Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 Carries the Death Penalty...**must read**

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:38 PM
Original message
U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 Carries the Death Penalty...**must read**
On today's Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/1333214

Thursday, June 30th, 2005

Fmr. NY Congressmember Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture


In a newly-published article in The Nation former New York Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the committee that voted to impeach Richard Nixon calls on the public and the press to demand President Bush and his senior White House staff be held accountable for the torture of Abu Ghraib and be prosecuted under the 1996 War Crime Act.

In the last few months, mainstream human rights groups have been calling for top U.S officials in the Bush administration to be held accountable for the torture and abuse of military prisoners at U.S detention centers around the world. In April, Human Rights Watch demanded that a special prosecutor be named to investigate Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet and other top officials for possible war crimes related to the abuse. Last month, Amnesty International issued a damning report blasting the Bush administration for ignoring international law and mistreating detainees. The group criticized the Bush administration for failing to carry out a full and independent investigation of the torture at Abu Ghraib and for failing to hold any senior officials accountable.

Well, The Nation magazine is publishing an article in its July 18th issue titled "Torture and Accountability." ** http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050718&s=holtzman In the article, the author, former Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, writes that there is precedent to hold U.S officials accountable for wrongdoing. She points to public pressure that forced Congress to end the Vietnam war, relentless press coverage of the Watergate scandal which ultimately lead to Nixon's resignation and public demands that led to the independent 9/11 commission.

<snip>

And it seems to me that with the terrible scandal, Abu Ghraib, that we need -- we can’t, as they tried in Watergate to do, cut off the investigation at the small fry, at the lowest level. You have to look, and the international law precedence and American law requires it, you look up the chain of command. What I discovered by accident was that -- this is not a concern that I have alone -- President Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, himself, who is now the Attorney General of the United States, wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying one of the reasons we need to opt out of the Geneva Conventions wasn't just because they didn't like the Geneva Conventions because they don't like treaties, but he said, we have to worry about prosecutions under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. That, it turns out, is a federal statute that applies to any U.S. national, military or civilian, high or low, who violates the Geneva Conventions in certain ways. In other words, who engages in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. And it's not just those who engage in it, it's those who order it or those who, knowing about it, fail to take steps to stop it. That means higher-ups.

<snip>

And basically, what it does, it makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions a federal crime. Got it? Just like kidnapping or interstate burglary or child pornography, it is a federal crime. And the other thing, that's interesting is that it carries the death penalty. If death results from torture or inhuman treatment, then there is a death penalty, and that means there's no statute of limitations. That means that if any high level official violates the War Crimes Act, and somebody died, they can be prosecuted. They are subject to prosecution for the rest of their lives.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow, big kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yowza!
They can get the death penalty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Beautiful find!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Poetic Justice?
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. WOW.
stunned!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. nominated.
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I second it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. add my recommendation.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Great work by NY Congressmember Holtzman. HOw can we
help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Death penalty
After all, in Texas they have no problem putting to death those with mental disabilities...I'm just saying:)



nominated for hope for our country, the world, and justice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. As shameful as are bushco's acts, it's even more shameful
that they are apparently above all laws written by man, both here and abroad.

Are we proud to be Americans yet?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. More evidence to support the idea that those now in power will stay there.
They might be replaced by like minded puppets every "selection" cycle to keep the slaves convinced that there is some semblence of democracy but make no mistake, these criminals are not going to do anything that would let any of their minions pay for the misdeeds done at their master's beheast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. Here's a good companion piece from 2004 in Newsweek:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

But while the discussion in the Justice memo revolves around the possible application of the War Crimes Act to members of the U.S. military, there is some reason to believe that administration lawyers were worried that the law could even be used in the future against senior administration officials.

One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a primary architect of the administration's legal strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice Department.

"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo replied, according to the lawyer who attended the meeting. "The implication was that a new president would come into office and start potential prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)

This appears to be precisely the concern in Gonzales's memo dated January 25, 2002, in which he strongly urges Bush to stick to his decision to exempt the treatment of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from the provisons of the Geneva Conventions. (Powell and the State Department had wanted the U.S. to at least have individual reviews of Taliban fighters before concluding that they did not qualify for Geneva Convention provisions.)

