Cheney War Crimes: Just Look at the Statute

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
By Matthew Rothschild, March 25, 2009





President Obama needs to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to indict Dick Cheney, right now, for war crimes.

Just look at the statute, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 2441. It says that someone is guilty of a war crime if he or she commits a “grave breach of common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions. And then it defines what a grave breach would be.

One such breach is torture, or the conspiracy to commit torture, which Cheney was clearly in on, as when he repeatedly defended waterboarding and talked about the need to go to the “dark side” Here’s the language from the statute: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”

Another grave breach is “cruel or inhuman treatment,” or the conspiracy to inflict such treatment. Again, Cheney was supervising such treatment in the White House, which would qualify as committing this crime. One time, it got so ghoulish that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the other principals, “Why are we talking about this in the White House?

History will not judge this kindly.”

Here’s the language on “cruel or inhuman treatment”: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering . . . including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.”

An additional breach is “mutilation or maiming.” Since some detainees say they no longer have the complete functioning of arms or limbs, Cheney may be on the hook here, too. “The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons . . . by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.”
“Intentionally causing serious bodily harm” is yet another grave breach. The statute defines this as: “The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.”

For each of these offenses, Cheney could receive life in prison, according to the statute.

That is where he belongs.

And it’s time for Obama to stop pussyfooting around. He should indict, arrest, and prosecute Cheney.

“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” said Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.), in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, “Broken Laws, Broken Lives”. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
That question is now firmly on Obama’s desk.

And if he continues to dodge it, he’ll make a sick joke of the pious claim that we are a nation of laws, not men.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,796
11,598
113
Low Earth Orbit
Has an American civil leader or military leader ever been convicted of war crimes? Why start now and ruin a perfect record?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Americans probably think there will be no recourse if they don't punish Cheney but history has proved that is doubtful.
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
The minute War Crimes are mentioned and either the Dick Cheney or GW Bush names are linked to any wrong doing the persons drop out of sight of the media. Then the propaganda machine gets cranked up again by the US. Both are criminals in my book but neither will be held accountable for any of those. If they did wind up in front of the World Court big daddy Bush would invoke all sorts of immediate contacts to call in all IOU's from the global political and banking communities. Accountability is word seldom heard in American politics.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Even if Obama wanted to, he has too many fish to fry as it is. Although I would applaud him if he did.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
If nothing is ever done to bush and cheney for the harm they have done, at least
there could be some good come from it, if everyone who is aware, never forgets,
and makes sure that the crimes and selfishness they both showed 'never happens'
again, from any u.s. leaders.
That trash heap was left behind, and it taught the u.s. people to look long and hard, they did, and they found Obama, and that is something good, so lets not look back, but move forward with a new awareness.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
If FDR is not convicted post-humously for what he did to the Japanese-Americans, and if Harry Truman is not convicted post-humously for what he did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any phoney attempt to convict Bush/Cheney for anything, whatsoever, is trivial and totally inconsequential.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
#juan, a better question would be:

"How can Bush and Cheney be guilty if Franklin D. Rosevelt (and his three lap poodles, ah, Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner (1933-41), Henry Walace (1941- 45) and Harry Truman(1945) are not guilty??

And how can Bush and Cheney be guilty if Harry Truman and his lap dog, ah, Vice President, Alben Barkley are not guilty??

Tell you how: right now ALL American Law is in the hands of Democrats.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Nobody has been convicted of anything, just wishful thinking for some people. What is their to be guilty of other than believing what you were told when Saddam was finally defeated.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
If FDR is not convicted post-humously for what he did to the Japanese-Americans, and if Harry Truman is not convicted post-humously for what he did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any phoney attempt to convict Bush/Cheney for anything, whatsoever, is trivial and totally inconsequential.



What FDR did to the Japanese Americans was a big mistake but being the times, it was understandable. Racial profiling was not against the law back then. As for what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, totally justified. Less people were killed short and long term than in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Most importantly, ended the war. ( also showed the world of the folly of nuclear war during the "Cold War" period, yes I think it saved a lot of lives.)
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
What FDR did to the Japanese Americans was a big mistake but being the times, it was understandable. Racial profiling was not against the law back then. As for what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, totally justified. Less people were killed short and long term than in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. Most importantly, ended the war. ( also showed the world of the folly of nuclear war during the "Cold War" period, yes I think it saved a lot of lives.)

First I have to say that Canada did exactly the same thing to ourJapanese Canadians.

I don't however, believe that the atomic bombs saved lives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an object lesson for the Russians. These two cities were purposely saved from conventional bombing to leave untouched targets for the a-bombs.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
First I have to say that Canada did exactly the same thing to ourJapanese Canadians.

I don't however, believe that the atomic bombs saved lives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an object lesson for the Russians. These two cities were purposely saved from conventional bombing to leave untouched targets for the a-bombs.

Spoken like a Soviet as that is what the Soviets said.

The A-Bombs hastened the end of the war and saved countless lives. The entry of the Soviets against Japan was just another point by the Japanese Diet to convince the Emperor that the war was lost.

It was no coincidence that the Japanese surrendered after Nagasaki.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
First I have to say that Canada did exactly the same thing to ourJapanese Canadians.

I don't however, believe that the atomic bombs saved lives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an object lesson for the Russians. These two cities were purposely saved from conventional bombing to leave untouched targets for the a-bombs.


Once they knew there would be an atomic bomb, those cities and a few others may have been left alone, but I don't really think so it just would have been what ever city was left. The B-29's were just working there way from one city to another. If it wasn't for the A-bomb, who knows how much longer the war would have dragged on. The lives saved I was referring to was what if some country used a bomb during the "Cold War", who knows how that would have ended. Nobody would have known the direct consequences of a nuclear attack. It was all hypothetical damage without a baseline point.
 
Last edited:

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Once they knew there would be an atomic bomb, those cities and a few others may have been left alone, but I don't really think so it just would have been what ever city was left. The B-29's were just working there way from one city to another. If it wasn't for the A-bomb, who knows how much longer the war would have dragged on. The lives saved I was referring to was what if some country used a bomb during the "Cold War", who knows how that would have ended. Nobody would have known the direct consequences of a nuclear attack. It was all hypothetical damage without a baseline point.
During what we called the cold war the U.S. tested over three hundred nuclear bombs. The Russians probably tested just as many. The U.S. and Russia kept the world on the edge for thirty years or so. There was a time when I wished the U.S. and Russia would just disappear. All the radioactive crap that these tests put in the air no doubt caused a lot of cancer and leukemia that wouldn't have occurred without the tests.

The word at the time was that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs.

Gallery of U.S. Nuclear Tests