The Time has Come to Indict and Try George W. Bush/U.S War Criminals

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It has been said that George W. Bush is immune from prosecution for war crimes. I do not believe that that is the case. Treaties to which the U.S. is signatory and obliged say otherwise. I know of no act of Congress rescinding U.S. obligations to the Principles of Nuremberg.

Congressional Repeal of Treaties.—It is in respect to his contention that, when it is asked to carry a treaty into effect, Congress has the constitutional right, and indeed the duty, to determine the matter according to its own ideas of what is expedient, that Madison has been most completely vindicated by developments. This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’ constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: “Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.”

Cornell University Law School, ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION, Article II, 303

In fact, the United State is credited with supporting, perhaps insisting upon the adoption of the Nuremberg Pinciples. The U.S. is obliged to Nuremberg and no clause exempts U.S. politicians of any office from prosecution should he/she violate those principles.

Nazi war criminals --likewise --thought they were 'immune' and said as much at Nuremberg where the principles were conceived and applied. High ranking Nazi war criminals were tried, sentenced and hanged.

That is the lesson of Nuremberg. Hitler himself would have been tried, found guilty and hanged had he not cheated the hang man. Immunity for Bush? If a real international tribunal were HONEST it could seek out bush, arrest him and try him.

"Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390"

Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in        violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War Crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

In addition, these principles have been spelled out over the years. For instance, since the rather “archaic” Nürnberg rules on participation in criminal conduct (Gerhard Werle, Individual Criminal Responsibility in Article 25 ICC Statute, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 5, 2007, p. 953), the principles on the various modes of international criminal liability have been considerably developed. The definitions of the crimes have also evolved since Nuremberg. For instance, crimes against humanity now explicitly include the element of a “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population” (art. 7 ICC Statute). The ICC Statute also contains four new categories of punishable acts as crimes against humanity: torture (art. 7(1) (f)), sexual crimes (art. 7(1) (g), enforced disappearance of persons (art. 7(1) (i)) and the crime of apartheid (art. 7(1) (j)).

Finally, in 1948, the General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which confirmed that genocide is a crime under international law. Genocide was also provided for in the statutes of the ICTY, ICTR and ICC (arts. 4 ICTY Statute, 2 ICTR Statute, and 6 ICC Statute). In light of the adoption of so many treaty or quasi-treaty provisions prohibiting and punishing genocide, and of the case law on the matter, it can now safely be held that genocide is a crime proscribed by customary international law.

--Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribuanal, General Assembly Resolution 95, New York, 11 December 1946

Interestingly, the three arguments for 'conservativism' ---tradition, religion, man's depravity --are all of an authoritarian nature. All result in decrees issued from on high --a throne, a board room, a war room. Take your pick. Depravity may exist but is most often found in the eye of the beholder. Religion is 'holy' for those already committed to it either by upbringing or social pressure. The 'war room' results from all of the above. Wars against the 'infidel' remain the norm. Bush, for example, demonized 'Islam' and apparently got away with it because fundamentalist Christians are as intolerant of Islam as fundamentalist Islam is intolerant of those who love Jesus.

---

The Iraq War Makes Terrorism Worse, Al Qaeda Strikes Back, Tenet Took the Fall

But Bush will cite his failure in Iraq as reasons the US must stay and be bled. The prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine declares that "rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden" has made terrorism worse, emboldened Al Qaeda, and taken the focus off the "War on Terrorism". Washington unwittingly helped its enemies, Author Bruce O. Riedel states, adding: "... al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11."

Al Qaeda is now setting up networks throughout the Middle East and Africa amid terrorist hopes that it will succeed in duping Bush into committing US troops to a war in Iran.

Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, having several of its top operatives killed, failing in its attempts to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq.

Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas. Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign to make himself and his movement the primary symbols of Islamic resistance worldwide. His ideas now attract more followers than ever.

--Al Qaeda Strikes Back, Bruce Riedel, Forreign Affairs 

Riedel is verifiably correct. His paper echoes and expands an earlier US intel assessment that the Iraq war increases the threat of terrorism.

The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.
The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

--Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat  

The implications are astounding: Bush has been duped. His invasion and occupation of Iraq played into Bin Laden's hands. Bin Laden's goals are simple: "bait" the US into a "bleeding war[s]". His strategy is equally simple - "provoke and bait". Tragically, Bush eagerly took the bait while Iraqi civilians and US troops do the bleeding.

The findings are damning. Bush is clearly seen to be the fool, the idiot who committed his nation to a war that is better compared to the Soviet conflict with Afghanistan in the 1980s than with the US quagmire in Viet Nam. Bin Laden himself is said to have made the analogy.

