Democracy Now! - The Downing Street Memo Comes To Washington

[reprehensor]

The Downing Street Memo Comes To Washington; Conyers Blasts "Deafening Sound of Silence"

Tomorrow in Washington, Congressmember John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, will convene a public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo and other newly released documents that Conyers says show the administration's "efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence." Conyers also says that he plans to raise new documents that back up the accuracy of the Downing Streets memo, which is actually the classified minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Tony Blair and his senior advisers.

The minutes, which were published May 1 by the Sunday Times of London, paint a picture of an administration that had already committed to attacking Iraq, was manipulating intelligence and had already begun intense bombing of Iraq to prepare for the ground invasion. This was almost a year before the actual invasion officially began. The minutes are from a July 23, 2002 briefing of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security advisers by British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove. The minutes contain an account of Dearlove's report that President George W. Bush had decided to bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" (weapons of mass destruction); and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Meanwhile, this past weekend, The Sunday Times of London had another expose, showing that British cabinet members were warned that the UK was committed to taking part in a US-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal. The memo was written in advance of the Downing Street meeting that produced the Downing Street Minutes.

Despite the explosive information in these documents, they have received very little attention in the corporate media in this country and Bush administration officials have only been asked about it a handful of times. On June 7, after more than a month of media silence, a reporter for the Reuters news agency finally questioned President Bush and Tony Blair on the Downing Street Memo.

audio and transcript at link.

[Conker]

1. Go Conyers!

[JDPriestly]

2. Our argument should be:

I submit that this is the best argument.

The DSMs show that Blair knew that the War in Iraq would violate international law unless authorized by a UN resoluton.

Blair and Bush went to the UN to get an authorizing UN resolution, but the best they could get was Resolution 1441, which required Saddam to cooperate fully with the UN inspectors or face serious consequences and required the inspectors to report back to the UN on whether Saddam was cooperating.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Bush and Blair went back to the UN to try to get a stronger resolution that would actually contain a trigger mechanism that would make going to war legal in January - February 2003.

Colin Powell went to the United Nations on January 20, 2003 and presented evidence purporting to show Saddam had WMDs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Saddam acquiesced to virtually all demands that the inspectors made on him.

On February 14, 2003, Hans Blix reported to the United Nations Security Council that Saddam was cooperating and that Powell's "evidence" was either irrelevant or bogus.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/recent%20items.html

On March 7, 2003, Blair's attorney general made a statement to the British Parliament, arguing, in contradiction to his statements and the consensus expressed in the memos, that the war would be legal under Resolution 1441 since it did not prohibit unilaterally going to war.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf

The British attorney general capitulated to the political pressure of Bush and Blair, but his original legal analysis is corrrect. A court would have to decide, however, Blair probably violated international law. And if Blair did, so did Bush.

Of course, the DSMs also reveal Bush as the total hypocrite and liar that he is.

I believe that Rice was under oath at her confirmation hearings. I wonder if she said anything that can be proven false by the DSMs?

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Is Conyers preparing an impeachment case?

From the transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: In our news headlines today, Wisconsin, the state's Democratic Party, has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush, as well as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The resolution called on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the three officials accusing them of misleading the country in the lead up to war. Last year, the Democratic Party in Nevada passed the same resolution. The National Green Party, as well as former presidential candidate, Nader, have -- Ralph Nader, have called on Bush's impeachment. Are you calling for President Bush's impeachment?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: At this point, I'm still collecting evidence. There are a lot of other bits of evidence that we have to put together to make it perfectly clear that this isn't a matter of how you interpret a memo that speaks in the plainest of language, and I, as the senior member on the committee that would be in charge of anything that comes under the rubric of the I-word, I am staying away from that subject until I have completed my investigation. There are others, who -- constitutional scholars, lawyers, professors that are all looking at this question, but I can tell you this: Deceiving the Congress, deceiving the American people, planning a war that is not pre-emptive, cooking the books to create weapons of mass destruction, and then trying to beef up the intelligence to comport to a -- to provoke Iraq to join us in a war, then going to the United Nations, hoping that the United Nations demand to go in and examine for these hidden weapons, all of these pretexts which failed, and now we have the question of whose -- does Article I, Section 8, giving the Congress the power to declare war, is that still in existence or have we slipped into this era where in a never-ending war against terrorism, we may be confronted with presidents who may operate as carelessly and as recklessly as this President that we have at this point?

I would maintain that any regime official, not only Mr. Bush, who had a part in the deception that led to Congressional authorization of the IWR or who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to deceive the United Nations Security Council into approving the use of force against Iraq is guilty of war crimes. Public remarks aimed at selling the war to the public, and thus putting pressure on elected representatives and persuading leaders and diplomats abroad, are part of this pattern. Consequently, at a minimum. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Dr. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld should be impeached and removed from office and they and many others, including General Powell, Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith, should be indicted and prosecuted under the War Crimes Act of 1996. If the United States government is unable or unwilling to bring changes and make a good faith effort to prosecute, then an international tribunal should be convened for this purpose.

I also advocate the impeachment and removal from office of Mr. Gonzales and the indictment and prosecution of him and others, including some of those named above, on charges arising out of the use of torture and other violations of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Those charges are beyond the scope of the deception that war in Iraq and should be discussed elsewhere.

[bpilgrim]

4. if we fail to ACT (investigate & prosecute) the ICC gains JURISDICTION

AUTOMATICALLY

JC knows what time it is and he ain't alone :bounce:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Qualification

The United States did not ratify the Rome Statute. Neither did Iraq under Saddam, which should be no surprise. Had either done so, the matter would be more clear cut.

However, the designers of the Rome Statute were not so naive as to think a tyrant like Saddam was going to give the international community his permission to be held to the standards of modern civilization. Therefore, they also allowed other methods to a case to the ICC. The case may be referred to the Court by the UN Security Council, by another member state or on the initiative of a prosecutor. See Articles 12 through 15.

What in the 1990s the designers of the Rome Statute probably did not believe in there darkest thoughts is that it might become necessary to bring a case for war crimes and crimes against humanity against the President of the United States (or, as the case may be, someone presuming to be such) and top officials of his administration. Yet that is the exact situation in which we find ourselves.

ON EDIT

Of course, the existence of the ICC does not mean that a special tribunal cannot be convened for a specific purpose, as had to be done in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda prior to the Rome Statute taking effect. If the neocons really don't like the ICC, we can always go that route just to please them.

Whatever route is taken, it is important that they answer for their crimes.

[bpilgrim]

6. true. but as you said that doesn't give ANY nation IMMUNITY

that is why the neoCONs are DESPERATE to get other countries to give them IMMUNITY from WAR CRIMES.

but i believe that they were only able to get a token amount to sign and now it's the neoCONs vs most of the WORLD.

BUT

with 100 congress folks and a MILLION Americans asking questions they might not be able to get away with THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY after all.

peace