I am wondering how the new attorney general will address the loss of the nine (?) fired attornies. New, Bush Administration, attornies took their places. Will these attornies now be fired?
The moral of both Bush administrations is now clear. Do whatever you want and you'll never face justice as long as you are part of the ruling elite. People are getting 30 years for drug convictions and these American War Criminals will get great jobs and retire in luxury until they burn in hell. Is this prerevolutionary France or post-millenial America?
I thought that "I was only following orders" was not a defense for war crimes. If I am following the logic of your legal experts, Hitler's only mistake was not having his legal council rule that exterminating Jews was legal.
Why is Lindy England still in prison?
Grant E. Remington
Veterans For Peace Chapter 72
As a veteran of both the Navy and the merchant marine and a construction worker I am not a wimp, but I cried like a baby when Mr. Holder said water boarding was torture. He spoke in pain English. Perhaps I was so moved because of the enlistment oath I took, the same as a federally elected official, is an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, again a document written in plain English.
The "law" is now an instrument of interpretation by attorneys, not of clear guidance.
The history is so long and so now fouled that a precedent can be found for anything.
My question: The Law has been overcome with technology and now legislators and lobbyists with computers pump out thousands of pages of incomprehensible "boilerplate" and call it "law". As a citizen, "How can I obey what I cannot understand?" Will there be a rebooting of the law so that it is comprehensible, simple, understandable and as a consequence.... obeyed.
I like your show so much better than World Have Your Say! Thank you for your efforts to remain unbiased, they are appreciated by your audience.
On prosecuting Bushmen for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
One of the first things they did on getting into power was to Un-Sign the US from the ICC, The International Criminal Court. Clearly they intended to commit crimes that would put them in jeopardy of International Law and so they wanted to change the US participation in that law. So there is Intent.
The PNAC, The Project for the New American Century had planned previously for the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, which of course is the War Crime "War of Aggression", under US and International Law.
I suggest that every signer of the PNAC and the Bush Administration ought to be prosecuted.
As to the Ford Pardon of Nixon; that was a huge mistake in that it gave future Republicans the idea and confidence that they could do anything and get away with it without being held to account in US Law. That led to the Reagan and Ollie North crimes, the GHWBush and April Glaspie Crimes, and the Cheney/Bush Crimes. A huge mistake with ongoing consequences!
What a couple of weasels. "National security" is such a load of BS as an excuse to cover up clear violations of the US Constitution.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. 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.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
It has been said that the perpetrators of war crimes,
that is those that created the policy allowing waterboarding,
are protected by the golden sheild of the advice of John Yoo
and the OLC. The argument is that those perpetrators believed
they were acting legally based on the advice of a law enforcement
1. The policy makers are trained in international law and history.
An obviously questionable (as evident from the controversy among
legal experts) opinion does not automatically indicate those
responsible believe their actions were legal, just that they
thought they would get away with it because of the structure
of the golden shield, rather than legallity.
2. John Yoo and the OLC are not legal enforcement officers.
This isn't a prosecutor telling an individual that a certain
action is legal, then prosecuting that person for committing
3. If the responsibility lies with John Yoo and the OLC, then
victims of resulting torture should sue Yoo, OLC and the United
States in civil court for negligent malpractice, the same as
if they were doctors who'd caused a patient damage for gross
A problem I perceive in the future is the incoherence of having a Department of Justice having the "War on Terror" , shorthand for GWOT the "Global War on Terror" as priority one. Why?
Terror is a tactic. Instructors at the Army War college have made this point. Senator /Ambassador George Mitchell has made this point. A tactic is a mere method. It is as vague as "A War against Shooters"
If we cannot think straight, nor discriminate between a way and an enemy... how can "Justice" be defined, much less enforced?
I accept that this was a leaving of the last administration. It cannot be let lie.
Perhaps I didn't catch the comment correctly, but it sounded as though one of your guests mentioned the possible agenda/need (by Holder et al. in the Obama administration DOJ) to remove or otherwise deal with "conservative moles" within the DOJ staff.
Will Holder/Obama's political agenda trump common sense at the DOJ?
Now Nina Totenberg is talking about the DOJ getting back "it's good name" (as though its good name was lost). Is firing DOJ staff attorneys who may be conservative moles the way to restore "the good name of the DOJ" will ber restored?
This nation was founded on the principle that we are a nation of laws; that no individual is above the law. Principles are meant to be held to regardless of the situation including the possible loss of a war to another nation. Sadly we are fast becoming a nation of "whats good for the goose, is not good for the people. Under the Ford administration, Richard Nixon was "pardoned" even though he was not convicted of a crime. Under the principle "we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law", he should have been prosecuted, if found guilty sentenced, and then pardoned. In the case of "torture" by water bording or any other torture, ALL who engaged in this practice should be charged, tried, and if found guilty sentenced. However we believe that before sentencing midigating circumstances should be considered and lighter sentences or probation should be given to those who were following orders of their superiors. No matter how distasteful, regardless of the circumstances, those who violate the law must be held accountable. Not to do so creates a situation where for each violation of the principle, the principle of law is being chipped away and one day will reach the point of total collapse. Those who are at the top must be held to a higher standard than those at the bottom who must carry out the orders of superiors. George W. Bush, Dick Chenny, and Donald Rumsfeld along with any other official, no matter how many, should be brought to justice by charge, trial, conviction, and sentencing. We include in this principle EVERYTHING including crimes by congresspersons, government workers, citizens of all ages and circumstances. Only then can our leaders stand up as a model of virtue to our citizens and this nation as a model to the world. There is no "compromise", no "extentuating circumstances" etc., that allows for violation of this principle. Either we all are subject to the law, or none of us are.
Comments are now closed.