Idaho Mountain Express: Bush, Cheney must be held accountable for torture crimes

TALK BACK: Now you can add YOUR comments about this article.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Bush, Cheney must be held accountable for torture crimes

Of all the acts of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have bred such revulsion as theWhite House decision to blow off Geneva Conventions on humane treatment and approve torture of suspected terrorists as an acceptable American ethic.

Despite incoming President Barack Obama's inclination to "move on," tacit approval of torture as a war crime cannot be dismissed. Waiving off this horror and arguing against punishment would reduce U.S. moral standards to those of a barbaric Third World nation whose culture accepts government brutality as ho-hum practice.

It also would certify the delusional maxim of disgraced President Richard Nixon, who airily rationalized his crimes thus: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

Since 9/11, journalists have documented U.S. mistreatment that emulated KGB Stalinist techniques—kidnapping, imprisonment in faraway jails, torture.

Now, a bipartisan U.S. Senate report pins torture squarely on the Bush-Cheney administration, saying torture "strengthened the hand of our enemies and compromised our moral authority."

The International Red Cross has declared that U.S. waterboarding is torture and could make Bush administration officials guilty of war crimes. The Red Cross said one U.S. prisoner was waterboarded as many as three times one day.

A former Army interrogator using the nom de plume of Matthew Alexander has written a book denouncing torture as useless and counterproductive.

In a TV interview in which he rejected torture accusations, Cheney avoided explaining how gross mistreatment became "legal": Justice Department official John Yoo wrote a February 2002 "opinion" that Geneva Conventions could be ignored.

He helpfully redefined torture to allow the ancient cruelty of waterboarding, whose effect on a victim was described in 1623: "The "body was swollen twice or thrice as before, his cheeks like great bladders and his eye staring and strutting out beyond his forehead."

Thus, Yoo freed interrogators to inflict hellish treatment, plus tried to immunize the administration from charges under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996.

Ample U.S. precedent exists for war crimes trials. In 1898, an Army major was court-martialed for waterboarding in the Philippines. In 1947, Japanese soldier Yukio Asano was tried for waterboarding an American civilian. In the Vietnam War, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for waterboarding.

If the Obama administration ducks this obligation, America would join a roster of rogue nations, including the bloodthirsty Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet that waterboarded thousands of prisoners.

print version

Leave a Comment

There are 17 comments

The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc.

spm

12/21/08 - 10:26

Ditto, PJM..

It amazes me how much I hear about the US and the Geneva Convention as it relates to Al Qaeda - they are not a part of it. Go read before you puke on the page. If it was your child that was captured by terrorists and tortured, your tune would be different. There are times when we need to keep our "feelings" in check as it relates to torture, and there are times we must not - when it comes to the safety and security of our Nation.

Reply to spm

Jimmy Wonder – Southern California

12/21/08 - 10:59

In "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" Vincent Bugliosi (the district attorney who prosecuted Charles Manson and the author of several best selling books), makes a well reasoned case against President Bush.

Others in his administration very well may be guilty of high crimes.

But, often elected officials need the push from the public to make the case they should take action.

If you believe, as I do, that the administration's actions should be legally challenged, then do everything you can to make that happen.

Reply to spm

Parto

12/21/08 - 15:23

PJM

This is what the Geneva Convention says about people who are deemed terrorist/non combatants.

after a trial has taken place proving they are "non combatants"*

Combatants who do not qualify for POW status

A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."

Because the United States signed the Geneva Convention, it applies.

*Most combatants have not been given a trial so we are also in violation in this area also

Keeping our feelings in check is what you need to do, so far 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis are dead as a result of poor Intel gotten from torture.

How many Americans need to die from bad Intel before you are happy?

PJM

12/20/08 - 16:44

"Justice Department official John Yoo wrote a February 2002 "opinion" that Geneva Conventions could be ignored."
That's because - duh - the Geneva Convention is a treaty obligation and Al Qaeda never signed it, only other countries. It was not intended to cover non-uniformed combatants who in the past would be shot on sight, end of story. We in the USA gave the terrorists more rights than any enemy combatants ever before. So its nonsense to say that the Bush administration was trying to 'above the law', they were trying to evaluate what the law was and work within. You can disagree, but dont be holier than thou about it - when some of the prisoners were released from Gitmo, they went back, to fight and engage in terrorism. Go figure! .

Reply to PJM

12/20/08 - 19:02

Keep dreaming.
Bush is a war criminal.

Reply to PJM

Roberto

12/20/08 - 19:41

You are right. We did not sign agreements regarding enemy combatants.
The effort to go after Cheney, Yoo, Bush is a waste of time.

Reply to PJM

parto

12/20/08 - 22:45

This is what the Geneva Convention says about people who are deemed terrorist/non combatants.

after a trial has taken place proving they are "non combatants"*

Combatants who do not qualify for POW status

For another words the Geneva Convention does apply .

*Most combatants have not been given a trial so we are also in violation in this area also

parto

12/20/08 - 14:55

The current war in Iraq, is in part the result of bad Intel that resulted from torture.

After a Libyan trainer for al-Qaida was captured shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States turned him over to Egypt, where they tortured him.

During torture Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi made the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Bush used this connection as, a principal justification for the invasion of Iraq.

He later recanted, but it was too late.

The result, a needless war, 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis dead.

Today a group of 49 retired admirals and generals have come out against the use of torture .

It is their contention that
"Not only does mistreatment of prisoners produce bad intelligence, it violates the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, creates damaged soldiers and has ruined the United States standing in the world "

Sadly to many Conservatives cant get over their need for vengeance, they put their feelings over what is good for the country.
And so have hamstrung our solders with poor intelligence.

12/19/08 - 20:01

Inane and irresponsible.

Brent Baxter – Seattle, WA

12/19/08 - 17:12

Thank you for the editorial. Dick Cheney has now come out and essentially admitted that he committed war crimes. He apparently doesn't think America cares. Now is the time for American citizens to decide what this country really stands for. Your editorial is a patriotic contribution to that debate.

DLG

12/19/08 - 12:27

In nature what a terrorist does is torture humanity. I don't feel sorry that any kind of treatment or efforts that are taken to extract information from these dirt bags and protect future human life. If one of your family members were killed by an attack that might have been prevented I am sure you would think differently. The Geneva Convention applies to military forces not terrorists!

Reply to DLG

pat

12/19/08 - 14:06

Bull.
The only results you're going to get is bad intel and a whole lot more terrorists.

Reply to DLG

RBN

12/19/08 - 18:41

Weak dude, weak.

Ever heard or rendition? Wiki that and get back to me.

Reply to DLG

RKL

12/19/08 - 19:32

Unfortunately, when we call someone a terrorist it does not mean that they are actually terrorists, or that they don't feel as if they are justified (when for instance a drone attacks and kills innocent civilians), and at what point does killing innocent people conflict with preventing future acts of what you call terrorism? It's a vicious circle and cycle and one of the ways to keep it on track is to at least honor the Geneva Convention. Also, and I'm sure you already realize this, to much of the world, we are looked upon as terrorists who illegally invaded a couple of countries and are terrorists doing damage for our benefit.

Read the book listed below, it will do much to educate you on this topic and perhaps lead to some civil discourse.

Also, think about a situation where a relative of yours, for instance, is taken prisoner and his/her treatment is based on what they know we have done.

There is a lot to consider.

Reply to DLG

DLG

12/19/08 - 20:15

Your liberal bleeding hearts torture me!

Reply to DLG

12/20/08 - 14:08

DLG,
That's it?
That's all you've got?
That is weak!

Steve – Provo

12/19/08 - 10:17

This is a very good article, and I strongly suggest that people take this topic very seriously. Our president and entire executive branch are NOT above the law, including the Geneva Conventions!
A great book on this topic of holding our top government officials accountable is "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi.