Tag: War Crimes

The war crimes continue with more revelations about the lies that were told over and over to justify a criminal enterprise formulated by the Bush Cabal spearheaded by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. President Obama continues to use the criminal organization, Blackwater, to guard US State Department personnel while covering up and refusing to investigate or prosecute their crimes.

Jeremy Scahill, national security reoporter for the “Nation”, joined Keith Olbermann on “Countdown” to discuss the latest Wikileaks documents and their implications.

Obama has intervened to stop lawsuits against Rumsfeld and the command authority who gave the orders to torture detainees. . . .

They were systematically supporting death squads, turning a blind eye, to torture and torturing at the same time. . . .

Those people who were against the war from the beginning, who were saying that the war was based on lies, who said that civilians were paying the heaviest price, they’ve been vindicated. There were serious war crimes. They need to be held accountable by the Obama adminstration and that’s where Congress needs to put pressure on this administration.

(this is a rough transcript of some of Mr. Scahill’s comments. I apologize for any inaccuracies. There was no transcript from MSNBC.)

This week Wikileaks again made public more of the  documents that had been classified as secret to cover up the atrocities that were carried by the Iraqis themselves on their own people with American troops turning a blind eye. Thousands of deaths were revealed in these documents which have been methodically mapped to provide a “unique picture of every death.

The really horrifying revelation from these documents is that there was a specific order to ignore the Iraqi abuse called FRAGO 242.

This is the impact of Frago 242. A frago is a “fragmentary order” which summarises a complex requirement. This one, issued in June 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, orders coalition troops not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. Where the alleged abuse is committed by Iraqi on Iraqi, “only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ”.

Frago 242 appears to have been issued as part of the wider political effort to pass the management of security from the coalition to Iraqi hands. In effect, it means that the regime has been forced to change its political constitution but allowed to retain its use of torture.

Frago 242 appears to have been issued as part of the wider political effort to pass the management of security from the coalition to Iraqi hands. In effect, it means that the regime has been forced to change its political constitution but allowed to retain its use of torture.

The systematic viciousness of the old dictatorship when Saddam Hussein’s security agencies enforced order without any regard for law continues, reinforced by the chaotic savagery of the new criminal, political and sectarian groups which have emerged since the invasion in 2003 and which have infiltrated some police and army units, using Iraq’s detention cells for their private vendettas.

So basically, the Iraqis were given a free hand to torture and kill helpless prisoners while coalition troops, who were mostly Americans, walked away.

So far the White House and Pentagon have not said very much and no doubt will again try to spin the leaking of these new documents as treasonous war crime that will endanger the troops and hurt the “war on terror”. It would seem that the British are the only ones coming to their senses when Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called for investigation of abuse claims but shying away from calling for the US to investigate these terrible revelations.

Clegg told BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show: “We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are very serious. I am assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It’s not for us to tell them how to do that.”

Asked if there should be an inquiry into the role of British troops, he said: “I think anything that suggests that basic rules of war, conflict and engagement have been broken or that torture has been in any way condoned are extremely serious and need to be looked at.”

He added: “People will want to hear what the answer is to what are very, very serious allegations of a nature which I think everybody will find quite shocking.”

The Obama Administration continues to add to its own sanctioning of war crimes as it continues to cover up and refuse to investigate the allegations of torture despite all the evidence.

Maybe President Harry S. Truman should have invited Hideki Tojo to the White House for tea and advice. President Obama thinks that it is just fine to invite former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, to the Oval Office to consult with her on Russia, disarmament and other issues. This woman should be in a cell in the Hague for the rest of her life along with George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.

It was Condoleeza Rice who was Bush’s National Security advisor at the time, said in 2003 during the run up to the Iraq war that Sadaam Hussein had “the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon,” and

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

It was with Rice’s blessing in Situation Room meetings that included Cheney Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft that water boarding and other methods of “enhanced interrogation” were approved and became the norm.

So as Glenn Greenwald points out that instead of prosecuting the “Bush officials who broke the law and instituted a worldwide torture regime”, President Obama has appointed “some of them to occupy the highest positions in my administration and then meet with others in order to drink from the well of their wisdom on a wide range of foreign policy matters.”

No, Glenn, it is not “very childish, shrill and unpragmatic” of you or anyone else to demand that

“the person who presided over the Bush White House’s torture-approval-and-choreographing meetings and who was responsible for the single most fear-mongering claim leading to the Iraq War” be held accountable by this President and the Justice Department which is so hell bent to uphold laws that are discriminatory, unpopular and, most likely, unconstitutional.

But, Ms. Rice gets to have tea in the Oval Office and is consulted by President Obama. All is forgiven.

