[News Service Index] [Comment Blog] [Now on Facebook] [Heartlink Home] [Bio] [Heartlink Radio Show] [Coaching/Counseling] [Classes] [Seminars] [Other Services] [Contact] [Disclaimer]



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."


warcrimes1

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


What's the greatest thing you could ever do?  Imagine it and do it!


Register for Hypnosis Secrets Revealed Seminar or  The Crossing Classes. If you can't join us physically join our ONLINE CLASSES - including SACRED GEOMETRY.

[HeartlinkShop & Crop Circle Cards ] Check out my Classes  

  © 2010 Hearlink Blog. All Rights reserved.
Contact Us:       blog@cabiz.net      http://heartlink.wordpress.com