newsrackblog.com

a citizen’s journal by Thomas Nephew

  • Recent Comments

    • Thomas Nephew on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Nell on Ladies and gentlemen: your infinitely cunning Democratic Party
    • Thomas Nephew on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Seth Grimes on A city’s ‘city issue’ issue
    • Joe Blunt on How’s that lesser evil thing working out?
    • Thomas Ray Worley on National Popular Vote vs. fixing the electoral college
    • Dan on County Council’s retreat loses respect — and Busboys
    • Thomas Nephew on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Bruce Godfrey on From sundown towns to a midnight county
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?
    • ballgame on Were recalls the way to go?
    • Thomas Nephew on Were recalls the way to go?

  • Recent Trackbacks

  • Real News

  • RSS my delicious

    • In Congress, Dem and GOPer Working Together to Change the NDAA | Mother Jones
      "Smith and Amash's effort comes amid a bipartisan backlash against indefinite detention that has already produced legislation on the state level. Republican-dominated legislatures in Arizona, Maine, and Virginia have passed anti-NDAA legislation. Proponents of indefinite detention argue that Congress' 2001 authorization of the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban permits the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens, even those apprehended in the United States. But the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the issue. Opponents counter that indefinite detention of American citizens in the United States is unconstitutional."
    • Review & Outlook: The Tea Party's Inner ACLU - WSJ.com
      The Wall Street Journal has a conniption fit about conservative opposition to the NDAA: "The ACLU tea partiers may be well-intentioned but they are woefully uninformed about the war on the terror. Their efforts would undermine executive war-fighting authority and the legitimacy of a terrorist detention and military tribunal system that has been established over many Congresses, endorsed by two Presidents and confirmed by the Supreme Court. They should stick to shrinking the entitlement state."
    • Arizona Joins Virginia in the NDAA Exodus. Is Nullification the Next New Thing? (Cutting the Gordian Knot)
      "In less than a week’s time a second state has put a foot down making it clear that it will not cooperate with Federal Law which is blatantly unconstitutional. Yesterday Arizona became the second state to pass a nullification of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)."
    • How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | | AlterNet
      “The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”
    • ‘I withdraw’: A talk with climate defeatist Paul Kingsnorth (Stephenson, Grist)
      I don’t think any “climate movement” is going to reverse the tide of history, for one reason: We are all climate change. It is not the evil “1%” destroying the planet. We are all of us part of that destruction. This is the great, conflicted, complex situation we find ourselves in. I am climate change. You are climate change. Our culture is climate change. And climate change itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, if you’ll pardon the terrible but appropriate pun. If we were to wake up tomorrow to the news that climate change were a hoax or a huge mistake, we would still be living in a world in which extinction rates were between 100 and 1000 times natural levels and in which we have managed to destroy 25 percent of the world’s wildlife in the last four decades alone.
    • Chris Hedges: Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
      “You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked. “We can’t say that,” Torrance answered. “Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked. “That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said. Advertisement “Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked. “We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered. “What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.” “We have not come to a position on that,” he said. “So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said. “I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”
    • America brings the ‘war on terror’ home (Wolf, Daily Star)
      "(Judge) Forrest also repeatedly asked for assurances – at least five times – that the NDAA would not sweep up people like the plaintiffs: journalists engaged in journalism and citizens engaged in peaceful protest. Again, every time, the lawyers for Obama and Panetta said that they could not give her such assurances. [...] We now have it from the U.S. government lawyers’ own mouths: This law may put journalists at risk, or at least the lawyers explicitly refused to rule out that option for their client – and, as Forrest put it, they have “one very big client.”"
    • Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt (Wallsten/Montgomery/Wilson, WaPo)
      "That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. [...] White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table."
    • Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement (Elk, In These Times)
      “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.” The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other.
    • Elections: What Are They Good For? (Swanson, War Is A Crime.org)
      Voting isn't everything. "I think Emma Goldman had a point in saying that if voting changed anything they would ban it. I think Howard Zinn had a point in saying that it doesn't matter who is sitting in the White House so much as who is doing the sitting in. The relentless ubiquitous question of how you can change the world if you refuse to engage in electoral politics strikes me as crazy. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote. Workers didn't elect the eight hour day. India didn't vote the British out."
    • Part II Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States (Zeese, Occupy Washington, DC)
      "When the long history of political infiltration is reviewed, the Occupy Movement should be surprised if it is not infiltrated. Almost every movement in modern history has been infiltrated by police and others using many of the same tactics we are now seeing in Occupy. "
    • Critiques Of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ (Huben)
      "The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates. This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement. Let's fix that."
    • UPDATED: Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol (Media Matters for America)
      Always good to have a reference, this is it. "Rush Limbaugh is not backing down after widespread condemnation over his misogynistic attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student who testified before Congress recently about the problems caused when women lack access to contraception. " Multiple clips for future show and tells.
    • America's Death Squads (Davies, PDA Community/ZCommunications)
      "Barack Obama has halted the macabre parade of hooded, shackled suspects in orange jumpsuits stumbling off American planes into the tropical sunshine at Guantanamo, but he has not done so by restoring the rule of law. Instead, to a great extent, he has replaced Bush’s policy with a global campaign to simply kill a wide range of people in cold blood: terrorism suspects, resistance fighters, and anyone else added to secret lists for secret reasons. From a uniquely American “exceptionalist” point of view, killing suspects instead of capturing them is a convenient way to avoid the embarrassment of sweeping up hundreds of mostly innocent people in an indiscriminate global dragnet and then not knowing what to do with them. The dead tell no tales. Public outrage is contained within the faraway countries where the killings take place and does not cause domestic political problems."
    • Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay' (Abdul-Ahad, Guardian)
      Iraq ten years after: instead of one Saddam, many little ones. "Yassir was detained in 2007. For three years she heard nothing of him and assumed he was dead like his brothers. Then one day she took a phone call from an officer who said she could go to visit him if she paid a bribe. She borrowed the money from her neighbour and set off for the prison. "We waited until they brought him," she said. "His hands and legs were tied in metal chains like a criminal. I didn't know him from the torture. He wasn't my son, he was someone else.""