Covering Up War Crimes

Late last night under cover of Friday darkness, the Obama DOJ filed a brief requesting that U.S. District Judge Robert Bates dismiss a law suit over its targeting of an American citizen for assassination in another country. The government claims that the case would reveal “states secrets”.

Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president’s powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Civil liberties groups sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi’s father, arguing that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command’s placement of Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists – outside a war zone and absent an imminent threat – amounted to an extrajudicial execution order against a U.S. citizen. They asked a U.S. district court in Washington to block the targeting.

In response, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the groups are asking “a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action – all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization.”

Miller added, “If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions.”

Now if that isn’t a “Catch 22”. . .

“The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy,” the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights said.

“In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check,” they said.

Is this is the higher bar for keeping “state secrets” that that President Obama had Attorney General Eric Holder set just last year?

Bush and Cheney must be proud of Obama.

Up Date: Marcy Wheeler now has an article on the briefing itself at emptywheel:

Obama Doesn’t Know Why the Fuck He’s Entitled to Kill Al-Awlaki, He Just Is, Damnit

The most striking aspect of the government’s motion to dismiss  the ACLU/CCR lawsuit challenging the use of targeted killing is that the government does not commit to the basis for its authority to kill an American citizen like Anwar al-Awlaki with no review.

(my emphasis)

Up Date 2: Glenn Greenwald from Salon chimes in:

But what’s most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is “state secrets”:  in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate its legality. . . .

But he’s not been charged with any crimes, let alone indicted for any.  The President has been trying to kill him for the entire year without any of that due process.  And now the President refuses even to account to an American court for those efforts to kill this American citizen on the ground that the President’s unilateral imposition of the death penalty is a “state secret.”  And, indeed, American courts — at Obama’s urging — have been upholding that sort of a “state secrecy” claim even when it comes to war crimes such as torture and rendition.  Does that sound like a political system to which any sane, rational person would “surrender”?

h/t lambert @ Corrente

See also Stopping Obama’s Targeted Assassinations

Now Cross posted @ FDL‘s The Seminal

Sounds great only problem is that headline is from England. It seems that Liberal Democrats in Britain have far less problem “looking back” in order to “look forward” than the US.

The Liberal Democrats today set out what they think the terms of the government’s upcoming inquiry into torture should be.

In July David Cameron announced a judicial inquiry into Britain’s role in torture and rendition since the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington, DC, in September 2001.

The three-person inquiry panel will be headed by Sir Peter Gibson, a former appeal court judge who is currently commissioner for the intelligence services. He will be assisted by Dame Janet Paraskeva, the head of the civil service commissioners, and Peter Riddell, the former Times political commentator who is now a senior fellow at the Institute for Government.

Most of the inquiry will be held in secret, but victims of torture and their representatives will be able to give evidence during open sessions, as will representatives of human rights groups.

In a letter to Gibson, Cameron set out the “parameters” of the inquiry, but the final terms have yet to be made public. These parameters included the changing attitude of “other countries” towards counterterrorism detainees, although it makes clear that “this is an inquiry into the actions of the UK, not any other state”.

Meanwhile despite all his campaign rhetoric, Pres Barack Obama defends torture, rendition, indefinite detention and denies detainees habeus corpus, claiming national security concerns and using state secrets to cover up war crimes.

The President has used the courts and the power of his office to not only defend these horrific policies of the Bush/Cheney administration but has expanded them to include targeting American citizens for assassination and manipulating the law to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of this practice that denies the victim not only his rights as a US citizen under the Constitution but the victim’s human rights .

The administration’s legal team is debating how aggressive it should be in a brief responding to the lawsuit, which is due Sept. 24. The suit, filed last month, seeks an injunction that would prevent the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who is accused of playing a leading role for Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.

Justice Department lawyers are circulating a draft brief with several potential arguments for dismissing the case, and lawyers from national security agencies have met to discuss what should go into the final version. But they have not reached a consensus, according to officials familiar with the discussions, because the arguments seen as strongest also carry significant political and legal risks.

“There are a lot of cross-cutting things going on here, and they have to be very careful about how they litigate this,” said Jack Goldsmith, who was a senior Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration. “It’s not just a question of winning the case. There is the public diplomacy side, and there are implications for everything else they are doing in the war on terrorism: detention and targeting and other things, too, I imagine.”

The US is still in the shadows and descending even deeper into the darkness.

Johnathan Turley:

If torture is a national security secret it should be disclosed

Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A. by Charlie Savage

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A.  could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information.

