Rumsfeld, Bush, Implicated in Torture by US Senate
It is official. According to a bipartisan Senate report, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush bear responsibility for the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo and the tossing aside of the Geneva Conventions, which are part of US law.
It mystifies me as to why this report is being announced now, at the end of the week and at a time of the year in the political calendar when it will not get much play.
The report calls for no sanctions to be imposed, even though it implies that high US officials committed war crimes.
But if I were Rumsfeld and Bush, I'd avoid a lot of travel abroad from now on. Some zealous prosecutor might have them arrested, as happened to "Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who was charged in Spain and arrested in Britain (though he was released to Chile, he had been in danger of being extradited to Spain).
.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/12/2008 12:28:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Bush II hated to travel abroad before he became president. His first trip to Europe was as President, was it not? Even though his father had been PResident and before that ambassador to China. What kind of rich kid refuses to go to Europe until he is nearly 50.
My slogan for the last five years or so:
Next year in the Hague!
It shouldn't mystify you that the report was released now, as opposed to, say, back when it could have made a difference. Senators are truly cowards. They love their plush seats. They love being a part of the most exclusive club in the world. It's not surprising at all.
Actually timing is irrelevant, sadly, on this issue. In April this year, ABC News got the President to not only admit he authorized torture but he said, "So what?" And nothing happened.
What strikes me is that reporting focuses on Rumsfeld when, in fact, the buck stops with the President who it appears knew exactly what was going on, the impact of his decisions. Also, the Senate report heavily mentions the role of Rice, who is on the air now plumping for Bush's record. Shouldn't she be asked to explain her role?
I'm still waiting for some uppity Iraqi to show up at the Hague. I wonder if people can be tried in absentia? Certainly there is enough evidence in the public sphere. And it implicates the White House as well as Congress.
Bush does have that huge 100,000 acre farm in Paraguay to run to if need be.
This will be interesting in the coming decades. Judge Bybee, John Yew, General Miller, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush will remain in peril. Even a presidential pardon may not spare them prosecution.
Every signatory of the Geneva Convention and the Torture Convention has jurisdiction. It is not clear to me that everyone would accept an American pardon, especially, from a President with a conflict of interest.
Although I have never studied this matter systematically, it is my impression that minority rights have typically had to rely on elite rather than majority opinion.
When courts and Parliaments granted equal rights to religious and ethnic minorities, mob violence was often the consequence.
If my hunch is correct, it would be doubly true of enemy rights. For obvious reasons, it is quite difficult to understand for people why they should be concerned about the fate of their enemies, never mind that we cannot be sure that arrested individuals are really our enemies.
Yet, the Dreyfus affair, for example, demonstrates that persistence and tenacity pays off. It may be too late but if we keep at it, the abusers will fail.
I share your frustration. Lets keep at it. Thanks for everything you do.
If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium! (Bush and Rumsfeld, as well as Cheney, better hope not.)
Of course they committed war crimes. I discounted the US press, in toto, when Rumsfeld was allowed to get away with his "a few bad apples" argument.
However, Seymour Hersh, who runs his own and unique press operation, with integrity, tells us that several very interesting sources have stated they will be going on the record, come January 21.
And war crimes have no statute of limitations - even if the Bushistas did pass a "any US official arrested by the war crimes court will be extracted by force, if necessary" ruling.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/print/1455/The%2520last%2520man%2520standing
As part of the "NSC Principals" at the time Colin Powell was fully in the loop. However, for a very small price (endorse Obama, bad mouth Palin & Limbaugh) he gets a free pass, and perhaps even a role in an Obama administration!!
Could someone on TV please ask these simple questions?
1) What should happen to someone who tortures an innocent person? i.e., If the person being tortured turns out to be innocent, what should be the punishment for the person(s) doing the torturing, ordering the torture, and legalizing the torture? (as in most US cases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo)
2) Torture should NEVER be legalized, because in extreme "ticking time-bomb" cases, the jury can always side with the torturer if they see a genuine necessity for it.
.
Please spread the word on the film that will put BUSH BEHIND BARS!!!
http://thetorturer.com
.
Post a Comment
<< Home