  • Subscribe

  • Meta

Blogged.com
«« prior: Good for a grin
next: License plate scanners coming to a... »»

Fwd: Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes

Posted by Thomas Nephew on January 12th, 2009


Formal Petition to Attorney
General-Designate Eric Holder
to appoint a Special Prosecutor
to investigate and prosecute any
and all government officials
who have participated in War Crimes.

Sponsored by Docudharma.com
and Democrats.com.

Dear friends and family,

I have just read and signed the petition: “Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes.” Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and consider joining me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. To join in the petition, click here.

This was already a top vote getter at Barack Obama’s “change.gov” site — but as Obama’s response shows, it unfortunately seems that he and his administration may need to be pressured on this. From Obama’s recent interview with George Stephanopoulos (emphases added):

OBAMA: …I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. [...]OBAMA: “Well we have not made any final decisions but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward, we are doing the right thing. That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation’s going to be to move forward,” Obama said.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “So let me just press that one more time. You’re not ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases and follow the evidence where it leads?”

OBAMA: What I — I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he’s the people’s lawyer. Eric Holder’s been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people. Not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he’s going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

See also “Additional Documents Link Bush Directly to Guantanamo Torture,” (Jason Leopold, “Public Record”):

Several high-ranking members of Obama’s transition team told me this week that the president-elect will not authorize the Justice Department to initiate a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s interrogation practices nor will the agency scrutinize any individual officials for approving such policies. Instead, these aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Obama will review and possibly reverse some of Bush’s executive orders and withdraw some legal opinions that gave the president broad powers in the global war on terror.


“Possibly”?! Meanwhile, Bush has admitted personally OK’ing waterboarding:

And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.

He also knew of “principals” meetings where waterboarding was discussed.  Torture is a blatant war crime and crime under U.S. law.

I realize not everyone I send this to will agree with me on this, but I wanted to not take anyone’s views for granted, and also to let you know how I see it. Personally, I’ve favored impeachment for the war crime of torture, the fraudulent case for going to war in Iraq, and the warrantless surveillance that the Bush administration is guilty of — and prosecution (whether or not it leads to a conviction) would not preclude that. What I don’t favor is simply “moving on,” “turning the page,” “looking forward instead of backward,” or other formulations that seem more about avoiding hard truths and unpleasantness than about truly preventing such abuses in the future.

To me, this isn’t mainly about the people who actually carried out orders to torture (though they shouldn’t have). It is about the people who gave those orders, or justified them with legal mumbo-jumbo: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Yoo, Haynes and Addington, to name some of the most important ones. To really look “forward”, you have to look even further than the Obama administration, to a time when people like these are in a position to consider crimes like these again. When that time comes, it will be far better if such people (possibly even the same people) can look back on a special prosecutor bringing administration officials to justice.

Impeach them: yes we can

Yes We Can. Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew.

Thank you!

– Thomas Nephew

PS: Impeachment also remains a possibility even after someone leaves federal office; one of the consequences of an impeachment conviction is not being allowed to hold federal office again. Impeachment is also specifically not something a presidential pardon can prevent. For those of you wondering why I still have an “Impeach Them” sign up in my front lawn, that’s why.

====
NOTE: I sent the above message (slightly modified) to a great number of friends and family today, with more on the way.

UPDATE, 1/12: On the “Huffington Post,” actor John Cusack proposes two questions to ask Attorney General nominee Eric Holder:

1. Is waterboarding torture?

2. Will you prosecute? No matter what sham commission is appointed to block justice?I would hope we pressure our representatives, whomever questions Mr. Holder, to play the video of the Vice President of the United States admitting to sanctioning a torture program. He not only admits the war crimes but seems proud and pleased with himself.

Someone, anyone, for the sake of our constitution, ask Mr. Holder, the presumptive top legal authority, the man who will lead the Justice Department after the most lawless time in American history, to answer these simple, basic, direct questions.

Whomever is found guilty should not be on the lecture circuit, but in prison.

Category: Post. Tags: , , , , , , . Thread RSS, Comment, Trackback. Print This Print This

3 Responses to “Fwd: Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes”

  1. RoberetNAtl Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    I am sitting here literally shaking, wringing my hands, and sweating bullets about your proposal. While I understand that what the Bush administration did may have been illegal, I am worried that prosecuting Bush administration officials will have the following negative effects:

    1. It will jeopardize Obama’s chances of getting 80 votes for the stimulus package, because congressional Republicans will be very, very, very upset.

    2. David Broder will write an angry column saying that Obama is not being very bipartisan — not very bipartisan AT ALL. :-(

    3. It will divert prosecutorial resources from voter registration fraud cases. ACORN may well end up getting off scot-free.

    4. We will be looking backwards, not forward, just like at Nuremberg.

    So PLEASE reconsider your extremist stance about enforcing the law.

  2. Thomas Nephew Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Oh my, that all sounds ever so awful. Whenever David Broder gets stern, I always fret and cry. I’m very, very sorry I wrote this. :)

  3. Edger Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Very nice article Thomas, and thank you for signing the petition.

    Some new developments today that just may turn out to be the paradigm changing ones needed to push this effort over the top into an irrepressible wave…

    Petitioning For A Special Prosecutor: The Expanding Universe

    Politics vs. Justice: Spotlighting The Holder Confirmation Hearings

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

«« prior: Good for a grin
next: License plate scanners coming to a... »»