Despite Bush's obvious and tragic failure, he and his NEOCON supporters will nevertheless cite both the Intel report and the Foreign Policy assessment as reasons the US must stay in Iraq - perhaps forever. Bush will claim that leaving Iraq, demoralized will "embolden" al Qaeda and allow it to focus on nearby enemies - Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Earlier the BBC had stated: "al-Qaeda is far more fluid and effective than the West's conventional response has suggested." Never an army, al Qaeda has been turned into a movement in reaction. The US occupation of Iraq is not merely the lightening rod, it is the perpetual al Qaeda poster boy. Bush has done Bin Laden a favor. Al Qaeda could not boast an Iraqi presence until the US attacked and invaded.

Earlier, it was clear: the GOP and Democrats would separate from the ink blot different "figures". The GOP will see reasons to stay put. The Democrats will see in the Bush failure compelling reasons to change course:

"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

--ABC News: Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat

But Bush partisans will seize upon the following passage from Foreign Affairs to justiy compounding the crime, repeating the failed strategy:

Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the US homeland again.

At this point, the American people will have to ask themselves: are Bush's dimming hopes of defeating a phantom menace worth risking the Soviet-style collapse of the US? Having repeatedly put good money on bad bets, are the American people ready to pony up yet again?

Despite having a majority in both houses, it is the Democrats who have the greater challenge. Bush is a lame duck. Unless he suspends the elections upon another terrorist attack, his utterly failed administration is history and good riddance.

There is some good news. Bill Moyers is back.

May the US find the will and moral strength to rise above the stench Bush and his crooked ilk will have left behind. Bush can merely wash his hands of the entire affair and, if he were a real cowboy, he could merely ride off into the West Texas sunset. It is left to Harry Reid to conduct real statesmanship for a welcome change. From Reid's recent statement:

Yet I also believe there is a way forward that gives us our best chance to end the war responsibly while protecting our strategic interests, strengthening our security, and better positioning us to provide the long-term assistance Iraq will need for years to come.

This way forward is consistent with our military leaders are telling us, including General Petraeus -- who repeated again yesterday that this war can only be won politically, not militarily. Our path has five key components:

1. First, immediately transition the US mission away from policing a civil war -- to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting US forces and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.
2. Second, begin the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007 with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out the limited missions I just mentioned.
3. Third, impose tangible, measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government so that they will be held accountable for making progress on security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much.
4. Fourth, launch the kind of diplomatic, economic and political offensive that the president's strategy lacks, starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.
5. Fifth, rebuild our overburdened military, ensure that only battle ready troops are sent into battle, and give them the manpower and support they need to face the daunting challenges that lie ahead. Congressman Murtha pointed out last night that we are currently paying 126,000 independent contractors to supplement the work of our soldiers. Contractors that aren't held to the same standards or accountability our troops are, yet many earn more than our Secretary of Defense. This is unacceptable. 

                   --Sen. Majority Leader, Harry Reid

The history of the US with regard to the Middle East is one of blunder, tragedy and reverberations left over from the "cold war". Terrorism fed on US policy failures too numerous to count, most prominently its support of dictatorial states and puppet regimes, its proclivity to rule illegitimately by proxy.

Years later, then US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski would boast:

"The secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap." What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire?"

          --Source

The history is consistent with recent charges by former CIA Director George Tenet who claims he took the fall for the Bushies:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

Shia Group Quits Iraqi Government

It is bad enough that Bush will continue to put US troops in the dangerous position of propping up a failed regime in Iraq. It is enough to die for one's country. It is enough to defend one's country against aggressive war against it. But no one, least of all an illegitimate "President", a self appointed "decider", can expect of Americans that they die to protect him from the consequences of his own lies.

Here's the development that pulls the rug from beneath Bush. The Shi'ite bloc has quit the Iraqi government.

Sadr bloc quits Iraqi government

Firebrand Shiite cleric’s bloc pullout will herald a new power-struggle within Iraq's Shiite majority.

BAGHDAD - The political bloc of firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Monday formally declared its withdrawal from Iraq's beleaguered ruling coalition, at a Baghdad news conference.

The hardline Shiite preacher -- who has not been seen in public for months -- was angered last week when protests failed to persuade Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to set a date for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Sadr's six ministers and 32 lawmakers form the biggest single bloc in Maliki's fragmenting coalition, but the prime minister would be able to cling to power if he keeps the support of smaller Shiite and Kurdish groups.

How many of us woke up as cockroaches this morning? If you did, you may be forgiven. We live a Kafakesque world of absurd news, inmates in charge, certifiable loons making laws and policy. I am referring to the illegitimate regime of GWB. We are strangers -not in a strange land - but in our own.

What right now has Bush to expect US troops to lay down their lives in defense of an illegitimate regime? For the clueless: the answer is found in the history of Viet Nam, where, for more than a quarter of a century, the US wasted some 58,000 American lives in defense of illegitimate regimes, tin-horn dictators and ambitious wannabes.

