|
Extend Statute of Limitations Action Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum933.php
CRANE: BUSH MAY BE NEXT UP AT THE HAGUE
March
7, 2009
 
Crane said the
indictment of Bashir (above)
was a landmark,
because it paved a route for
the
court at the Hague to
pursue heads
of states
engaged in criminality.
"David Crane, an
international law professor at Syracuse University," the New Zealand Herald
Reports, "said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for
[Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush
over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by
using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects."
"Crane also said," reports the Turkich Weekly, "that the [Bashir] indictment may
even be extended to the former president George W. Bush, on the grounds that
some officials in terms of his administration engaged in harsh interrogation
techniques on terror suspects which mostly amounted to torture."
"All pretended
justifications notwithstanding," United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel
d'Escoto Brockmann told the Human Rights Council, "the aggressions against Iraq
and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be
condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international
relations," Brockmann told the Human Rights Council. "The illegality of the use
of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition
of the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It sets a
number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand."
"The Bush administration boycotted the Human Rights
Council," reports Raw Story. "The day Brockmann made his accusations happened to
be the first in which the United States had observers at the council, on orders
from President Obama."

Crane: Bush may be next up at the
Hague
Ex-UN prosecutor: Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court
Stephen C. Webster
March 7, 2009
- An ex-UN prosecutor has said that
following the issuance of an
arrest warrant for the president of
Sudan, former US President
George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal
Court's list.
The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United
Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, who
said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths
and should be probed by the United Nations.
The Bush administration boycotted the Human Rights Council. The day
Brockmann made his accusations happened to be the first in which the United
States had observers at the council, on orders from President Obama.
According to
Iranian news network PressTV,
the Iranian government called the Bashir indictment "a blow to International
justice" and an "insult directed at Muslims."
Iran's plainly stated sentiment toward the court's legitimacy is similar in
spirit to that of the United States. Because the US Governmen t
has refused to recognize the court by becoming a signatory in its statute,
"the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the [UN] Security
Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a
veto-wielding permanent member," said the Herald.
Due to the International Criminal Court's lack of any real police force, it
has traditionally relied upon signatory states for enforcement of its
rulings. But when the leader of one such state is indicted, the court's
authority and enforcement capability is called into question. Even the
arrest of Bashir is
a far cry, for now.
And without a UN Security Council order, former US President Bush would not
go on "trial" before the court any time soon.
However, on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred
Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration
for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be
served.
Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to
proceed with the prosecution of Donald
Rumsfeld, the former
Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the
crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior
administration's abusive interrogation tactics. - Raw Story
66% OF AMERICANS WANT PROBES OF BUSH TERROR TACTICS
Poll: Two thirds of Americans support probes of
Bush era
by John Byrne
February 12, 2009
Almost 40 percent of Americans
support criminal investigations into the Bush Administration's use of harsh
interrogations and warrantless wiretapping program, even after President George
W. Bush left office, a USA Today/Gallup poll found Thursday.
These results are based on a Jan. 30-Feb. 1 USA Today/Gallup poll.
Strikingly, Gallup and USA Today
presented the polls in entirely different lights.
USA Today headlined
their article,
"Poll: Most want inquiry into
anti-terror tactics,"
while Gallup
bannered theirs,
"No Mandate for Criminal Probes of Bush Administration."
Bush, meanwhile, claimed a mandate for his agenda in 2000 with just 48 percent
of the popular vote.
One third of respondents said they wanted nothing to be done. Another third
favored an independent panel, with 25 percent favoring neither.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. recently subpoenaed former Bush
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony relating to the firing
of nine US Attorneys and the possible political prosecution of a former Alabama
governor. In the Senate, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said
he's open to the idea of a "truth commission," which would probe alleged
Bush-era abuses but offer broad immunity to those who testified.
At President Obama's Monday night press conference, Obama said he'd look at
Leahy's commission concept but that his "general orientation is to say, let's
get it right moving forward."
Obama's CIA chief nominee promised CIA officers won't be prosecuted for their
roles in harsh interrogations under Bush's tenure.
USA Today
also noted
the Republican viewpoint from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): "If every
administration started to re-examine what every prior administration did, there
would be no end to it," Specter said. "This is not Latin America."
Chile and South Africa have both held "truth commissions" over civil rights
abuses in previous decades.
February 11, 2009
RACHEL MADDOW, last night:
"What if a truth commission did a thorough
investigation of the type you're describing and they found that in
fact horrible crimes were committed? If there wouldn't be
prosecution, how would say -- how would we say now we know and they
all legally got away with it, how would that stop these things from
happening again?"
