Bad news for the Bush and Blair governments has been coming out of Great Britain, Ireland and Germany recently and it appears to be the type of thing that could become a trend in other countries as well. The bad news is that people charged with crimes for having taken action against military targets as a protest against the Iraq war have successfully used the defense that the war is illegal and an act of aggression by the United States and the UK.
The courts are starting to accept that the war against Iraq is a crime
The Guardian newspaper carried this headline on Tuesday October 17, 2006 for a story reported by George Monbiot. (The link is to a Raw Story article on the Guardian piece) The story cites several incidents where protesters have been arrested for sabotage of military equipment to prevent its use in the Iraq war. In one case “The defendants were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium. They cited section 5 of the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, which provides lawful excuse for damaging property if that action prevents property belonging to other people from being damaged, and section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, which states that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime". In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime. Another case involved a German Army Major who refused to obey an order he felt would implicate him in the invasion of Iraq. In his case, “The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.”
These findings may become the legal precedents that sound the death knell for Bush and his war council. One, a judicial finding that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain was not justified either as an act of self defense or under UN Resolution 1441 which was determined not to contain authorization to do so. The other, a finding of “disproportionate force to achieve a military objective” was further amplified by the recent findings of researchers at John Hopkins University that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the current war.
This would mean that the US and UK have committed an act of aggression in the eyes of the international community. Yet, every American politician that appears with some talking head on the cable/network news shows continue to assert that they were correct to support the invasion, some saying they would do the same today even knowing at the time what we have learned since.
Basically, we sent inspectors into Iraq to verify that no weapons existed. Then, having proven their defenselessness, invaded their country with such devastating force that the operation was dubbed “shock and awe”. What is different about this administration’s actions from a person shooting another person they know to be unarmed and claiming to be justified because the person they shot had a weapon? Many Americans are of the opinion that our country and our leaders are guilty of a crime but, fear the reprisal of the White House that this administration is famous for.
If the Democrats regain control of either branch of Congress they MUST use their subpoena power to conduct honest, open investigations and, most importantly, they must be willing to pursue the evidence without reservation and to hold responsible anyone the investigations determine to be in violation of the law, including the President himself.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Dirty Dozen
Thanks to the U.S. Senate the President now has the ability to classify anyone as an enemy combatant then detain them without charges for an indefinite period of time, block any judicial review of this process, disallow any challenges by prisoners to their incarceration while subjecting them to torture to obtain coerced evidence which can then be used against them along with other secret evidence to which these prisoners nor their attorneys would ever have access. Sounds as “Fair and Balanced” as Fox News.
Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety
may require it."
What is at all difficult to understand about this clause in the U.S. Constitution? There is neither a rebellion nor an invasion threatening the public safety. America has engaged in war before without the need to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus with two infamous exceptions. On both occasions the government was subsequently found to have violated the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.
President Bush has been attempting to secure unrestricted power for the executive since taking office, but this is a scarier proposition than most. According the Michael Ratner, President for the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an article posted at the Nation:
Twice in the past five years the Supreme Court has insisted that habeas
corpus applies to these prisoners and ruled that the Bush Administration
must apply the law. Yet last week Congress buckled in the face of
election-year rhetoric about "terrorism" from the White House and passed
new legislation denying our clients the right to challenge their detentions,
or even to see the evidence against them. While I'm convinced that this
law will not stand in court, we are still facing at least a year of
challenges before it is declared unconstitutional
[snip]…
The Administration has been attempting to use military commissions
for five years and has not yet been able to set up one that complies
with the laws of war or the Constitution. Bush's most recent effort
was struck down by the Supreme Court in June. This legislation is no
better: Coerced evidence is still permitted; a detainee does not get to
see all the evidence against him, and a wide variety of hearsay
evidence can be used.
The President has wanted such sweeping authority since 9/11. He has
been getting it piece by piece. First, with the Authorization to Use Military
Force, he obtained from Congress the right to go after those involved
with 9/11. Then he issued an "executive order" in November 2001 granting
him the authority to detain indefinitely without charges any non-citizen
allegedly involved in terrorism--not just those supposedly connected to 9/11.
Subsequently, he claimed the power as commander in chief to detain anyone,
citizen or not, allegedly involved in terrorism or who might be giving support
to those who attack the United States. The Administration argued that those
so detained could be held forever, never charged and, except for US citizens,
denied habeas corpus. Now Congress has placed its imprimatur on these
fantasies of executive omnipotence--what can only be called the legal
structure of a police state.
The remainder of the legislation passed the Senate by a much greater
margin, 65 to 34, with twelve Democrats backing the entire bill. I was
shocked: It did not need to be this way. The Democrats could have
filibustered the legislation; with only a few days left before recess,
they could have succeeded. Despite their strong vocal arguments against
this legislation, in the end the Democrats caved. It was not a moment to
be proud of.
This is the stuff of Soviet spy novels and the communist oppressions that Reagan and the Republicans claim to have eliminated along with ending the cold war. Even worse is that the Senate has given these powers to a man who is without doubt, the most sadistic person to ever lead this nation. As Governor of Texas, George Bush oversaw the executions of 155 individuals, more than any other elected official in recorded American history! He executed the innocent, the mentally disabled, juveniles, and he violated international law by denying foreign citizens the right to contact their government before they were sentenced to death. As President he re-started federal executions, the first since the 1960's and 2 of 3 were Gulf war veterans.
An example of Bush's compassionate conservatism can be found in an interview with Talk magazine and their one time reporter, Tucker Carlson:
In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca
Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand
clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them,"
he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question
ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for
it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real
difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "
"What was her answer?" I wonder.
"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."
To the 155 souls executed at his order, we can now add almost 3000 American service men and women and over 20,000 wounded or injured, plus as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens. In fact, George Bush has managed to kill more Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens than the total number of people killed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.
What reason can be offered by the U.S. Senators who voted for the Military Commission Act which effectively abolished the writ of habeas corpus? What mitigating factors will they offer for having destroyed the very cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law? Whose agenda were they enabling by emasculating the legal principle that has prevented the use of unwarranted arrests to eliminate opponents and silence critics?
There are no acceptable reasons for any Senator to have voted for this bill while claiming to support democracy. Of course, Republicans no longer support either a republic or a democracy as they have all cast their lot with Bush’s Neoconservative administration which has been instituting Fascism in place of our representative form of government since 2001.
The Democratic Senators (listed below) who voted for this bill are reprehensible and not deserving of our future support. Although it is imperative for Democrats to take back the House and Senate if the country is to survive as a democracy, these Senators must be held accountable for their disloyalty to the Nation’s principles and their Party’s tenets. Their re-elections should be challenged from within the Party by honorable candidates who understand the damage these Senators have committed to the U.S. Constitution. They are:
Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety
may require it."
What is at all difficult to understand about this clause in the U.S. Constitution? There is neither a rebellion nor an invasion threatening the public safety. America has engaged in war before without the need to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus with two infamous exceptions. On both occasions the government was subsequently found to have violated the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.
President Bush has been attempting to secure unrestricted power for the executive since taking office, but this is a scarier proposition than most. According the Michael Ratner, President for the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an article posted at the Nation:
Twice in the past five years the Supreme Court has insisted that habeas
corpus applies to these prisoners and ruled that the Bush Administration
must apply the law. Yet last week Congress buckled in the face of
election-year rhetoric about "terrorism" from the White House and passed
new legislation denying our clients the right to challenge their detentions,
or even to see the evidence against them. While I'm convinced that this
law will not stand in court, we are still facing at least a year of
challenges before it is declared unconstitutional
[snip]…
The Administration has been attempting to use military commissions
for five years and has not yet been able to set up one that complies
with the laws of war or the Constitution. Bush's most recent effort
was struck down by the Supreme Court in June. This legislation is no
better: Coerced evidence is still permitted; a detainee does not get to
see all the evidence against him, and a wide variety of hearsay
evidence can be used.
The President has wanted such sweeping authority since 9/11. He has
been getting it piece by piece. First, with the Authorization to Use Military
Force, he obtained from Congress the right to go after those involved
with 9/11. Then he issued an "executive order" in November 2001 granting
him the authority to detain indefinitely without charges any non-citizen
allegedly involved in terrorism--not just those supposedly connected to 9/11.
Subsequently, he claimed the power as commander in chief to detain anyone,
citizen or not, allegedly involved in terrorism or who might be giving support
to those who attack the United States. The Administration argued that those
so detained could be held forever, never charged and, except for US citizens,
denied habeas corpus. Now Congress has placed its imprimatur on these
fantasies of executive omnipotence--what can only be called the legal
structure of a police state.
The remainder of the legislation passed the Senate by a much greater
margin, 65 to 34, with twelve Democrats backing the entire bill. I was
shocked: It did not need to be this way. The Democrats could have
filibustered the legislation; with only a few days left before recess,
they could have succeeded. Despite their strong vocal arguments against
this legislation, in the end the Democrats caved. It was not a moment to
be proud of.
This is the stuff of Soviet spy novels and the communist oppressions that Reagan and the Republicans claim to have eliminated along with ending the cold war. Even worse is that the Senate has given these powers to a man who is without doubt, the most sadistic person to ever lead this nation. As Governor of Texas, George Bush oversaw the executions of 155 individuals, more than any other elected official in recorded American history! He executed the innocent, the mentally disabled, juveniles, and he violated international law by denying foreign citizens the right to contact their government before they were sentenced to death. As President he re-started federal executions, the first since the 1960's and 2 of 3 were Gulf war veterans.
An example of Bush's compassionate conservatism can be found in an interview with Talk magazine and their one time reporter, Tucker Carlson:
In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca
Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand
clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them,"
he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question
ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for
it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real
difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "
"What was her answer?" I wonder.
"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."
To the 155 souls executed at his order, we can now add almost 3000 American service men and women and over 20,000 wounded or injured, plus as many as 655,000 Iraqi citizens. In fact, George Bush has managed to kill more Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens than the total number of people killed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined.
What reason can be offered by the U.S. Senators who voted for the Military Commission Act which effectively abolished the writ of habeas corpus? What mitigating factors will they offer for having destroyed the very cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law? Whose agenda were they enabling by emasculating the legal principle that has prevented the use of unwarranted arrests to eliminate opponents and silence critics?
There are no acceptable reasons for any Senator to have voted for this bill while claiming to support democracy. Of course, Republicans no longer support either a republic or a democracy as they have all cast their lot with Bush’s Neoconservative administration which has been instituting Fascism in place of our representative form of government since 2001.
The Democratic Senators (listed below) who voted for this bill are reprehensible and not deserving of our future support. Although it is imperative for Democrats to take back the House and Senate if the country is to survive as a democracy, these Senators must be held accountable for their disloyalty to the Nation’s principles and their Party’s tenets. Their re-elections should be challenged from within the Party by honorable candidates who understand the damage these Senators have committed to the U.S. Constitution. They are:
Carper (Del.)
Johnson (S.D.)
Landrieu (La.)
Lautenberg (N.J.)
Lieberman (Conn.)
Menendez (N.J)
Nelson (Fla.)
Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Salazar (Co.)
Stabenow (Mich.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
