home
CIA Admits Presidential Order re: Foreign Detention Facilities | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Shhhh - Gabriel has something to say... (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:23:59 AM EST
Gabriel, perhaps you would be kind enough to offer for us slow learners your interpretation of the legal meaning and ramifications of the term "accessory"?

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.



[ Parent ]
Democratic CORE VALUES (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:25:24 AM EST
justice, truth, and the value of a single human being

[ Parent ]
Be careful with the movie quotes... (none / 0) (#11)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:51:17 AM EST
Edger, I'd be careful about learning the law from a movie.

[ Parent ]
Re: learning (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:56:48 AM EST
While you're researching "accessory", you might also look up "analogy".

George W. Bush ordered, in writing, that the CIA torture people...It's only a matter of time

To 'borrow' a statement from a few years ago that you'll probably remember as well: "we [will] not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them"

[ Parent ]

And it might serve you well... (none / 0) (#13)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:07:33 PM EST
...to go back and read about the Nuremberg Trials and the striking similarities of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in WWII that have been repeated by the bush maladministration.

It has nothing to do with learning law from a movie.

The rest of the world now views us as a poor substitute for the formerly great America and are growing ever more weary of Americans, CIA or not, violating their laws, kidnapping their citizens, sending to places to be tortured, and our blatant recision of habeas corpus, which makes us the only major civilized country where a person cannot appeal their incarceration.

Italy has outstanding warrants for CIA agents for kidnapping and I'd wager they will not be the last to prosecute American lawbreakers. Germany is a fine example, and it may not be long before Great Britain listens to its citizens and stops illegal entrapment of their citizens by the CIA.

That makes the matter of who authorized what and when very important.

[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#14)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:27:14 PM EST
Bill, my work this semester includes editing and preparing for publication a book about Nuremberg and Justice Jackson. I've been working on it since August. (Incidentally, that's why I've been quoting from Jackson so much--he's on my mind!)

There are few "striking similarities" between the Bush Administration and the Nazis, but kudos to you for discovering such a rare and insightful analogy.

The outrage with which portions of the rest of the world now view us doesn't seem to have hurt our economy or diplomatic efforts. Anecdotal, I know, but for what it's worth, I lived and worked in London (Little Arabia, no less) and didn't have any trouble at all.

Finally, your insistence that persons have no right to appeal is explicitly denied by the MCA 2006. (I'm assuming that you're referring to military detainees since you referenced habeas.)

Section 950c requires automatic appeal to the Court of Military Commission Review of any commission decision which results in a finding of guilty.

Section 950e then gives convicted detainees the right to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

[ Parent ]

I said nothing particular to Nazis... (none / 0) (#18)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 01:41:23 PM EST
...and there ARE striking similarities. Two quick ones:

Japan claimed they "preemptively" attacked America under the false believe that we were preparing to attack them. The court held that such "wars of aggression" contain both all the elements of the crime and that actually attacking the US clearly proved the crime.

Second, and I don't remember if it was a Japanese or German troop, a sentence of 15-years of incarceration was meted out for "waterboarding" American soldiers, and that act was deemed a war crime and crime against humanity.

And you really don't see any STRIKING similarities there? I'm not being flippant; I'm genuinely amazed that anyone cannot see that these war crimes have been repeated by America under bush.

[ Parent ]

Different cases. (none / 0) (#19)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:24:34 PM EST
Pre-emption alone has never been considered a punishable act. The phrase "wars of agression" came up at Nuremberg in the definition of Count Two against the Nazis, that is "crimes against peace."

A crime against peace was defined as "the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing..."

Unfortunately, no definition of "war of aggression" has ever been adopted (of especial relevance to our conversation, the UN and the ICC are still fighting over definitions to use). In lieu of a definition of "war of aggression" most states have conducted themselves in accordance with the second definition of crime against peace, "a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."

Neither the Afghanistan War nor the Iraq War disturbs this second definition. Given that, it's going to be very difficult to convict anyone in the Bush Administration for a crime against peace.

Regarding waterboarding during World War II, that case is distinguishable for three reasons. First, Asano (the fellow in question) was convicted of beating and clubbing prisoners, "water torture", burning with cigarettes, and (oddly enough) strapping prisoners head down on a stretcher. Second, Asano's victims were Prisoners of War. Third, Asano stole from supplies intended for the POWs (this crime was itself a crime against the laws of war).

It is therefore inaccurate to say that 15 years were meted out for waterboarding. Rather, a man accused of numerous crimes including "water torture" was given 15 years hard labor and confinement.

[ Parent ]

Not a War of Agression? (none / 0) (#20)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 05:40:53 PM EST
How is our invasion of Iraq not specifically a war of aggression, under any definition?

In order to come up with a definition where it isn't, then you have certainly defined the term into irrelevance!

[ Parent ]

Not a war of agression (none / 0) (#21)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 06:39:07 PM EST
Well, for starters, a state of war already existed between Iraq and the US at the start of what we've been referring to as "the Iraq War."

[ Parent ]
Facts (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 06:55:11 PM EST
Damnit Gabe, will you please quit spoiling the party with facts??

[ Parent ]
Movie Trivia (none / 0) (#15)
by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:39:33 PM EST
And, though not directly on point for our purposes, I think it's fair to point out that "Judgment at Nuremberg", which Edger quotes from upthread is not about the the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials as they are typically understood, but rather a fictionalized account of "the Doctors Case" which took place later and was an American military tribunal and not an international tribunal. FYI.

[ Parent ]
Accessory (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:55:15 PM EST
Usually there isn't a point you can't miss when you try hard enough Gabriel.

But this time it might be helpful to throw away the shovel. You're digging too deep a hole, man. Go easy on yourself.

You can always claim you didn't know. Or just say you were nowhere near the scene. You know... on the other side of town or something.

They'll believe a honest guy like you Gabe. No?


[ Parent ]

Besides... (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:58:10 PM EST
...it's not a crime if you don't get caught, right?

[ Parent ]

CIA Admits Presidential Order re: Foreign Detention Facilities | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft