Wilkerson suggests Cheney could be charged with War Crimes

Seriously.  Frontpaged at the BBC here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

(I promise I will learn to make the nifty links.)

This is huge.  I have never heard anything like this from a serious high ranking government or ex-government official.  For those not inclined to look at the article he says and I quote:  

"Certainly it is a domestic crime to advocate terror," he added.

"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well."

This means that some big boys want Cheney to go down.

•  Zero attention

  I posted this yesterday in an open thread I think and it got zero attention.  I was going to do a diary on it, but why bother when Lieberman bashing is all that gets frontpaged here as far as I can tell.  Oh, and anything from Armando, of course.  ;)

  by smokeymonkey on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:10:25 PM PDT

  •  another diary about it just sunk

    off the front page.

    Amazing!

    I think it's a huge story, too.  I tried to post a diary about it late last night, but something odd happened and, well, it didn't work (to make a long story short).

    I shall recommend this one.  Again.

    by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:43:49 PM PDT

    •  Here's your Yahoo link

      Ex-Powell Aide Criticizes Bush on Iraq

      Best quote:

      Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

      If this war wasn't such an awful thing, I'd be having a great time watching them turn on each other.  Can't find it in my heart to enjoy myself though. Too much pointless death and destruction.

      by Diogenes on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:51:08 PM PDT

      •  interestingly enough

        this was the front page headline today on my very Republican hometown paper. Shocked the crap out of me.

        by peglyn on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:52:56 PM PDT

        •  Wow!

          I'd love to know what paper that is!!

          by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:54:27 PM PDT

          •  Here's another thread

            ON the Cheney vacuum...

            I should change my handle to "CheneyWatcher"

            There are pobably a dozen Cheney watchers out there in dKos land, maybe we should unite!

            ARB

            by A Rational Being on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:01:11 AM PDT

        •  Is this a Republican Hit Piece?

          Put out there by Bush through Powell down to this ol Chap to cut the legs off the beast???

          hmmmm

          interesting... republican bloodletting?

          by kubla000 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:23:46 PM PDT

        •  Seriously -- can you tell us which paper?

          A link could be really cool.

          by jem6x on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:07:19 PM PDT

        •  Please tell us

          - which paper?

          by Renaldo Migaldi on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:27:53 PM PDT

      •  Cool. I think we posted at same time

        I just posted that quote below.  :)

        by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:55:20 PM PDT

      •  It's about time someone

        said it. What ever happened to Cheney giving Halliburton profits to charity??

        by mattes on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:24:25 PM PDT

      •  CNN Headline MISLEADING...

        Here is an excerpt from CNN'sversion:

        LONDON, England (AP) -- A former senior U.S. State Department official says he has come to doubt whether President George W. Bush's administration presented an honest intelligence case for the war in Iraq.

        "You begin to speculate, you begin to wonder -- Was this intelligence spun? Was it politicized? Was it cherry-picked? Did in fact the American people get fooled? I'm beginning to have my concerns," Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said in an interview broadcast Tuesday.

        Here's the Headline:
        

        
        Ex-Powell aide: Was U.S. fooled?

        Come on, CNN!  Replacing "Americans" with "U.S."?!!  Replacing a specific term with a vague one?  Shame on you!

        by STOP George on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:25:37 PM PDT

        •  Oh, I forgot..

          This Diary is "irony approved".

          

          by STOP George on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:33:09 AM PDT

          •  My ratings don't mean squat,

            but still I like the sarcasm :)

            by WuChier on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:40:48 AM PDT

  •  I posted this yesterday too in the open thread

    here for a sum total of zero replies and zero mojo.
    I think this dailykos thing is all about the timing!
    For a while I thought I must have dreamt it.

    by jeno mules on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:37:37 PM PDT

    •  dare i say...

      group think?

      group think can be and in our case, is often a good thing... but it's good to be aware of it... if that's what goes on.

      when someone starts off a diary's comments with "recommended" rather than "this sucks," i think it only makes sense what will more likely follow...

      so sometimes it's very much up to chance on the first comments... and in that way "personal success" can be a little random. often diarist writing style can play a big part.

      but as this story proves... if we have enough automotons working through this algorithm of collective political evolution...

      the important stories win the fitness test. and we all win a step back to sanity. it can be frustrating, but this is what a real democratic political culture would look like. "personal success" pales in comparison to the overall well being of the group.

      and i think it's at about this point where really shocking info like this on cheney starts to grab hold. there are always a few missed ones before enough people are awake... or it really sinks in... for whatever reason.

      let's hope so anyway. we all know cheney deserves to be in prison... or worse. honestly...

      by Lode Runner on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:13:03 PM PDT

    •  Like most everything else in life,

      of COURSE it's about the timing.  And, despite impressions to the contrary, not much ever gets out of open threads, even when it should--you shoulda diaried it then.

      by caseynm on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:58:32 PM PDT

    •  My post on Cheney

      Got a total of 4 comments.  

      Is everyone thinking about what they'll get under the tree this year or are their ipods turned up too loud...

      Part of the issue is that when folks like Jerome post, much of the attention shifts to whatever he's writing about.

      No disrespect to Jerome. It's just what appears to happen. Meanwhile other noteworth stories roll off the board.

      Cheney is a noteworthy story. But Cheney would like it if he was never seen...

      Frustrating. See my Diary coming on Cheney Watch

      by A Rational Being on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 04:41:06 AM PDT

    •  Have you seen

      my rant about Cheney today?

      Recco it up so we can make all the recommended diaries about Dicky boy :-)

      ARB

      by A Rational Being on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:02:55 AM PDT

•  Holy Shit! Recommended-Thanks 4 this

  by concerned on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:13:31 PM PDT

•  From the link above

  Meanwhile, the other side "essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".

  Mr Bush agreed a compromise, that "Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees".

  "What I'm saying is that, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defence [Donald Rumsfeld] moved out to do what they wanted in the first place, even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise," Col Wilkerson said.

  He said that he laid the blame on the issue of prisoner abuse and post-war planning for Iraq "pretty fairly and squarely" at Mr Cheney's feet.

  "I look at the relationship between Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld as being one that produced these two failures in particular, and I see that the president is not holding either of them accountable... so I have to lay some blame at his feet too," he went on.

  Good find.
  

  by Shockwave on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:13:51 PM PDT

  •  Cheney: "a nefarious bastard"

    Is how he describes Cheney in this article which is about the same interview:

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    specifically he says:

    "I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

    Gotta love it.  :)

    by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:52:50 PM PDT

    •  Sounds Like the Name of a Congressman's

      freebie yacht.

      You are cordially invited to dinner with Representative F. Leghorn aboard the motor vessel Nefarious H. Bastard.

      Oh wait. It's already taken--as the name of the American ship of state.

      by Gooserock on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:03:56 PM PDT

      •  RSVP

          MR AND MRS F. FREEBIE YACHT

        Take pleasure

        In Accepting the Kind invitation

        For dinner with Representative F. Leghorn

        Aboard the Nefarious H. Bastard.

        by chancy gardner on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

    •  that is an insult

      to bastards, a condition created through no fault of one's own.

      Unlike Cheney.

      by dinazina on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:07:54 PM PDT

      •  From the dictionary:

        bas·tard  n.

        1. A child born out of wedlock.

        2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.

        3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable.
           

        (I think it's a good bet that Lawrence Wilkerson is using the third definition here.)

        The old definition:

        Main Entry: bas·tard
        Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
        Function: noun
        : an illegitimate child
        NOTE: The word bastard is no longer used in legal contexts. --bas·tardy 'bas-t&r-dE noun

        Well, Cheney may not be an "illegitimate child", whatever that could possibly be, as NO child is illegitimate.  

        But Cheney IS an illegitimate Vice President of the United States.  Let's impeach the bastard!

        by sunbro on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:59:34 PM PDT

  •  What's an "al-Qaeda look-alike"?

    "Mr Bush agreed a compromise, that 'Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees'."

    What's an al-Qaeda look-alike?  Anyone Cheney or Rumsfeld would consider a 'raghead'?  Anybody whom they don't like?  Hillary Clinton?

    by david78209 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:08:27 PM PDT

    •  They will designate...

      ...an official Patriot Act Pantone color.

      If you are darker than that, no rights for you.

      (Disputes to be settled by a NIST-certified spectrophotometer.)
      

      by Mad Dog Rackham on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:58:42 PM PDT

    •  Look-a-like...

      means Taliban or other conservative Muslims. If you have a beard you are probably a look-a-like, but clearly the Taliban and Ansar Al Islam are in that group that was singled out.

      by RichardG on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:56:03 PM PDT

    •  Shave your beards!

      And stay out of the sun!

      by rockmoonwater on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:24:45 PM PDT

    •  Yes: It's really stunning that anyone would regard

      that as a 'compromise.'

      Essentially: "We can do anything to anyone we want, provided we can convince ourselves that there is some sort of gray area because the guy in some sense looks to us like he might be al Qaeda."

      I'd hate to see what the hardline position was.

      by jem6x on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:22:11 PM PDT

•  Thias is very important,

  thank you for the link. Better cut * paste than not at all.

  by Bob on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:26:15 PM PDT

  •  * = &. Missed it by one key. n/t

    by Bob on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

•  Questions

  Just how close is this guy to Powell? He is continually described as an ex-Powell aide. Does that mean that Wilkerson can be seen as a proxy for Powell's opinions (much like Brent Scowcroft is a porxy for Bush Sr.)?

  Or is Wilkerson going off the reservation from his former boss?

  I like what he is saying, but I hope he doesn't turn into the latest iteration of Ramsey Clark.

  by Chris Andersen on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:42:12 PM PDT

  •  He was Powell's chief of staff at State

    Does that mean that Wilkerson can be seen as a proxy for Powell's opinions (much like Brent Scowcroft is a porxy for Bush Sr.)?

    From what I've seen of the media, most commentators are reading him as a Powell proxy.  Powell's thinking of his historical legacy I think.  Nobody likes a loser.

    by Diogenes on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:46:06 PM PDT

    •  Wilkerson has repeatedly said

      that Powell is mad at him for coming out like this and that it has caused them to become completely estranged.

      Could be that he represents Powell's views on matters, though.

      by Rojo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:34:04 PM PDT

      •  That may just be talk

        These guys are pros.  It's all choreographed.

        by Knut Wicksell on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:29:37 PM PDT

        •  Could be. n/t

          by Rojo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:34:15 PM PDT

  •  How close is Wiikerson to to Bush I?

    Wilkerson and Scowcroft worked together during Bush I, when Scowcroft was national security advisor and Wilkerson was Powell's deputy at the Pentagon. Isn't it possible that both men are speaking for George H. W. Bush and the old Republican establishment? Certainly both assign greater for the tragedy in Iraq to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons than to the Lesser.  

    I'm grateful to Wilkerson and Scowcrft for speaking out, I'm not buying the picture they present of a presient ill-served by his cabinet. George W. Bush is lazy and incompetent,  belligerent and unempathic, uncurious and narrow-minded, and utterly convinced of his own rectitude. American policy in Iraq mirrors his character, or lack of it, all too well.

    by HStewart on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:17:48 PM PDT

    •  Wilkerson

      Well said.  Dead-on comparison between Bush the person and his Irag policy.    

      by Jaboo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:27:35 PM PDT

•  billmon has a hilarious take

  after quoting Wilkerson's coming to have doubt about the spinning intelligence, he has this gem:
  

  Wilkerson added that in recent days he's started to question a number of other deeply held personal beliefs, saying he now suspects that Madonna is not really a natural blonde, that many congressional campaign contributions are nothing more than thinly diguised bribes, and that the personal interactions shown on "reality" television shows are often scripted in advance.

  "My years spent climbing bureacratic ladders at the Pentagon and in the State Department simply didn't prepare me to deal with such devious behavior," Wilkerson explained. "It's been a shattering experience."

  Nooo...

  by oysterface on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:48:16 PM PDT

  •  ...and about that "Healthy Forest" thing

    by klevenstein on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:07:02 PM PDT

•  If only we could get rid of the lot of 'em....

  ... and soon -- the Bush regime's collective incompetence is too dangerous to wait 3 more years.

  ... but DEFINITELY impeach Cheney FIRST.

  by humbucker on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:48:21 PM PDT

•  Wilkerson was Powell's Chief of Staff

  So he's very well placed.  The retired colonel has been very busy, trashing Cheney and Rummy just about every chance he gets. . .

  I remember once hearing from a Marine Corps Colonel who was about to retire (as a young Lt), that the best military officers are those colonels who are passed over for General. . . They reject the politics involved and thus never pin on the stars.  Wilkerson obviously has a great sense of devotion to Powell, and then also to the country. . .  When was the last time a retired Colonel with his level of access trashed a serving VP and SecDef?  . . . I thought so. . .

  by seydlitz89 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:50:09 PM PDT

•  He is implying that Bush should be charged too

  'Mr Bush agreed a compromise, that "Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees".'

  If Cheney should be charged, then Bush should be charged too.  That "al-Qaeda look-alike" loophole could apply to anyone anywhere at the administration's pleasure (and I do mean "pleasure"), and is definitely a violation of international law as well.
  

  by kenjib on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

  •  ahh

    Wouldn't it be lovely if this all ended up in the Haugue?

    by blue florida on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:05:11 PM PDT

    •  it would be just

      but I wouldn't love it, it should never have happened.

      ok I would.

      by hfiend on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:10:35 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      it sure would be. That's on my "Wish List" this year!

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:10:53 PM PDT

      •  All I want..

        variation on a song from My Fair Lady

        All I want is a Cheney charged
        Far and Away that would be so Nice
        With one Enormous Prison Term
        Oh wouldn't it be loverly, loverly..

        by wishingwell on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:56:06 PM PDT

    •  War Crimes

      If you think you are embarrassed now by talk of chemical weapons, prisoner 'abuse', and secret prisons, wait until a former president is dragged through the Hague or the ICC for 3 or 4 years.  I really don't think you should want that to happen.

      by smokeymonkey on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:13:04 PM PDT

      •  If war crimes were committed

        (and I believe they were) then indeed I do want them dragged before the icc.

        by MarkInSanFran on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:27:01 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          This is why the Bush administrations going around strongarming reluctant countries to exempt the US from the ICC.They are tying aid,that is desperately needed,to signing pacts with individual countries.

          Many of our friends have resisted this tactic and are threatened with the loss of military aid/anti-terrorism funding even though a country like Kenya ,for example ,itself a victim terror attacks,is unlikely to prosecute US soldiers on war crimes.

          Increasingly the Bush administrations arrogance and highhandedness is causing those predisposed to favor the US to question whether its worth it to risk becoming a target by Al-Queda while at the same time        being blackmailed by the country your taking shots for.

          by blacklib on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:18:21 PM PDT

          •  If President Bush ever stood before the ICC

            I hope there will be time to discuss this:

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

            by desordre remplir on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:29:27 PM PDT

            •  i don't

              subscribe to punishing kids for the sins of their fathers(grandfathers),and Dubya's done enough on his own to warrant at least a hearing at The Hague.

