******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
In 2003, Bush/Cheney waged an “aggressive” pre-emptive war – “the most serious violation of international law” - against Iraq, as well as violating The Conventions against Torture – both signed onto by the US government and thus violations of US law – impeachable offenses. Why doesn't Dowd mention the role of the Democrats??? The Convention against Torture. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture That treaty - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858 - which was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988, *compels* all signatories who discover credible allegations that government officials have participated or been complicit in torture to "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" (Art. 7(1)). It also specifically states that "*no exceptional circumstances whatsoever*, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" and "an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture" (Art. 2 (2-3)). “Accountability” is a reference to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies to Americans serving in the US military and to US Federal Law, which is binding on all Americans, civilian or military. In 1996, the US Congress passed the War Crimes Act which codifies the consequences of violating the Geneva Conventions in US Federal Law. Under “War Crimes” it says that committing a war crime shall result in either a fine, life imprisonment, or both, and if death results to the victim, the accused shall also be subject to the death penalty. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention states that “no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits “at any time and in any place whatsoever”, “violence, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” In February, 2002 Bush signed an executive order saying that Common Article 3 does not apply to Qaeda or Taliban captives. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/timeline-of-cias-secret-interrogation-program.html? <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001qXlvmNzF7XNJQETlXDFYCqtf5mGl01P-_PzyapikY829lAv2clYePDlwm2wjs6pwmnof5ltZdQr4PGvK9ZgsbmSINnTOTuGFfDH_QIMNM6GsC5lpgSM3LIbFQA8tkjZAdWDntuX7xnXADQM9QVpRnCG_QSGxZR3MDUP4crGNWTzYsBxI3mvKTsR5v-IW-nSDGRPT9XRfx6aUjMhL9wN-iBzWGQHXqWR61jrhE5CIbscvu6_QnQfGnL2caRpEVUg-znpQAquNseqKVS-i6zQyvVRkYr-IUIorMiGvArp9AzA=&c=mt0_P1G4zB8cMo33rlvna9jJe7Ix_xeCaM8iMIh6juUu-xiNIOqEmw==&ch=63xfFWtninefdy6k52PkXSw975ROntQkM38wwdmU0wB4BAZEWtg6mQ==> The 1996 US War Crimes Act *requires* those guilty of crimes to be brought before its nation’s courts or handed over for trial to another nation. By refusing to bring members of the Bush/Cheney administration to trial as well as CIA personnel (including present CIA Director Gina Haspel) who destroyed 85 videotapes of US-run torture sessions at Abu Gharib – “obstruction of justice” - Congress and the entire US legal system is complicit with their crimes. So where was "The Opposition Party” when it came time to enforce the law? Liberals like Dowd and the hacks on MSNBC have conveniently forgotten how, right at the start of his administration, Obama went to CIA headquarters and told the media "We tortured some folks". Apparently coming clean was good enough with no prosecution of the torturers necessary. No one from the "liberal" media questioned the former Constitutional law professor on his complicity with these crimes when he hid behind the pathetic slogan, “we must look forward, not backward.” Obama said Sept. 24, 2009: “International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced.” Where was the enforcement? He was impeachable for refusing to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials responsible for torture - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer ) and thus brazenly violated at least the spirit and probably the letter http://www.salon.com/2009/02/16/treaties/ Enforcing the law is like exercising a muscle – refusing to enforce it and uphold stiff consequences for law breakers causes atrophy of the law and sets a precedent for future would-be criminals – that they too can escape punishment for their actions. If I can go through this stop sign or exceed the speed limit on this stretch of highway every day without getting a ticket, soon everyone will feel empowered to do it. In 1969, Richard Nixon, behind the backs of Congress, most of his Cabinet, the media, and the American people, secretly bombed a neutral nation (Cambodia) for a year and a half. This was both a violation of international law, and an impeachable offense since it was a violation of the division of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, laid out in the Constitution. A President does not have the power to conduct his own private war. By refusing to prosecute him for either/both crimes, the “opposition” Democrats created a precedent that was favorable to future transgressors. When Nixon was forced to resign not over this, but over the Watergate break-in, his handpicked successor, Gerald Ford pardoned him. There was never a peep out of the Democrats about insisting that justice be served concerning the above listed criminal acts. They just wanted the situation to go away and were relieved to sweep the issue under the rug. In 1986 when the Reagan Administration violated the Constitution in two instances (“Iran-Contra”) by secretly sending weapons to a government (Iran) on the US State Department list of “terrorist states” where military aid was proscribed, and violating the division of powers clause by ignoring a Congressional resolution that banned military aid to those (“Contras”) seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan government (the Boland Amendment), he was impeachable on both counts, but the “opposition” Democrats refused to prosecute any one of the law breakers. This served as a green light for the future criminality of the W Bush/Cheney administration. The disgrace of the American torture regime falls on Bush officials and secondarily the media and leading Democrats (Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi) that acquiesced to it, but the full-scale protection of those war crimes (and the denial of justice to their victims) falls squarely on the Obama administration. This opened the door for Trump to waltz through with his choice of a torture (Gina Haspel) to head the CIA. Why were there no prosecutions? A President's Inaugural Oath is a pledge to defend and uphold all US law. Hence, Obama was LEGALLY COMPELLED to prosecute the Bush/Cheney gang and by refusing, he made himself complicit in their crimes. There is no reason for powerful people to follow the rules if they know they cannot and will not suffer any consequences for breaking them. A system in which only the weak are punished is not a two-tiered system of justice, but one in which justice cannot be said to meaningfully exist. At key moments, leading Democrats refused to move the country to uphold international and US law. They and the NY Times would like us to forget this. https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/49022-democrats-surrender-on-torture-is-nearly-complete https://socialistworker.org/2009/09/22/democrats-look-the-other-waythe It’s easy for liberals today to retroactively seek justice, but where were they when crimes were being committed? We know the answer – they were more dedicated to partisan politics and defending criminals in their party than in the pursuit of justice regardless of party. They are not shy about criticizing the Cheneys and Trumps, but when it comes to the Clintons and Obamas, “lesser evilism” demands biting of the tongue … and silent complicity. As is the case with many other issues, the Republicans are guilty of lies of commission, while the Democrats prefer lies of omission. This is part of the reason why a poll last week showed 57% in favor of a third party! On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM Louis Proyect via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: NY Times op-Ed, Nov. 11, 2018 > Who’s the Real American Psycho? > By Maureen Dowd > > WASHINGTON — Donald Trump is running wild — and running scared. > > He’s such a menace that it’s tempting to cheer any vituperative critic > and grab any handy truncheon. But villainizing Trump should not entail > sanitizing other malefactors. > > ...... _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
