Beyond Impeachment

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Beyond Impeachment: The Bush Administration as War Criminals

-25-05, 9:14 am

In the wake of the Downing Street Memo and other leaked British documents created before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, many have begun to question the legality of the Bush administration's actions. In particular, families of soldiers, a few Democratic senators, and hundreds of thousands of outraged Americans, are calling for an independent investigation of the Bush administration's manipulation and outright fabrication of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. The word "impeachment" is even being bandied about.

While it is certainly appropriate to demand an independent investigation of the Bush administration's pre-invasion shenanigans, as well as to pursue bringing articles of impeachment against the President for his official misconduct, there is something larger at stake. There is the matter of the Bush administration's post-invasion atrocities.

Pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, adopted on May 22, 2003, the U.S. and the United Kingdom identified themselves and were recognized as the occupying powers of Iraq. As an occupying power, the U.S. accepted duties that were coextensive with its area of occupation. That is, the greater its degree of control, the greater its degree of responsibility.

With the creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by men hand-picked by the Bush administration, the U.S. clearly and undeniably took control over every aspect of what remained of Iraq. Likewise, the CPA, by and through the U.S. military, provided the security (such that it was), created and enforced the laws (such as they were), and provided any semblance of infrastructure following the ouster of Saddam. In short, the U.S., and its coalition of the willing, assumed total control of post-Saddam Iraq.

The so-called handover of "authority" to the Iraqi transitional government did not change the status of the U.S. as an occupying force. The transitional government has no authority over the U.S. military or its civilian contractors. Indeed, without the presence of the U.S. military, there would be no transitional government. Furthermore, the transitional government operates under laws and regulations created and promulgated by the CPA. Therefore, the Iraqi transitional government is itself governed by the law of the occupying force, rendering it little more than a facade.

Having assumed control as an occupying power, the U.S. also assumed responsibility for what occurred during its occupation of Iraq. Among its responsibilities to the people of Iraq is the duty to ensure against violence to life and person, including cruel treatment and torture, as required under Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 3 establishes a minimum set of rights for all persons under occupation, regardless of their status as civilian, unprivileged belligerent, terrorist, or war criminal. (The United States is not only a signatory to the Fourth Convention, but also expressly recognizes the requirements of Article 3 via the War Crimes Act of 1996.) Furthermore, under Article 31 of the Fourth Convention, "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons [those subject to occupation], in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties." Article 147 expressly eliminates the defense of military necessity.

In his report regarding the investigation of prisoner abuse by and interrogation techniques of the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib, Major General Antonio M. Taguba found "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses," which were "systemic" and "intentionally perpetrated." Aside from the acts of "physical and moral" coercion graphically depicted in the notorious Abu Ghraib photographs, Gen. Taguba found credible evidence of "breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees," as well as "sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."

The interrogation tactics were imported from Guantanamo Bay where they were already known to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law. Such tactics included the use of dogs, stripping prisoners naked, causing physical pain, exploiting Islamic concerns for modesty, sleep deprivation, isolated confinement, and chaining detainees to the floor for extended periods of time. All of these techniques were approved by the Bush administration, developed at Guantanamo, exported to Abu Ghraib, and known to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Indeed, the interrogation techniques developed at Guantanamo and subsequently employed at Abu Ghraib were created pursuant to President Bush's declaration in February 2002 that those detained at Guantanamo were outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. At the same time that the Bush administration was openly declaring the Geneva Conventions inapplicable to its war on terror, it was requesting legal justification from the Departments of Justice and Defense for interrogation involving physical abuse. Therefore, while the Bush administration might not have expressly authorized the more barbaric abuses which occurred at Abu Ghraib, by so radically changing and rejecting the laws of war, the Bush administration most certainly knew that the systemic sadism at Abu Ghraib was likely, if not certain.

As recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision In re Yamashita, "the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who are to some extent responsible for their subordinates." It is clear from another decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Madsen v. Kinsella, that President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, is the commander of the military force by which the occupation of Iraq is held. Thus, Bush is responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates in Iraq. Furthermore, based upon the "torture memos" commissioned by the White House, Bush certainly should have known that torture and abuse would be perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. For the White House to claim otherwise strains credulity.

As the occupying power, the U.S. is also obligated under Article 3 of the Fourth Convention to ensure that "the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for." Thus, the intentional failure to provide adequate medical treatment, or a policy of denial and neglect involving foreseeable consequences, would be a clear violation of this duty.

Nevertheless, as repeatedly reported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as by the BBC and the New York Times, and as recently documented by journalist Dahr Jamail in his report, "Iraqi Hospitals Ailing Under Occupation," the U.S. is in gross violation of Article 3.

For instance, on November 6, 2004, as a prelude to its invasion of Fallujah, the U.S. military razed Nazal Emergency Hospital, the city's only healthcare facility for trauma victims. U.S. forces also detained doctors and patients, and prevented any surgeons from entering the besieged city. At Fallujah General Hospital, U.S. forces closed off all access roads and surrounded the hospital with troops and vehicles, preventing patients from getting medical care. Additionally, U.S. snipers targeted civilian ambulances and medical clinics, and intentionally prevented physicians from entering hospitals to treat patients. U.S. troops also prohibited the delivery of necessary medicines or supplies into Fallujah. Similar incidences occurred during the U.S. military's recent offensive in Al Qa'im.
Not only do these actions constitute gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they also constitute war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Under the Rome Statute, it is a war crime to attack personnel or objects (i.e., ambulances and hospitals) involved in humanitarian assistance. It is also a war crime to attack "protected objects," including "hospitals or placed where the sick and wounded are collected."

As Commander-in-Chief of the military, Bush is liable for the acts of his subordinates in Fallujah and Al Qa'im. Bush meets regularly with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is fully briefed on military operations in Iraq. He authorizes military operations (or at least acquiesces to them) and knows or should know something about what they entail. As such, he cannot reasonably plead ignorance of the consequences of his orders and decisions.

Moreover, Bush and his administration knowingly and deliberately created a climate in which it is presumed that the Geneva Conventions and international law are inapplicable to the crusade against terror. Not only did Bush issue his presidential memorandum declaring the Geneva Conventions inapplicable to terrorists (or alleged terrorists, as is more often the case), but his administration has been openly hostile to international bodies and laws which could hold him and his administration accountable.

For instance, aside from its obsessive denigration of the United Nations, the Bush administration is zealously opposed to the International Criminal Court and has even gone so far as to withhold aid from nations who refuse to sign agreements immunizing suspected U.S. war criminals from ICC prosecution. In some cases, the immunity agreements are reciprocal and the U.S. has agreed not to turn over to the ICC accused war criminals from Georgia, Sierra Leon, Tajikistan, Uganda, Israel, and Nicaragua, among others. Not exactly a group that staunchly protects and respects human rights and international law.

In such a climate, is it any wonder U.S. forces in Iraq torture prisoners, shoot at ambulances, and reduce hospitals to rubble? It certainly shouldn't be to Bush and his partners in crime.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1370/1/102/
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,361
60
48
Senator Kerry (D - MA) sends letter to Senate Intelligence Committee pressing for answers on the Downing Street Memo
Larisa Alexandrovna - Raw Story Staff


DOWNING STREET UPDATE
Larisa Alexandrovna - Raw Story Staff

Senator Kerry (D - MA) sends letter to Senate Intelligence Committee pressing for answers on the Downing Street Memo and other Downing documents. The letter leaked to Raw Story, is also signed by Senators Johnson, Corzine, Reed, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and Durbin. The text of the letter is below.

###


June 22, 2005

The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman United States Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:

We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called "Phase II" effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received.

Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved.

In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the "Downing Street Memo"-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address.

The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable."

The minutes reveal that President "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.

These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.

We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.

###


(good article, mog)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,361
60
48
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

moghrabi said:
Thank you. i am doing my best to have enough material to impeach Bush and his cronies.


presenting the material is excellent. Now, if the international community could start impeachment process........that would be just grand. But reality is that it is up to the Americans. Let's see how they handle this. In this case, we have input .....but are the observers in front row seats. :wink:

It could get very interesting. The pressure is building.....
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I hope we have enough American posters here that are open minded regarding this issue. We can debate these issues and present it in a very civil manner. All we need is open eyes and listening ears.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,361
60
48
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

moghrabi said:
I hope we have enough American posters here that are open minded regarding this issue. We can debate these issues and present it in a very civil manner. All we need is open eyes and listening ears.

Americans have a big responsibility now. Somehow, they must address so many serious issues , that the bush G. has brought upon them.......along with taking care of daily business.

Instead of dealing with the "terrorist " issue exclusively and running the nation effectively/progressively ......the regime has created the potential for more terrorism and had damaged the US reputation to the point it will take a very long time to salvage.

some serious damage control is in order now.......not more bush simplistic repetative platitudes.

He keeps repeating (as if to brainwash a population) that the world is a very dangerous place...... yet is contributing to making it more dangerous. How many must die before "they" really awaken to the reality of this. How many more nations will bush antagonize before someone really gets dissed off at the US and we all have a major problem on our hands. He is even telling Blair that blair must build the British military. Leave well enough alone ......and mind your own business for once....let the dust settle from this mess . His meddling (opinions ) are NOT welcome. Does he and his gang need diagrams to comprehend this??

If the international community wants the US opinion/help it will ask for it. There is far too much hardship on this planet without creating more.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Even with diagrams he won't get it. He is a killer and a killer is thirsty for blood. Americans have the responsibility now more than ever to bring him down and try him in the Hague. nothing less is accepted.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

EDIT: Quoted Inflammatory remarks

NOTE: The rest of this post will be for Moghrabi to decide whether he wants to edit.

Where is my love for the terrorsits. Where did i post my love for terrorits. I think you should stay away from personal attacks. If you are disgusted then find another place to cool off.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

dan_c22 said:
Peronal attacks? It is quite obvious from any of your posts, the position you take on the matter.

Yes it is obvious that I am against the ugly war. But nowhere I posted any love or encourgement for the terrorists. Watch what you say, read before you post or you are toast.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

moghrabi said:
EDIT: Quoted Inflammatory remarks

NOTE: The rest of this post will be for Moghrabi to decide whether he wants to edit.

Where is my love for the terrorsits. Where did i post my love for terrorits. I think you should stay away from personal attacks.

Thanks Vanni.
 

dan_c22

New Member
Mar 2, 2005
28
0
1
Ajax ON
Re: RE: Beyond Impeachment

moghrabi said:
Watch what you say, read before you post or you are toast.
So you are countering my perceived insult with a threat? I think the mods should deal with that.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
What was meant is you will be toast by the Mods if you continue to attack personally. I have no need to threaten you.