The sharply divided ruling was a major victory for the Obama administration’s efforts to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy powers. It strengthens the White House’s hand as it has pushed an array of assertive counterterrorism policies, while raising an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule for the first time in decades on the scope of the president’s power to restrict litigation that could reveal state secrets. . . . .

   The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

   Among other policies, the Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program . . . .

   As a senator and candidate for the White House, President Obama had criticized the Bush administration’s frequent use of the state-secrets privilege. In February 2009, when his weeks-old administration reaffirmed the Bush administration’s view on the case, civil libertarian groups that had supported his campaign expressed shock and dismay.

Glen Greenwald points out how far we haven fallen:

here’s what The New York Times’ John Schwartz reported in February, 2009, when the Obama DOJ first told the 9th Circuit that they were going to assert the same “state secrets” arguments in this case which the Bush DOJ made:  

“In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.”

 

Schwartz described how the judges on the appellate panel were so startled that they actually asked multiple times if the Obama DOJ was really sticking with the Bush position, as though they couldn’t believe what they were hearing.  What a quaint time that was, when people were surprised by Obama’s replicating Bush’s secrecy and Terrorism positions — the very ones he so vehemently condemned when running for President. After 18 months of seeing this over and over in multiple realms, nobody would react that way now.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner on the decision:    

This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers. The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.

h/t Marcy Wheeler @ FDL

My stand on torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantanamo, Baghram, the two wars is pretty clear. These are war crimes. As per the Nuremberg Principles which the US signed and ratified, covering up the evidence is a war crime. There is already enough evidence to arrest and prosecute George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, along with their co-conspirators at the Hague. There is no statute of limitations, either.

Writing on Slate, the noted conservative constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein notes:

President Obama pledged to restore the rule of law. But the state-secrets-privilege wars with that promise.

I give you this from Paul Rosenberg at Open Left with regards to this case,

Obama Embraces Nazi Nurermberg Trials Logic: “They Were Only Following Orders”:

I will fight targeted assassinations even if a Democratic is President. I am a purity troll.

Glenn Greenwald: Lawsuit challenges Obama’s power to kill citizens without due process

Three weeks ago, I wrote about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, based on the Treasury Department’s failure to grant a “license” to those groups to represent U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki in his efforts to obtain a court order barring the U.S. Government from assassinating him without due process.  In response, Treasury officials issued the license (those groups are nonetheless proceeding with that lawsuit in an attempt to have the entire licensing scheme declared unconstitutional on the ground that the Federal Government has no authority to require its permission before American lawyers can represent American citizens, even if the citizen in question has been accused of being a Terrorist).

With the license now issued, the ACLU and CCR this afternoon filed a lawsuit on behalf of Anwar Awlaki, with Awlaki’s father as the named plaintiff, to prevent the Obama administration from proceeding with Awlaki’s due-process-free assassination.  Awlaki is unable to file the lawsuit on his own because the U.S. government’s threats to kill him, as well as its prior unsuccessful attempts, cause him to be in hiding and thus make it infeasible for him to assert his legal rights directly.

Former Presidential Senior Advisor turned Fox News Political Analyst Karl Rove interviews former President George W. Bush six months from today at his Crawford Texas ranch, and finds a broken, pathetic ex-president who’s reverted to his former days of booze and cocaine since leaving the brightly lit world stage he inhabited for eight years.

Rove finds the venerable ex-president who sacrificed so much and made it his life’s mission to protect America from the hordes of evil terrorists world wide swimming across the oceans with knives in their teeth to kill American babies in their beds has sunk into a paranoid hallucinatory state in which he’s broken all the mirrors in his house out of fear that they are “looking at me” every time he passes one, and who lives in the sad, pathetic delusion that President Obama and the Democrats fully intend to have him arrested, charged, and finally held accountable for what he terms “all my sins” – his war crimes.

It’s sad. He’s a very very sick man, obviously. In this delusional state I doubt very much it’ll be possible for him to understand that Obama and the Democrats are on his side and will always protect him.

Perhaps if we give him more time….

The ACLU has issued a report on national security, Establishing a New Normal. It is an 18 month review that examines Pres. Obama’s record on national security and civil liberties. The report finds that while the President has some steps to curb torture, the CIA secret prisons and the release of the Bush administrations torture memos, according to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president’s stated view that America must lead with its values. “Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling ‘new normal.’ We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation’s strength and security.”

While the Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, was attacking the Left and Liberals for comparing President Obama’s polices to George W. Bush’s, the reality is we and the “professional left” aren’t wrong. This isn’t going to go away just because the Obama loyalists want us to shut up and vote.

This is a 30 minute video from Democracy Now. The last part is an interview with Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. Take the time to watch.