              Note to all countries,DO not sign any more treaties with the US that they themselves will not abide/ratify.ICC,chemical ban,nuclear treaties,Kyoto, why bother wasting valuable assets to send representatives to New York,Geneva,...to listen to mindnumbing speeches by western speakers ,who then proceed to violate every one of the agreements.

              by blacklib on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:35:10 AM PDT

      •  Why not?

        It might redeem this country.  We owe nothing to Bush.  He owes us.

        by Knut Wicksell on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:30:59 PM PDT

      •  I would LOVE

        to see Bush and Cheney behind bars.  I truly believe that they are war criminals and that prison is where they belong.  Reid and Pelosi are generous when they say "culture of corruption"....I think these folks are evil.  

        by bloomer 101 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:30:08 PM PDT

      •  Oh really?

        Shameful as it might be to the people who actually elected this guy in 2004, it would send a clear message not only to the immediate world, but to future generations of Americans too. The kind of lesson we once cherished in the outcome of the Watergate scandal. Even the highest echelons of power are not above the laws of this country, and no one has the power to waive basic human rights that should be honored by all.

        by jrieth on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:31:02 PM PDT

        •  Consider

          Have you really considered the possibility of watching news about a former POTUS being tried for war crimes?  Forgive me if I am somehow speaking 'freeper' or something, but I really just don't want to see that happen.  I would really prefer if there were a peaceful end to the war and an impeachment.  I don't think the image of a President in jail or being tried for war crimes is really a very encouraging thing.

          by smokeymonkey on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:42:53 PM PDT

          •  Agreed, I don't want to see Bush in jail

            He should be hung like any other war criminal.

            by Subterranean on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:45 AM PDT

            •  Hanged....

              People are hanged; pictures are hung.

              Don't let the chimp be hanged alone when there are so many other deserving "swingers."

              by SueDe on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:02:58 AM PDT

            •  I don't think the icc has a death penalty

              does it?  it shouldn't.

              by blue florida on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:32:08 PM PDT

          •  Excellent therapy for peace

            "I don't think the image of a President in jail or being tried for war crimes is really a very encouraging thing."

            We are moving into an era in world history when leaders will be increasingly held accountable for their actions. Pinochet nearly got his. If Bush were to go down for war crimes, it would be a shot for peace heard around the world.

            Presidents are neither gods nor royalty. They are mortals who make mistakes and commit crimes. They should be dealt with as such. A mere impeachment is insufficient punishment for war crimes. Hark back to Nuremburg.

            by unclejohn on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:51:57 AM PDT

          •  Yes I think this administration needs

            to be held accountable in front of the world for their crimes against humanity.

            It is the only possibility for regaining the world esteem, empathy and goodwill for us after 9/11 which this administration spit on and trashed along with millions of people who took to the streets to stop this insane idea of invading and destroying a country that was not a threat to us. (and exterminating thousands of innocent people along with 2000+ of our own misled sons and daughters in the service to Bush's Creating Terrorists There Policy.)

            by Little Red Hen on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:19:12 AM PDT

          •  And then

            They'll get pardoned, retire rich and thier apprentices will do it all again in 20 years.

            Nope.  Do the time, do the time.  The country will be stronger.  In fact, the entire country's sense of truth, justice, good and evil may be greatly improved.
            

            by blue florida on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:30:52 PM PDT

    •  It would be a step forward...

      ...but hardly lovely.  It'd be a very sad day for the U.S.

      by BornUnderPunches on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:32:40 PM PDT

    •  No

      If it ends up in The Hague, it's because the American judicial system has failed. I'd much rather see Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, etc., spend the rest of their lives in 8' x 10' cells at Fort Leavenworth.

      But I'd settle for Abu Ghraib.

      by wiscmass on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:34:23 PM PDT

    •  I'd rather all of this

      ends up at the Hauge than facing some future "coalition of the willing" made up of an opportunistic China allied by other countries who are fed up with Republican aggressive tendencies who decide to start dropping bombs on us.

      Dang that's a long sentence!

      Speaking of long sentences, do you think they'd let George face it, or would Cheney smother him with a pillow, and using his cyborg strength, throw the water cooler through the window and run to the hills where his secret bunker awaits?

      Just askin'.

      by The Gryffin on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:55:11 PM PDT

      •  Nurse Ratchet?

        In this scenario, who is Nurse Ratchet? Fitzgerald?

        by gmhowell on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:00:14 PM PDT

      •  Operation American Freedom (OAF)

        Coalition of the willing bringing regime change and democracy to this benighted land, liberating the people from police state oppression, healing sectarian divisions and hostilities, rewriting trade regulations and tariffs from the ground up, and taking away all those shiny weapons and bombs for their own use.

        That would be the biter bit indeed

        by gotgat54 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:49:28 PM PDT

        •  Maybe she's hiding at

          they could store the munitions in a shed, forget to click the padlock, and we could go in, get the bombs, and drive them from America where we could restore theocracy, cronyism, and, er...gahh! "Wolverines", my ass!

          Well, when the Chinese do take over, I hope the language tutors are cute. I can ink with a brush. Perhaps that will improve my odds.

          by The Gryffin on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:54:15 PM PDT

          •  BTW

            I scarcely have any idea where "she's hiding at" came from.

            by The Gryffin on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:56:09 PM PDT

            •  Sounds like

              a disjointed Bushism

              by gotgat54 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 07:01:26 PM PDT

    •  would it matter...

      The US refuses to accept rulings by the Hague. Remember the mining of the Nicaragua harbors, and our refusal to support the ICC.

      But it would be nice to see justice done on these scoundrels who are succeeding at running this country into the ground.

      by libertarian socialist on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:03:02 PM PDT

    •  The Hague with Bush. [n/t]

      by EdlinUser on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:09:50 PM PDT

•  Does It Mean That?

  This means that some big boys want Cheney to go down.

  I'd like to think so, but if so, would they work this way? It feels to me more as personal outrage, possibly a change of heart or someone jilted from a potential position of power.

  I think if some serious interests need someone gone, Some Guys go visit the White House.

  by Gooserock on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:07:10 PM PDT

  •  Personal outrage...

    I get that vibe too. Wilkerson is exacting revenge. Maybe on Powell's behalf, but I think personal outrage is more likely. I'm suspicious of the way he keeps pussyfooting around Bush, pulling his punches, saying it's all Chaney's fault. Saying that Bush is only culpable because he failed to rein in his crazy vice prez. Bull crap.

    by Bugsby on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:54:35 PM PDT

    •  It's called tactics I think. . .

      He has to leave the big guy a way out, burn the smaller fish and let Bushler have the benefit of the doubt, otherwise it looks too much like a revolt. . . can't have that coming from a retired colonel ya know. . .

      by seydlitz89 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:15:38 PM PDT

    •  All Cheney's fault

      is likely, I think. Bush doesn't have the bandwidth for evil scheming on a global scale. Cheney and his neocons do. They packaged it as a war of liberation of the oppressed for which history would revere him, and he bought it. Head in the clouds, he didn't bother with trivia like exactly what everybody was doing, or what its consequences were. They fed him his speeches, he spoke them. They dressed him up and wound him up, and he enacted his starring role in Rove's staged happenings.

      Stooge, sucker, patsy, front man and rubber stamp. That was his job description - his core competency - all along. That's why they got him elected. That's why he goes down.

      Shades of Nuremberg! Imagine Bush pleading that he was only obeying orders!

      by gotgat54 on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:31:33 PM PDT

      •  Heh

        "Stooge, sucker, patsy, front man and rubber stamp. That was his job description"

        Isn't that any President's job description?

        by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 01:45:51 AM PDT

    •   "the president is all-powerful"

      is a quote from the Yahoo article.

       "The president of the United States is all-powerful," to be exact.  

      I'm not sure this lets Bush off the hook.  If Bush thinks he's all-powerful, and the article implies that he thinks he is, then he's as guilty as anyone.  

      by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:17:48 PM PDT

  •  NC

    "I'd like to think so, but if so, would they work this way? It feels to me more as personal outrage, possibly a change of heart or someone jilted from a potential position of power."

    If that were the sum total, Wilkerson's continuing barrage of public statements would not be getting the heavy press coverage that it is. Furthermore, there is an array of attacks on Cheney. This is the preparatory artillery attack before he is pushed out.

    by unclejohn on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:18:18 AM PDT

•  Jointly and severally

  Both Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted by countries with real war crimes laws -- like Canada, for example.  The Toronto Star had an op-ed earlier this month, discussing whether Bush should be charged with war crimes.  Think that came out just before the WP stories cracked the surface of the MSM, too.

  I suspect the move by the Blair government to quash the sources documenting Bush's desire to bomb al Jazeera may also have been an effort to hide evidence of conspiring to commit more war crimes.  Consciously choosing a non-military target like a media outlet unaffiliated with any particular government treads that line, doesn't it?  Perhaps Blair's culpable, too, hence the effort to bury this story.

  by Rayne on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:14:26 PM PDT

  •  so shrub freepin Canada gov 2 censor its press

    by concerned on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:22:25 PM PDT

•  Powell is running for president

  This is really absurd. Don't get your hopes up. Cheney is not going to be charged with war crimes. Advocating terror is not a domestic crime, planning terror is. And in a legal sense, whether prisoners are treated as PoW's has absolutely nothing to do with advocating terror.

  And it's not a done deal that Al-Qaeda members should be treated as PoW's. You could see them as criminals who do not deserve the rights of PoW's. I happen to think that the United States should hold itself to the highest standards of human dignity and thus treat even the beasts that Al-Qaeda members are as PoW's. But that is by no means a settled debate. And I seriously doubt that refusing to categorize Al-Qaeda terrorists as PoW's would be equated with war crimes by any serious court.

  by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:14:28 PM PDT

  •  sadly you make some good points

    i.e. you can bet Wilkerson has an agenda.

    But what is it exactly?  In the AP/Yahoo article he claims to be estranged from Powell and his comments make Powell sound not-so-smart.

    I'm sure Powell is running for President and he's determined to distance himself from these crooks.

    As far as the "detainees" (god I hate that word) the FACT of the matter is that they are holding SUSPECTED terrorists, many of whom are not GUILTY and they are fucking torturing innocent people.

    Don't parse this shit.  It's not very becomoing.

    There is simply no way in hell that torturing anybody is acceptable.  Ever.  

    by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:26:16 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      that torture is unacceptable. We are Americans and Americans do not torture. I was talking about granting the detainees (or suspects, whatever you prefer) the rights that POW's have. Of course, not granting these rights does not mean that you have to torture them. So I think a prosecutor would be hard-pressed to connect not granting POW-status to Al-Qaeda members by Cheney to "committing war crimes". Of course, if it turns out that Cheney ordered his subordinates to torture, it belongs to the realm of possibilities.

      This bears repeating. I am against torture, America should not torture. But a legitimate argument can be made that granting POW-status to Al-Qaeda members impedes attempts to get information out of them (through approved means of interrogation).

      by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:38:55 PM PDT

      •  Many were Taliban fighters

        Defending their government, as despicable as it might have been, and are therefore not criminals and deserve POW status.

        And many others were simply innocents caught up in the wrong side of a vendetta.
        

        by Rojo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:41:51 PM PDT

        •  If I remember correctly

          Taliban members were granted POW-status. Only members of Al-Qaeda were refused that. And that's a pretty mainstram position. See this article (it's from the Washington Post):

          Most members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda movement detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base probably do not deserve to be labeled prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and legal precedents, according to a number of experts in international law.

          But a loose consensus has emerged among many legal specialists, as well as a number of critics and defenders of the U.S. military's treatment of the 158 detainees, that many of the captured Taliban fighters should be declared POWs after hearings on their cases - a status that would grant them an array of protections under international law.

          http://www.crimelynx.com/...

          by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:48:24 PM PDT

          •  Ah,

            but did that actually happen?

            by Rojo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:51:53 PM PDT

            •  This Democratic site says it did:

              "It was only after world pressure that he gave the Taliban POW status" and "Rumsfeld said that. . .[Bush] had "always" recognized the Taliban as POWs under the Geneva Convention" (absurd claim).

              http://archive.democrats.com/...

              by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:11:10 PM PDT

              •  Ah. n/t

                by Rojo on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:06:19 PM PDT

      •  either it's ok, or it's not

        the same can be said for your kids...no torture-
        no info. If it's wrong on a smaller scale it's wrong on a bigger scale.

        by NeuroticBlonde on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:36:11 AM PDT

  •  Missing the point

    While your right to point out that the Cheyney beign brought up on war-crimes charges is far-fetched, the point is that top-level pentagon insiders (also exemplified by Murtha's recent statements, who is well-connected with top generals) are turning on the administration IN THE PRESS.
    While they may have been either too gutless to stand up and defy DerPrezident when they had the chance, or too unskilled at penetrating the iron fortress of yes-men he surrounds himself with, they have found a way to break through the bullshit and get the word out that the people carrying out this war are not on board with the Bush strategy.
    Think of it as a round-about way of checks and balances. When the generals don't support the war anymore, the war is in trouble....
    

    by valleycat on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:32:21 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      but it isn't any use if they supplant the Bushit by their own bullshit. And in my opinion, suggesting that refusing POW-status to suspected terrorists somehow equals committing war crimes is exactly that.

      I think the fact that everyone is turning on this administration is because it has become impopular. Freaking hypocrites. If Bush had a 65% approval rating, no one would open his mouth but the most principled of people.

      by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:42:32 PM PDT

  •  This Kafkaesque analysis is not share by the vast

    majority of international legal authorities.

    There is no such thing as a person who possesses no rights when he or she comes under the jurisdiction of a state power.
    There are only two things a state can do with a person it detains.  If a state of armed conflict exists: A state of armed conflict did exist in Afghanistan, but not in respect of all person the US detainees held as "unlawful combatants" or under other secret and fictitious status - as many detentions have been unacknowledged and not publicly recorded. the "war on terror" is not a state of armed conflict under international law. If a state of armed conflict exists, a person may be detained under the Third Geneva as a prisoner of war.  If the person does not qualified as a protected person (and if there is any dispute as to such qualification, a competent tribunal must resolve this dispute, a requirement which the US has refused to respect), or if there is no armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law principles do not apply, the person may be held under ordinary procedures for persons detained and charged with a crime: must be charged, have the right to habeas corpus, right to a lawyer, right a fair trial by and independent and impartial tribunal, etc.
    They cannot be detained in perpetuity in a legal black hole.
    Bushco can be charged with a whole host of war crimes for the way in which they conducted this war. The use of torture, failure to recognize the principle of distinction between civilian and military objectives, among others.  Under the Nuremberg Principles, they are also arguably responsible forcrimes against Peace, or in contemporary parlance, the crime of agression.

    by normal family on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:47:36 PM PDT

    •  Did I say that

      there are persons who possess no rights at all? No, I said that nothing requires the Bush Administration to extend the rights of POW's to members of Al-Qaeda, who are not lawful combatants, as the Geneva Conventions require. I also believe (not entirely sure) that it is the government's decision whether or not to do that, because the Geneva Conventions are not binding, but merely advisory.