SEN PATRICK LEAHY:
"I think because of the fact it's very, very
public and the way they find out about it, it makes it very clear to
the next person, you try the same thing, you are going to be found
out, you are going to be prosecuted. You are also going to have some
people that will refuse to -- perhaps refuse to testify, even though
offered immunity. With the evidence from the others, they can be
prosecuted. And, of course, anybody can be prosecuted for perjury."
Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could
be prosecuted
David Edwards and John Byrne
February
11, 2009
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-VT) said in an interview Tuesday evening that Bush Administration
officials could be criminally prosecuted if they lied under oath as part of
a proposed investigation into Bush-era abuses.
Leahy chose his words carefully, to be sure. But his words went slightly
farther than that of other Congressional Democrats, who maintain that
probing abuses of the Bush era is critical to preserving the integrity of
law.
"You're going to have people, some people will say, let's go ahead and
prosecute everybody," Leahy told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Tuesday. "That can
take 10 or 15 years. Others want to ignore everything. I don't agree with
that."
But, he said, the Senate could set up a "truth commission" like that
established by Sen. Frank Church in the 1970s, which was aimed at bringing
out abuses of the President Richard Nixon era. Church's commission resulted
in an array of reforms that tightened civil liberties protections after
Nixon's infamous wiretapping and Watergate scandals.
Leahy seemed to signal a slight shift -- previously his focus seemed more on
uncovering misdeeds than in prosecuting officials. While not saying that he
was planning for prosecutions, he indicated that they could certainly
result.
David Carle, a spokesman for Sen. Leahy, noted that Leahy's commission
concept was a proposal and no bill had yet been introduced.
"He wanted to begin a discussion," Carle said.
Asked about potential prosecutions, he reiterated that immunity would still
"of course" require truthful replies.
Leahy subpoenaed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to testify on
the firing of nine US Attorneys in 2007. Rove never appeared. He was
subsequently called to testify twice by the House Judiciary Committee, and
said recently that he would refuse to honor congressional subpoenas related
to the case.
Leahy's commission concept received a cool response from President Barack
Obama in his Tuesday night press conference, though Obama admitted he hadn't
read it.
"It's not a perfect way of doing it, but it may be the only way to get the
truth out," Leahy said. "And I think that the only way you're going to stop
a future administration from being tempted to do some of the same things is
if the truth comes out."
Immunity seems to be the keystone of Leahy's plan to extract the truth.
You "either grant enough immunity to get the truth out or you don't get it
at all, because otherwise you are just going to have constant stonewalling."
Why would those who testified get immunity?
"The only way they would have immunity would be if they testified and
testified thoroughly," he added. "Because they would be asked under oath,
have you given us all of the information? You withhold, that's perjury and
you would be prosecuted for that." - Raw Story

On Monday, January 26, 2009, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
(D-MI) issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, requiring him to testify regarding his
role in the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice,
including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor
Don Siegelman. The subpoena calls for Rove to appear at deposition on Monday,
February 2, 2009. read
Karl Rove Subpoenaed
By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'
On
the 30th - "I understand," wrote House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers in
a letter to Robert Liskin, Rove's lawyer," that you wish to have the date for
your client Karl Rove's deposition moved back to accomodate your travel schedule
and also so that you may consult with President Obama and his advisors regarding
Mr. Rove's obligation to appear. I am happy to reschedule Mr. Rove's deposition
for Monday, February 23, 2009, at 10:00 a.m."

Schumer signals support for
prosecution of Bush officials
David Edwards and Jeremy Gantz
Published: Sunday January 25, 2009
Echoing Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi's words one week ago, New York Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday that
he could support prosecution for Bush officials that participated in torture
or broke other laws.
Last Sunday on the same television show,
Pelosi signaled
that she's open to backing prosecutions of Bush administration officials,
telling Wallace that "you look at each item and see what is a violation of
the law..."
But Schumer was far from aggressive, repeating President Obama's comment
earlier this month that "we should be looking forward, not backward."
President Obama said
two weeks ago
that he was not ruling out possible prosecution for abuses committed under
the George Bush administration, saying no one "is above the law."
"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of
interrogations, detentions, and so forth," then President-elect Obama said
in a TV interview when asked about alleged abuses under Bush.
"Obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe
that anybody is above the law," he said.
You can Comment at
Hearlink Blog
Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, The Nation
Posted on July 19, 2008, Printed on July 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/92104/
Retired General Antonio Taguba, the officer who led the Army's investigation
into Abu Ghraib, recently
wrote in the preface to the new report, Broken laws, Broken Lives:
"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has
committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether
those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Should those who ordered war crimes be held to account? With the conclusion
of the Bush regime approaching, many people are dubious, even those horrified by
Administration actions. They fear a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the
country apart. They note that such division could make it far harder for the
country to address the many other crises it is facing. They see the upcoming
elections as a better way to set the country on a new path.
Many Democrats in particular are proposing to let bygones be bygones and move
on to confront the problems of the future, rather than dwelling on the past. The
Democratic leadership sees rising gas prices, foreclosures, and health care
costs, as well as widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country,
as playing in their favor. Why risk it all by playing the war crimes
blame game?
Perhaps some Democratic leaders are also concerned that their own role in
enabling or even encouraging war crimes might be exposed.
Meanwhile, the evidence confirming not only a deliberate policy of torture,
but of conspiring in an illegal war of aggression and conducting a criminal
occupation, continues to pile ever higher. Bush's own press secretary Scott
McClellan has revealed in his book,
What Happened, how deliberately the public was misled to foment the
attack on Iraq. Philippe Sands' new book,
Torture Team, has shown how the top legal and political leadership
fought for a policy of torture -- circumventing and misleading top military
officials to do so. Jane Mayer's
The Dark Side, reveals
that a secret report by the Red Cross -- given to the CIA and shared with
President Bush and Condoleezza Rice -- found that U.S. interrogation methods are
"categorically" torture and that the "abuse constituted war crimes, placing the
highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."
Despite the reluctance to open what many see as a can of worms, there are
fresh moves on many fronts to hold top U.S. officials accountable for war
crimes.
Courts: U.S. courts have issued a barrage of decisions against the
Administration's claim that they can do anything and still be within the law.
The Supreme Court ruled June 12 that the Administration cannot deny habeas
corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on June
30 overturned the Pentagon's enemy combatant designation of a Chinese Muslim
held in Guantánamo for the last six years. A Maine jury in April acquitted the
Bangor Six
of criminal trespass charges stemming from protesters' claim that the
"Constitution was being violated by the Bush Administration's involvement in
Iraq."
Congressional investigation: Rep. John Conyers has recently brought
top
policy-makers, including former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo,
Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, and this week former
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and former Attorney General John
Ashcroft before a House Judiciary subcommittee and grilled them on their role
crafting the Administration's torture policy.
Senate hearings in June revealed that treatment of Guantánamo captives was
modeled on
techniques allegedly used by Communist China to force false confessions from
U.S. soldiers.
Impeachment: Despite Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's instruction to
keep impeachment "off the table," Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the first time
brought an
impeachment resolution to the House floor that incorporated a devastating,
thirty-five article indictment spelling out Bush Administration war crimes and
crimes against the Constitution. Now Rep. Conyers has announced that the
Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the charges July 25. Even after the
Bush Administration leaves office, the judges it appointed who appear complicit
in war crimes -- notably torture policy architect
Judge Jay S. Bybee
-- could still be impeached.
Truth commission: In response to General Taguba's accusations, New
York Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has just called for the
establishment of a
truth
commission -- like that of post-Apartheid South Africa -- with subpoena
power to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11 and "lead a process of
soul searching and national cleansing."
International: In May, Vanity Fair magazine published
an article by British human rights attorney Philippe Sands, in which he
described the reasons Administration lawyers face a real risk of criminal
investigations if they stray beyond U.S. borders. The British parliament is
about to launch an investigation of Washington's lying to the British government
about its use of its facilities for "extraordinary rendition." Constitutional
lawyer Jonathan Turley recently said, "I think it might in fact be time for the
United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought in my
lifetime I would say that." Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence
Wilkerson publicly advised Feith, Addington, And Albert Gonzales "never to
travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."
Prosecution: According to a recent
Mellman
Group survey commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans
of all political stripes overwhelmingly support the appointment of an
independent prosecutor to investigate both the destruction of the CIA's
interrogation tapes and the possible use of torture by the agency. Every segment
of the electorate -- including majorities of Democrats (82 percent),
independents (62 percent), and Republicans (51 percent) -- want to
hold this
administration accountable for its role in the destruction of the torture
tapes.
Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles County Prosecutor who has won
twenty-one convictions in murder trials, including Charles Manson's, has just
published The Prosecution of
George W. Bush for Murder, which argues that there is overwhelming
evidence President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses and
must be prosecuted for the consequent deaths of over 4,000 U.S. soldiers.
Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is
planning a September conference to map out war crimes prosecutions against
President Bush and other administration officials. Velvel says that "plans will
be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as
long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth." Reps. John
Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bill Delahunt have called on Attorney General
Michael Mukasey to appoint a special counsel to investigate the rendition of
Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria.
Citizen action: Voters in Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont this
spring approved a measure that instructs police to arrest President George W.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution,"
should they venture into those precincts.
All these developments suggest approaches that might be used to hold Bush
Administration war criminals accountable. Establishing accountability for U.S.
war crimes in the Iraq war era is the sine qua non for initiating a new
era on different principles. Here are nine reasons why we must not let bygones
be bygones:
1. World peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability.
According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor
at the Nuremberg Tribunals, "The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which
are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen
responsible to law." Moving in that direction will be impossible unless such
responsibility applies to the statesmen of the world's most powerful countries,
and above all the world's sole superpower. U.S. support for the war crimes
charges like those just brought by the prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will represent little more than
hypocrisy if U.S. Presidents are not held to the same standard.
2. The rule of law is central to our democracy.
Most Americans believe that even the highest officials are bound by law. If
we send mentally-disabled juveniles to prison as adults, but let government
officials who authorize torture and launch illegal wars go scot-free, we destroy
the very basis of the rule of law.
3. We must not allow precedents to be set that promote war crimes.
Executive action unchallenged by Congress changes the way our law is
interpreted. According to
Robert Borosage, writing for Huffington Post, "If Bush's extreme assertions
of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new
law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself."
4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our government.
The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise the
unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of our
democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as citizens,
would "submit ourselves to rules only if under rules." Countries like Chile can
attest that the restoration of democracy and the rule of law requires more than
voting a new party into office -- it requires a rejection of impunity for the
criminal acts of government officials.
5. We must forestall an imperialist resurgence.
When they are out of office, the advocates of imperial expansion and global
domination have proven brilliant at lying in wait to undermine and destroy their
opponents.
They did it to destroy the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
They'll do it again to an Obama Administration unless their machinations are
exposed and discredited first.
6. We must have national consensus on the real reasons for the Bush
Administration's failures.
Republicans are preparing to dominate future decades of American politics by
blaming the failure of the Iraq war on those who "sent a signal" that the U.S.
would not "stay the course" whatever the cost. Establishing the real reasons for
the failure of the U.S. in Iraq -- the criminal and anti-democratic character of
the war -- is the necessary condition for defeating that effort.
7. We must restore America's damaged reputation abroad.
The world has watched as the United States -- the self-proclaimed steward of
democracy -- has systematically broken the letter and spirit of its
Constitution, violated international treaties, and ignored basic moral tenets of
humanity. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora recently pointed out to
the Senate Armed Services Committee, our nation's "policy of cruelty" has
violated our "overarching foreign policy interests and our national security."
To establish international legitimacy, we must demonstrate that we are capable
of holding our leaders to account.
8. We must lay the basis for major change in U.S. foreign policy.
Real security in the era of global warming and nuclear proliferation must be
based on international cooperation. But genuine cooperation requires that the
U.S. entirely repudiate the course of the past eight years. The American people
must understand why international cooperation rather than pursuit of global
domination is necessary to their own security. And other countries must be
convinced that we really mean it.
9. We must deter future U.S. war crimes.
The specter of more war crimes haunts our future. Rumors continue to
circulate about an American or American-backed Israeli attack on Iran. A
recently introduced
House
resolution promoted by AIPAC "demands" that the President initiate what is
effectively a blockade against Iran -- an act seen by some as tantamount to a
declaration of war. Nothing could provide a greater deterrent to such future war
crimes than establishing accountability for those of the past.
Holding war criminals accountable will require placing the long-term
well-being of our country and the world ahead of short-term political advantage.
As Rep. Wexler put it,
"We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this
Administration whether or not it helps us politically or in the next election.
Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history
and that is the true test."
© 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.
You can Comment at
Hearlink Blog
Vermont
towns approve Bush "indictment"
Associated Press - March 4, 2008 8:33 PM ET
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) - They weren't running, but President Bush and Dick Cheney
were on the ballots in two Vermont towns.
Voters there approved measures calling for the indictment of Bush and Cheney.
Both are accused of violating the Constitution.
The measures carry no legal weight and are more symbolic than anything. They
call on police to arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit Brattleboro or
nearby Marlboro.
In Brattleboro, the vote was 2,012 to 1,795. In Marlboro, which held a town
meeting on the issue, it was 43-25 with three abstentions.
Voters interviewed after casting ballots in Brattleboro said they saw the
article as an opportunity to express their frustration over the war in Iraq and
Bush's tenure in general.
The White House press office isn't commenting, but the Republican National
Committee denounced the indictment effort.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/vermontindict.htm
http://www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/marlboro.htm
Vermont Citizens Vote to Indict Bush and Cheney as Criminals!
You can Comment at
Hearlink Blog
July
25, 2008 - IMPEACHMENT
|