Should US officials face prosecution for war crimes?
by Kim Pearson

Rep. John Conyers has announced that next week, he will hold hearings on "serious credible allegations of misconduct" by the Bush administration over the last several years. Those allegations include evidence of torture reported by Physicians for Human Rights last month. In the Preface to that report, Ret. Major Gen. Antonio Taguba asserted:

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media
accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no
longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed
war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether
those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

Writing for The Nation, Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith argue that momentum is building in favor of war crimes prosecutions,and they say it's high time.  

4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our
government.

The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise
the unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of
our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as
citizens, would "submit ourselves to rules only if under rules."
Countries like Chile can attest that the restoration of democracy and
the rule of law requires more than voting a new party into office--it
requires a rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government
officials.

Brecher and Smith are referring to the administration's use of the concept of the unitary executive to justify what critics see as an unjustified grab of Presidential power. Beginning with such writings as former Bush counsel John Yoo's Sept. 25, 2001 memorandum asserting that the President had broad war-making authority in the wake of an attack on the US, administration critics say that his advisors have twisted the law to create a near imperial presidency.  

University of Chicago professor Cass Sunstein argues while that the unitary executive theory pertains only to the President's power within the executive branch.  According to Sunstein, who is an advisor to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, the theory pertains to such matters as whether the President can fire an independent prosecutor. It does not give the President the right to defy a ruling of the Supreme Court or an act of Congress. 

However, Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft argues that the Bush administration, as well as conservative judges such as Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have indeed asserted that the theory gives the President broader powers:

"Some Conservatives continue to argue that Democrats misunderstand the
"unitary executive" theory, saying it does not mean unfettered
Presidential power. I suggest they immediately inform the Bush
Administration, they say otherwise...

Sandiegowoman is worried that even if Democrats take the White House in November, there will be no investigations or prosecutions, despite all of the investigations:

[Sunstein], an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law
School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current
Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of
criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid
replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President
Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it.

Maybe someone can explain how the public and Government would be
criminalizing public service by prosecuting criminals who have
blatantly used their offices to prosecute, persecute, and murder
millions of people in the world against the will of the people who pay
their salaries and put them in office?

 This really isn't a matter of whether one agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. It's about whether we believe that the law has been violated. Ideally, if there is evidence that a president has overstepped the bounds imposed by the Constitution, there should be accountability, regardless party or policy.

What do you think? 

Submitted by Kim Pearson (view blog) on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 00:41

Comments

 

lost in all the talk

lost in all the talk about war crimes, loss of freedoms at home, abuse
of power around the world is one simple fact....george bush has kept us
safe for the last 7 years. like it or not...there has not been a
terrorist incident on u.s. soil since 9/11. maybe rep. john conyers
should direct some more of his time and energy looking into 'real'
abuses of power around the world, including some countries that are
reportedly allies of ours. bush has made his mistakes and history will
judge his presidency, not some rep. who is looking for his 15 minutes
of fame.

 

dave

gocalifornia.blogspot.com 

Submitted by davet. on Sun, 07/20/2008 - 22:02
 

Who is "us"? Torture doesn't keep us safe

Dave: The soldiers this government sent to kill & to die aren't "kept safe" by President Bush. While as a nation we are engaged in an unjust war we are not safe. While our government condones torture, and illegal spying and surveillance, and no limits on its own powers, we aren't safe from our own government.   

Yes I think Bush and Rumsfeld are war criminals, history will see them as such, and history will judge us for not working harder to stop them.  

 

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Contributing Editor, World and Latin America

Submitted by Liz Henry on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 09:28
 

Let me understand what you are saying.

Dave,

Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether domestic and international laws were violated because we haven't had another such attack? What does that mean for the principles that we say are at the core of our democracy? I sincerely want to understand how that works.

Another problem with your argument is that it suggests that the actions being criticized were necessary to achieve the goal. The dissenters cited in this post and my previous two posts are diplomatic and military experts who were charged with protecting this country after 9/11. While there are always policy disagreements among such experts, it is startling to see open dissent and allegations of official misconduct in this community. They have internal channels that can be used to express disagreement.  Consider what it means that they have gone public.

Just one additional personal comment. In 2000, a defender of Pres. Clinton's handling of al-Qaeda could also have said that there had not been another foreign terrorist attack in seven years. (I think we can agree that Oklahoma City is a different matter, since it was an act of domestic terrorism.)

Thanks so much for commenting.  

 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 06:28
 

I feel like Congress has already failed me

When the midterm election shifted power in the legislative branch, I had high hopes that we would see some changes, some revoking of the powers that the executive branch saw fit to grant itself while Congress was looking the other way. I had high hopes that the Patriot Act would be repealed, that domestic spying would stop or at the very least, require a warrant and probable cause, that we'd see things like the no-fly list get canned in favor or more effective security measures.

Um. No go.

Given the lack of action from Congress now, I am not particularly optimisitic that accountability will be a priority. 

 

Nerd's Eye View

Submitted by Pam on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 14:48
 

no attacks since 9/11

liz,

coming from a military family, i treasure the service
these men and women give to our country. that being said, all of them
know when they make the pledge and sign the papers that their lives are
at risk...just as those who wear a police uniform, firefighter outfit,
etc. it is easy to monday morning QB this war, but WHAT IF saddam had
used weapons on our troops and allies in the region, we knew he had
weapons, and we did nothing about it??? even some of the liberals would have
screamed for bush's neck. until, god forbid, we're hit again on u.s.
soil, i will believe we are safer. that 'torture' that you refer to has
undoubtedly saved both lives here at home and our soldiers abroad. as i
noted in an earlier blog, this notion that we've inflamed the
arab/muslim world and they all hate us as a result of iraq is nonsense.
this general war on terror goes back to the 1970s when our fearless
leader jimmy carter sat and did nothing as our hostages were kept in
iranian jails for more than a year. we showed ourselves to be weak to
the world at that time and hence we've been fighting this war ever
since. i've been the first to say before that i have a number of issues
with bush, but i appreciate the fact he has kept me and my family safe
since 9/11.

 

dave

san diego, ca.

Submitted by davet. on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 15:06
 

Evidence, please?

In October, 2007, Adm. Scott Redd, chief of the National Counterterrorism Center said the Iraq War probably hasn't made the US safer. Please direct us to support for your statement that it has "undoubtedly" saved lives. 

I'm surprised that you've noted the Iranian hostage crisis without noting the precipitating role of the 1953 overthrough of Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. The US and the British were heavily involved in that coup.  

By the way, the Stanford Encyclopedia has a nice overview of the debate over whether torture is ever defensible. And here is some data on Arab and Muslim opinion of the US from the Pew Research Center from 2000-2005. The impact of the War on Terror is quite demonstrable and negative. This article from the Harvard International Review is also helpful, I think. 

 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 07:00
 

I am also patriotic

Well Dave I also am in a family with a history of military service. My grandfathers fought in WWII and my grandmother was the first WAVE to sign up for service in her state in WWII. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and went willingly though scared out of his wits figuring that he owed service to the U.S. although he was born and raised in another country. And I grew up hearing about it from people's personal experience, and reading all sorts of military history books. So rest easy on that score.  

However, I believe in establishing and following international laws and in following higher ethics than blind patriotism would require.

Our country while on one hand setting up fairly high ideals of civil liberties, human rights, and justice, fails on many counts.  And it is our job to criticize it and point those things out and be vigilant. That is real patriotism.

For example, the large scale, ever-increasing,  classist and racist injustice of the prison industrial complex in this country.    For another, the way our government started an unjust war, this war in Iraq, by spreading disinformation and terror amongst its own polticians, military leaders, and media.   For another, we could talk about the systematic way that our governmental branch of international terrorists, the CIA, have worked for decades to support government-undermining terrorist efforts in other countries, look at El Salvador for an example that should turn any person's stomach.  

I refer you to the classic punk rock song by New Model Army, "My Country" and its stirring, moving lyrics. Here's the link! 

 http://www.last.fm/music/New+Model+Army/_/My+Country

 

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
Contributing Editor, World and Latin America

Submitted by Liz Henry on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 09:23
 

this country

liz,

i appreciate the sacrifices your family gave to this
country. in my mind, anyone who puts on the military uniform, police
uniform, fire uniform, etc. is a hero in my eyes. in a perfect world,
we (countries) would all get along and live happily ever after. the
problem is that you have terrorists like Ahmadinejad in iran
threatening to wipe israel off the map. now imagine if that were bush
and he threatened to wipe cuba off the map. could you imagine the
outrage and rightfully so in the world community? yet, i don't hear any
outrage, especially on the left, over iran's terrorist, disguised as a
president. all i hear is we can negotiate our way out of everything.
diplomacy should be first, but all options should remain on the table.
there is no doubt, both democrat and republican presidents have
supported covert operations around the world. is it right? i believe it
all depends on the final goal. if it is to remove terrorists that
threaten us or our allies, or to help free people and give them a shot
at the life many of us here take for granted, then i believe it should
be done. if it is for oil or other items, then no. it is funny how
everyone barked that our invading iraq was for the oil. that doesn't
seem to wash when i'm paying $4.60 for a gallon of gas here in
california. as for the prison system, if you do the crime, you do the
time. i don't care if you are white, black, orange, etc. you and i
probably disagree on this subject.... but i think we're too lenient on
criminals in this country. just look at the two college students
murdered a few months ago at auburn and univ. of north carolina. the
thugs who shot and killed those two teenage girls had rap sheets a mile
long, yet were out on the streets again. i'm not railing against the
killers because they're black... i'm upset that these thugs were even
out on the streets in the first place. they are animals just like the
white men who dragged a black man from their pickup truck in texas a
few years back. criminals in this country are often better off in jail
then where they came from. maybe that is something that needs to be
changed? jail should not be a country club as it is for many of these
people.

Submitted by davet. on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 11:17
 

And Then There's Clinton

kim,

i appreciate your thoughts and we respectfully disagree.
i have long argued that we should have finished afghanistan before we
went into iraq. that being said, i appreciate you bringing up bill
clinton earlier. a case can very well be made that we wouldn't have
even been discussing 9/11 and the loss of 3,000 lives had clinton taken out bin laden when he had
the chance. it was back in 1998 and clinton and the u.s. military had
bin laden and some of his top aides in their sights. the u.s. military
could have taken bin laden out with a missle or two, but clinton pulled
the plug on it at the last minute because he was afraid of the public
relations mess that would occur if civilians were killed. we all know
war is not a pretty thing. and no, i'm not saying torture is a
wonderful thing if in fact it is used here. are you saying that you would rather see u.s. troops
or innocent civilians here at home die rather than gaining critical
information from a terrorist as to where the next attack will be? if
you had known ahead of time the plans of the two columbine high killers
nine years ago and police could have gotten that info from them with a
little more aggressive questioning before they killed people, would you
not want that? i will ask my government to do whatever it takes to keep
me and my family safe. at the end of the day, the first and most
important job of any american president is keeping the 300 million-plus
people who live here safe. anything less than that and that person does
not deserve to be in office.

Submitted by davet. on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 08:00
 

Your response presupposes that torture is
effective. Evidence?

Hi Dave,

It seems now that everyone thinks the US should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of diverting attention to Iraq, but that is a tactical and not a legal issue in my mind. Whether Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after bin Laden is also not a legal issue. As for the Columbine killers, why are we talking about whether they should have been tortured for information? Were they ever questioned at all?

Every expert I've read says torture doesn't work, including Sen. McCain. If that's the case, then based on your criteria, an official who sanctions torture "does not deserve to be in office."

Thanks again for engaging.

Sincerely, 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 08:22
 

torture

kim,

i brought up columbine as an example in what possibly
could have been prevented. i know they were never questioned before and
obviously after. i was simply saying 'if' police had been tipped off
ahead of time to their plans, and 'if' they had been questioned. i'm
not saying we would have used waterboarding for eric and dylan...i'm
simply saying that aggressive questioning and methods are sometimes
needed on a few individuals to save the lives of many others. i also
brought up the clinton note about bin laden because it goes right to my
point of protecting this country and its citizens. clinton had an
obligation to do whatever was necessary to remove this cancer (bin
laden) and he failed to do so because of the potential fall out in the
arab world that would have come with it. i think presidents in both
parties have made bad foreign policy decisions in my 43 years of life.
what kind of message we send to the arab world is critical. do we tuck
our tails and run or do we stand up and fight? i firmly believe in
diplomacy first, taking action second. that said, we (i should say
saddam) exhausted countless opportunities to end things peacefully
prior to 2003. i take issue with bush on a number of subjects as i've
noted earlier, but i also give him credit where credit is due. the
attacks on 9/11 could have been just the start of many deaths in this
country. you have to go back to pearl harbor to have seen anything
remotely like it where foreigners attacked this country. why is it so
hard for people on the left to give this man (bush) an ounce of credit? i
think clinton did some good things; i think carter did some good
things. while i would never have voted for either, i tip my hat to them
when they did something good. the hatred on the left for bush does not
allow people to credit him for anything. the bottom line is we have not
been attacked since 9/11 and i thank bush and many others for keeping
us safe at home.

Submitted by davet. on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 08:59
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service