Here's the story as it appeared in the LA Times this morning even before the defection became fact:

A key Shi'ite Muslim bloc in Iraq's government vowed yesterday to quit over Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, a move that would further weaken the country's leadership at a time of soaring sectarian violence.

The threat was made on the heels of another bloody day in the capital, where at least 37 people died in bombings that underscored the challenges of a US-Iraqi security plan now in its third month. The victims included 17 Iraqis killed in a market in a Shi'ite-dominated neighborhood, where two car bombs exploded nearly simultaneously. As people fled the chaos, mortar rounds rained down. Fifty people were wounded.

-Los Angeles Times

The Bush administration speaks another language. Their terms "insurgency" and "war on terror" are intended, designed to deceive.

Benn to criticise 'war on terror'

Hilary Benn is running in Labour's deputy leadership contest
President George W Bush's concept of a "war on terror" has given strength to terrorists by making them feel part of something bigger, Hilary Benn will say.

The international development secretary will tell a meeting in New York the phrase gives a shared identity to small groups with widely differing aims.

And Mr Benn, a candidate for Labour's deputy leadership, will confirm that UK officials will stop using the term.

The White House coined the phrase after the attacks of 11 September 2001. Mr Benn will say: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone.

I have called it Bushspeak, sometimes gopspeak. Bush claims to "support the troops" but that lie was revealed when Bush announced that US troops will serve an additional three months active duty in a war zone -Iraq. This desperate measure indicates that the volunteer rate is down. Who will risk his/her life to perpetrate war crimes for George W. Bush? People vote by staying home -an "election" that GWB cannot steal.

Bush will one day ask himself how he will prosecute a war that no one will fight. Boycott the war. Don't volunteer. Let Bush just try to re-instate the draft. Bring it on!

Others have already said no to Bush. Having fired all his generals "on the ground", Bush now wants to create a "war czar" to oversee Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps others that may be in the works. Three four star generals have already said thanks, but no thanks to the new position.


War czar? Isn't that Robert Gates? What about "Commander-in-Chief"? Will Bush step down to accommodate a Czar? What additional wars will need a czar? Iran? Venezuela? Syria? Massachusetts? Texas is safe. It's already occupied by Republicans.

Let's take this another logical step. Perhaps Bush will want to create the position of "Decider" and, perhaps, a Decisions Department? What decisions can only be made by a bona fide decider? Will no one else be allowed to decide anything?

The American political landscape has become intellectually arid. There is no breath to be taken. It was learned that John McCain had no plan "B" before he had no plan "A".

I have no Plan B. If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now.

- Doggerel from John McCain

Yesterday was too late. Now is too late. Later will have been too late.

Then there is Paul Wolfowitz, the NEOCON, who apologized for paying off his "girl friend" with a much higher paying job, a raise twice as large as allowed by bank rules.

I believe in the mission of this organization, and I believe I can carry it out. This is important work, and I intend to continue it.

He likes the work and, obviously, the money. Send him your resumes with pix. Emphasize your specialties.

Despite the unflinching support of NEOCONS back home in the Bush admin, Wolfowitz is in trouble. As in another unfolding scandal, the real story will be told with emails. From them an interesting tale will be pieced together. The pressure will mount. This weekend, Hilary Benn, Britain's Secretary of State for International Development, said that "... the scandal had damaged the (world) bank".

Wolfowitz is, meanwhile, lobbying the world bank's chief beneficiaries in Africa. The gentle reminders of "...progress in debt cancellation" might seem innocent enough. But are they? Is there not the implication that debts will not be cancelled should Wolfowitz lose his job. Is this not a Nazi tactic?

Here's an interesting paragraph that I found while scanning the news this AM:

There comes a moment in the life of every dictator when the mask of respectability slips and he reveals the ugly face of tyranny.

-Kasparov's Arrest Spells Trouble

Yes, I thought it was describing Bush. But it wasn't Bush this time. Rather, the paragraph described Vladimir Putin who had been, until now, careful to "preserve a semblance of legality" even as his soul buddy Bush never bothered.

But it is troublesome that the paragraph might have been about Bush. It could just as well describe the many moments --most since Katrina --when the "mask of respectability" slipped away to reveal Bush's smirking chimp face for what it is: a venal dictatorship.

Too late to make my article about the passing of Kurt Vonnegut, I found this review of Vonnegut's last book:

He is at his angriest and most satirical when looking around at George W Bush's America. A sleazy "keystone-cops style coup" by failed Yale students, an addiction to oil, the "progress" of war, a nation that has moved beyond all humanness and reason led by three men named "Bush, Dick and Colon". All these things have left him feeling a stranger in a land he once fought for, a man now asking, "who the hell's country is this anyway?"

-A Man Without a Country", Kurt Vonnegut

HOME

The Existentialist Cowboy

Imperialism
Bush
War Crimes
Iraq