed 92 to 4, with four Democrats opposed for reasons other than war funding. He then voted for Senate passage (Vote 112, May 4). The bill was approved by a vote of 77 to 21, with only Republican opposed, and finally, Obama voted for the final House-Senate compromise version (Vote 117, June 15), which passed 98 to 1, with a single Republican voting against it.
Later in 2006, Obama supported the regular Pentagon appropriations bill, which included $50 billion in “contingency funding” intended for the first six months of war funding. He voted for Senate passage of that bill (Vote 239, Sept. 7), which passed 98 to 0, and also for the House-Senate compromise version (Vote 261, Sept. 29) which passed 100 to 0.
2007: Obama’s final vote for troop funding (Vote 147, April 26) was for an emergency supplemental appropriation that also included a call for withdrawal from Iraq. Obama issued a news release at the time, saying: “We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. … With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough.” The measure passed 51 to 46 and was vetoed.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_on_troop_support.html
Buena Vista, your conclusions are incorrect and your strategy is hapless. Bush and his cronies are not going to avoid responsibility for their actions by pointing to congressional votes on appropriations bills. You’d best try another tactic to protect your friends.
I agree with Mike S. and Gyges. It would certainly be preferable for any investigation and prosecution to be conducted by our own government. The first reason is political. There is a very powerful element in this country that will regard any investigation into the Bush administration as bordering on treason. (Look at the reaction on the right when Pres. Obama publicly acknowledged that we have been occasionally arrogant and dismissive in our dealings with the rest of the world; one would have thought that he had just agreed to return Alaska to Russia.) However, that element can be handled if the Obama administration proceeds carefully and thoroughly. Opposition tends to gradually dissolve as evidence is disclosed, particularly if the evidence is direct and powerful. Should prosecution be conducted by another country (and the identity of the country is absolutely immaterial), many Americans will be outraged because it will be perceived as a violation of our sovereignty, despite its legitimacy under international law. Prosecution of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government is politically more acceptable. The second reason is legal. With the procedural and substantive protections built into our legal system, successful prosecution of war crimes by our own government will be viewed as fair by a substantial majority of our own citizens. The third reason is idealistic, but important. By taking the lead in investigating the Bush administration, we will be telling the world that we regard war crimes committed in this country to be as reprehensible as those occurring in third world dictatorships. That will go a long way toward restoring our position of moral leadership in the world and will enable us to aggressively promote compliance with the Geneva Conventions in the future without hypocrisy.
Online Wall Street Journal has bold face lie in article concerning Obama War-Funding of Torture and other War Crimes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123930740307806067.html
In the story, “Obama Risks Liberal Backlash on War Funding” the reporter, Greg Hitt, states that “Mr. Obama. As a senator, he voted against Iraq war funding bills.” This is a blatant lie.
Following is Obama’s War-Funding Voting Record:
Upon entering the Senate in 2005 through April 2007 Obama voted for every war-funding bill that came before him. Obama, despite his anti-war rhetoric, has cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills. Funding a War of Aggression is a War Crime, each vote was a War Crime. Obama and co-conspirators are guilty in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Some estimate as many as 1,400,000 Iraqis have died due to the US-led war. Obama approved funds which were used to buy bombs and bullets to murder and maim tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan children – in your name.
On 6/26/08 Obama voted for passage of H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, a war funding bill. It was signed into law on June 30, 2008.
Obama has voted for at least 11 War-Funding bills for US-led Wars of Aggression. Obama is a War Criminal.
I am unabashedly ashamed that I helped Nixon in as well. What is a person that does not yet have the right to vote know in the 70. I will give Nixon one thing. He did stop the draft.
The watergate shit and all the other stuff as the song goes does not bother me. I heard and we used it in campaign stuff. I was the first Democrat in my family. I stood in my convictions and got poor.
This last year I voted again anti-establishment and gave Ralphie the nod. I realized that it was throwing my vote away, but I did vote and voted my conscience.
Now that Obama is in office, do I agree with him. Not necessarily. Does he have the balls to do what he thinks shouod be done, right or wrong. Most Narcissistic people do. Will I support him in all of his decesion, maybe not. Can I do anything about it, yes, VOTE.
Obama go a mess to clean up. It is worse that any toxic environmental spill that has ever occured in my life.
So let the man do his work that he is paid for. Would I do it. NO. Will I complain, Not like I used to. Thats all.