One reason to do so, Gonzales wrote, is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." He added that "it is difficult to predict with confidence what actions might be deemed to constitute violations" of the War Crimes Act just as it was "difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." Such uncertainties, Gonzales wrote, argued for the President to uphold his exclusion of Geneva Convention provisions to the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees who, he concluded, would still be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessarity, in a manner consistent with the principles" of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.

In the end, after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, captured Taliban and Qaeda fighters would not be given prisoner of war status under the conventions. It is a rendering that Administration lawyers believed would protect U.S. interrogators or their superiors in Washington from being subjected to prosecutions under the War Crimes Act based on their treatment of the prisoners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
15. Maybe we do need more strict constructionist on the Supreme Court!
Too bad I'm against the death penalty.:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. My god, not that.
Do we have one now? I didn't think that the talibornagain had made it that far.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. You are a real hoot!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. THIS IS IT!!!!
:woohoo:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monkie Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
17. i hope the enablers see this: "fail to take steps to stop it"
"That, it turns out, is a federal statute that applies to any U.S. national, military or civilian, high or low, who violates the Geneva Conventions in certain ways. In other words, who engages in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. And it's not just those who engage in it, it's those who order it or those who, knowing about it, fail to take steps to stop it."

"And the other thing, that's interesting is that it carries the death penalty. If death results from torture or inhuman treatment, then there is a death penalty, and that means there's no statute of limitations"

doesn't that make just about EVERY American and certainly ALL of washington Democrats AND Republicans and the MSM guilty of a federal crime that carries the death penalty with NO statute of limitations???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. So if our congressmen/women do nothing to stop bush they
are guilty too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
19. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I'll see your kick and raise you a rec.
Edited on Thu Jun-30-05 07:36 PM by hootinholler
:kick:

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
21. No statute of limitations!!!
Perhaps the Bush Crime Family will stand trial after all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. Off with his head!!!
They could make an extra tall gallows for bush, a sort of bungee jumping
kind of hanging, where bush, rumsfield, condi, cheney, frist, lott, and
powell are pushed off of a helicopter hovering 1000 feet up. The hangman's
noose could be about 980 feet long, so that the hanging would occurr at
20 feet above the public, so that people got a good look at the
war criminal's expression as the rope pulled taught. Even greater
distances could be used so that the impact velocity of the body once
the head came off took it straight in to an open grave, to spare the
public burial costs.

Then we could hold the hanging by a city dump and be rid of the trash.

FINALLY!!! We're gonna have a trial and a hanging!! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
24. All we need now is a buttload of cash and we're good to prosecute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. I saw her today with Amy and glad this was posted
It will take years to clean out the neo-con criminals from our government
I want no presidential pardons when it comes down to prosecution and arrests

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. It wasn't just torture either because a significant
number of the prisoners died at the hands of their torturers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vj68 Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Kick
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
il_lilac Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-05 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. Impeach and prosecute! (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
29. I don't support the death penalty, but in case anyone does not understand
the seriousness of war crimes, let them contemplate this.
In particular the Nation article (linked in the OP) is a must read.
Let the Bush enablers and cheerleaders take a moment to reflect on history and how war crimes are no laughing matter. Remember the Nazi hunters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
30. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
31. Kick
:kick:

NO statute of limitations! I like that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. yep
they will not be forgotten



:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. OK, Now back in the real world...
Nothing major is going to come of this.

The torture scandal may knock * down a couple points in popularity, but if it really heats up, they'll find a few Pvt Englands to blame.

End of story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. end of story?
ONLY if people let it end. Got anything constructive to add? :-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-01-05 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Sorry but considering what
this administration has already gotten away with, I doubt this is going to become an actual case against anyone at the top. It'll be used as a politcal weapon but sadly, that the welfare of a few hundred prisoners is not going to bring this administration down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-02-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I understand your pessimism
but I don't consider that a GIVEN by any means.
I watched Watergate unfold and have seen tides change.
There are real laws involved here.
& If things are simply hopeless, why even bother anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC