1
1
1
"That statute, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a "war crime' by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War crime'"is defined to include any grave breach of the GPW [Geneva] or any violation of Article 3 thereof (such as outrages against personal dignity)"Punishments for violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty".
""it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors or independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination [that Geneva does not apply] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."
With that kind of pre-ordered reassurance, President Bush issued a two-page executive directive [ see http://tinyurl.com/dl6u9s ], in which he states, "I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees""
This is the smoking gun on Bush's key role in the subsequent torture of "war on terror" prisoners. It turns out that he was the "decider" after all, as Dick Cheney has taken pains to make clear (telling Bob Schieffer recently that Bush "signed off" on abusive techniques). The Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report, without dissent, last December stating that that Feb. 7 memorandum "opened the door" to abusive interrogation practices.
Unhappily for Bush and for those who carried out his instructions, on June 29, 2009 the Supreme Court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that Geneva DOES apply to al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees. One senior Bush administration official is reported to have gone quite pale at the time, when Justice Anthony M. Kennedy raised the ante, warning that "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes,' punishable as federal offenses."
What about U.S. criminal law? Despite the almost laughable attempts by lawyers like Addington and John Yoo to get around the War Crimes Act by advising that only the kind of pain accompanying major organ failure or death can be considered torture, those involved are now in a cold sweat--the more so, since those dubious opinions have now been made public.
The Justice Dept. Memos and CIA IG Report
In releasing the sordid, torture-approving memoranda written
by Department of Justice lawyers and major portions of the CIA's own
horse's-mouth Inspector General "Special Review" on interrogation and torture,
President Barack Obama and Holder had to face down very strong pressure from
those with the most to lose.
Again, these include former CIA directors and the functionaries (some of them in senior CIA positions to this very day) who were responsible for seeing to it that "the gloves came off."
Now, out in the public domain is all the evidence needed to show that war crimes were committed--"authorized" as legal by Justice Department Mafia-type lawyers recruited for that express purpose--but war crimes nonetheless. Torture, kidnapping, illegal detention--not to mention blatant violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) outlawing eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant.
The stakes are high. No wonder the CIA and its "agents of influence" are going all out (see Saturday's lead story in the Washington Post. http://tinyurl.com/mdrjff )
No Surprise, But Sad Nonetheless
It should have come as no surprise that Attorney General Eric Holder would run into a buzz saw when he decided to do his constitutional duty and investigate whether crimes have been committed. Certainly Cheney and Fox News had made that abundantly clear. CIA seniors and functionaries with the most to lose are now pulling out all the stops.
In their Sept. 18 letter to the President, seven former CIA directors asked him to "reverse Attorney General Holder's August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of September 11."
This is the saddest commentary on CIA covert action operatives' continuing power and their disdain for the law since their predecessor creeps loudly applauded former Director Richard Helms for lying to Congress about the CIA role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende on 9/11/73. The largest CIA cafeteria was bulging with welcoming supporters of Helms, when the court got finished with him. They then took up a collection on the spot to pay the fine the court had imposed after he was allowed to plead nolo contendere.
Among the most transparent parts of the letter from the Gang of Seven is their worry that "there is no reason to expect that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused."
