Nat Hentoff: What Does Letting Our Own War Criminals Go Free Tell Us About Ourselves?

[laststeamtrain]

What Does Letting Our Own War Criminals Go Free Tell Us About Ourselves?

By Nat Hentoff

December 15, 2008 "Village Voice" -- - Since I live in the Village, my Congressman is Jerrold Nadler, a civil libertarian for all seasons. Unlike many of his Democratic colleagues, he has never been in fear of being targeted as "soft on terrorism" for opposing the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights. Nadler certainly does not underestimate the jihadists: The 9/11 attacks exploded in his district.

In The Almanac of American Politics, Michael Barone describes Nadler's reaction to that day of terror: Securing "$20 billion for the cleanup and eventual rebuilding, he spearheaded numerous actions on behalf of affected families . . ." but "Nadler remained true to his civil libertarian views. He vigorously opposed the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution." And since 2007, he has chaired the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

In that subcommittee, and on the floor of the House, he fought Bush (and some Democrats) in order to give "enemy combatants" their habeas corpus rights. (The Supreme Court has agreed.) And, unlike many Democrats, he has worked to narrow the very definition of "enemy combatant," which is especially important. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, voted for by too many Democrats, anyone held as a captured "detainee" in a military prison can be charged with giving "material support" to the enemy and can be locked up indefinitely. American citizens have also been held on this charge—which could include giving money to a charity they weren't aware was on some secret government list—and thus accused of having "links," however tenuous, to terrorism.

Now, in House Resolution 1531—introduced on November 20—Nadler is the first member of Congress to urge Bush, in his final 90 days, not to pardon "senior members of his administration." This is intended to prevent Bush from giving immunity from prosecution to those "senior members" responsible for the torture policy and other violations of U.S. and international laws that could make Dick Cheney, for example, a defendant.

As of this writing, a November 25 Wall Street Journal headline indicates that the "White House Is Disinclined to Grant Clemency to Officials Involved in Terror Policies." I doubt that Bush—his legacy already in irredeemable shambles—would want to add, as he left, a firestorm of abuse far greater than what engulfed President Ford for pardoning Nixon. But, conceivably, Bush could change his mind, pressured by senior colleagues and CIA officials who would dread learning, firsthand, what prison conditions are actually like. Nevertheless, although the section about a pardon in Nadler's resolution may well not be necessary, it's good to have it as a preemptive way to prevent Bush from issuing, in the last hours of his reign, pardons for his accomplices.

<more>

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21461.htm

[KakistocracyHater]

1. give Bush his time in court

what Republican claims to be with him now? Just because they Milosevic'd their own War Crimes Act of 1996 DOESN'T mean they are immune, most dictators did the same thing & placed themselves & their buddies(telecoms) above the law, got em anyway. Too many neocons are running & burrowing in as "Libertarians", I hope the real ones realize the implications.

Letting them go & ignoring the rule of law would imply we may be a rogue nation; zero force for real peace, nil for morals, terrible example.

[LynnTheDem]

2. It explains the next 911 that will hit us sooner or later.

It also goes ffar in explaining the first 911 attacks. But shhhh! Must keep the faith in the "they hate us for our freedoms" bullshit.

[irislake]

3. So much for "change"

Too bad.

[Mari333]

4. That there is only one political party

the party of corporate America. the rest of us dont mean jack squat.