      Can Bush be charged with war crimes? I don't think so. Firstly, there is no court that has jurisdiction, Bush cannot be indicted at the ICC because the Taliban did not sign the required treaty, I presume. Secondly, it is not clear to me whether torture has been used at Guantanamo Bay (we're talking about Afghanistan, right?). I know that there was torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, but that is an entirely different matter. "Failure to recognize the difference between civilian and military objective" is no war crime, as far as I know. Furthermore, people hosted by the Afghan government had prepared terrorist attacks against the United States, including the September 11th attacks. That alone was enough to justify a breach of the peace. The Security Council also voted unanimously to allow the US to attack whoever carried out the September 11th attacks. You can't get on firmer grounds than that.

      Disclaimer: my legal views do not necessarily reflect my political views.

      by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:05:14 PM PDT

      •  The Geneva Conventions are as binding as they come

        And partially incorporated into US domestic law.
        The problem is that the Administration has concocted a wacky theory whereby if a fighter is deemed not be a privileged or protected combatant, and thus enjoy the protections of the third convention, that makes the person some entity called "an unlawful combatant."  But there is no such category under the international law of armed conflict,at least in the sense of a status. If a fighter is not a protected combatant, he is a non-combatant, and must be treated like everyone else, ie civilians.  Of course, he can be treated as a criminal,and detained, meaning a whole new set of rights come into play.  If he is detained under the law of occupation, the rules of the fourth geneva convention come into play; otherwise ordinary law under human rights treaties, Constitutional law, and criminal substantive and procedural law.  Bush has ignored all of these legal regimes and simply arrogated to itself the power to set its own rules, usually on an ad hoc basis.

        War crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction- any state can try any person for their commission. There is no need for an international tribunal like the ICC. (Neither the US or Afghanistan are parties-the only way for it to have jurisdiciton would be through a referral by the Security Council, an impossibility because of US veto)

        Torture at Guantanamo has been committed on a widespread basis according to the testimony of several released detainees and lawyers acting for those detained.  Of course, Bushco does not allow much info to flow.

        There are also numerous places of unacknowledged and secret places of detention, including at Bagram Airbase in Afganistan, Diego Garcia Island, and the notorious CIA detention center in an unnamed Eastern European Country.
        The US has also farmed out some of those it wants torture to third countries, such as Egypt, under the scheme of "extraordinary renditions."

          Torture, by the way, is a criminal act under the Convention against torture and US statute. It doesn't matter whether or not it takes place in the context of war.

        did not intend this post as a law lecture - but its clear that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are vicious thugs that belong in the dock.

        by normal family on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:31:39 PM PDT

        •  No

          I don't know much about international law, but I do know enough to say that there are certain requirements for a combatant to receive the privileges guaranteed by the POW-status. Al Qaeda members, plain and simple, do not meet those requirements. They do not even meet the requirements for extra-governmental militias. I seriously doubt that not fitting into these categories would mean that they should be treated as non-combatants.

          With respect to war crimes, there is not a single court in the world, outside the US, that would accept an indictment against a US statesman for crimes that are not committed in that particular country. Belgian law allowed such challenges to be filed under the Genocide Law against anyone, anywhere, but that law was repealed under US pressure.

          Was there torture on Guantanamo Bay? You say yes, because detainees allege that there was torture. You should know that these are people who hate America and will do anything to undermine this country. I wouldn't accept their claims as fact, not until a court of law has determined that these people were indeed tortured.

          by FilibusterAlito on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:27:21 PM PDT

          •  Who was it that determined

            the detainees to be "people who hate America and will do anything to undermine this country."? If the government were to decide, based on the type of libray books you read, that you are someone who hates America and would do anything to undermine this country, couldn't that be used as sufficient reason to torture you until you admit to such activty?

            when the detaining country can do so without any oversight or rights for those detained, it too should lose any right of such activity.

            by Skylor on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:39:41 PM PDT

            •  First of all

              I am against torture. No one should be tortured. And I was not talking about people being sent to Guantanamo Bay based on the library books they read. That's a big caricature made by civil rights groups to rail against the Patriot Act's library provisions.

              No, I was talking about Al-Qaeda members. You know, the kind we caught in Afghanistan, the kind who wants to kill us.

              by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:35:28 AM PDT

          •  Heh

            "You should know that these are people who hate America and will do anything to undermine this country."

            And of course, this hatred of America is completely irrational isn't it?

            Why do they hate you so much?

            Perhaps if your aggressive, plundering multinationals, aided and abedted by their political directorates (Sorry, the U.S. Administration) weren't planning on screwing them out of their natural resources they would have a sunnier disposition towards your country.

            by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 02:27:46 AM PDT

            •  Yeah right

              Al-Qaeda hates us because of our freedom. They want the entire world to adopt their Islamic fascism, but that's not what we intend to do. Did the June 7th bombers hit you for what your multinationals did? No, it was because they were morons. Stop blaming the victims.

              by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:31:47 AM PDT

              •  Ha ha ha ha ha

                The poor old US of A eh?

                How the fuck are you victims?

                Your oil guzzling economy and seventeen litre SUV's that do two minutes to the gallon are raping the planet.

                Go and read up on some history to find out why portions of the Arab world have a big grievance with the British.

                Our arbitrary scribbling on the post WWI maps of the region is a direct precursor to the geo-political situation there today.

                And bear in mind that our citizens were being killed throughout the 70's and 80's as a direct result of American contributions to the IRA, funnelled through NORAID.  

                One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that.

                by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:50:59 AM PDT

                •  Again,

                  you are making excuses for the world's terrorist and murderers. Instead of being such an extremist, you should be out saying to your Muslim friends that killing British people is not legitimate, not making excuses for them. But this is arguably the worst statement you have made:

                  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that.

                  Extreme moral relativism. I knew Europe was lost to ignorance, but it reaches a new height if you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between terrorists (who try to cause fear in society to achieve their political goals) and two groups: rebels and freedom fighters (who don't do that). Obviously, your extreme hatred of America doesn't allow you to make scch distinctions.

                  by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:59:08 AM PDT

                  •  Don't talk

                    To me about moral relativism when you seem to be able to grasp simple cause and effect.

                    In the 1980's to many ignorant Americans with a "Shamrocks and Shenanigans" mentality it was perfectly acceptable to donate money to the IRA's cause via NORAID.

                    The money went into killing British Service personnel and bombing campaigns in my country that killed innocent civillians who had nothing to do with the UK Govt and it's approach to the Irish Question.

                    Yet when the Twin Towers were attacked it was the biggest tragedy that the world had ever seen. Boo-Hoo let's get Paul "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" McCartney to do a benefit gig and write a song about soaring Eagles.

                    Seems to me it's certain Americans that need the lesson in moral relativism

                    Why don't you google "The democratically elected Sandinista government" for a good example of American moral relativism?

                    by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:35:50 AM PDT

                    •  missing an un

                      in that post somewhere.

                      Break out of the bubble you inhabit, the Islamic fundamentalists didn't suddenly wake up one morning and stick a pin in a map to find their mortal enemy did they?

                      Osama Bin Laden is Rambo 3 - trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

                      You didn't make him...you just chipped away at the rough edges.

                      by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:41:51 AM PDT

                      •  Pitiful...

                        Who cares WHY they did it? I don't, because I am not interested in making excuses for terrorists. You are the one who is doing that.

                        I think you are the one who needs to break out of your extremist anti-American bubble and see what's really happening.

                        by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:51:51 AM PDT

                        •  I

                          note your abject failure to find any justification for Americans supporting Northern Irish terrorists, or even to address it.

                          If America used it's position as the World's premier superpower responsibly I would be the most fervent Americanist going mate.

                          Instead it rapes and pillages other countries natural resources so it's citizens can carry on consuming regardless.  

                          In the last 2 years a disgusting amount of money has been spent on a war of aggression against a sovereign nation that posed no threat; when it could have supplied the entire world with clean drinking water.

                          I'm not going to buy into your view of America the persecuted as reality does not bear out the points you are making.

                          by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:06:37 AM PDT

                          •  Ha ha ha

                            note your abject failure to find any justification for Americans supporting Northern Irish terrorists, or even to address it.

                            Don't know. Don't care. If Americans did that, it is wrong. They shouldn't have done that.

                            If America used it's position as the World's premier superpower responsibly I would be the most fervent Americanist going mate.

                            Yeah, but now you're supporting China and Islamic terrorists, only because they are against America. I'm sure they would use their position responsibly, if they became the world's superpower!

                            Instead it rapes and pillages other countries natural resources so it's citizens can carry on consuming regardless.  

                            Raping? Pillaging? Give me a break. We buy other countries' natural resources, with their consent, and we PAY for it. That's not raping or pillaging another country. That's trade.

                            In the last 2 years a disgusting amount of money has been spent on a war of aggression against a sovereign nation that posed no threat; when it could have supplied the entire world with clean drinking water.

                            OUR money, so WE get to decide what to do with it. We can handle ourselves pretty well, we don't need any help from Great Britain. Go concern yourself with the expenditures of Tony Blair.

                            I'm not going to buy into your view of America the persecuted as reality does not bear out the points you are making.

                            I guess 11 September was just an attack carried out by the US government to get sympathy, wasn't it?

                            by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:14:34 AM PDT

                            •  At

                              The end of the day until you Americans take some fucking responsibility for your place in the world your nation will continually churn out ignorant fuckers like your good self, have another zero rating on me and go back to your self-righteous jingoism.

                              by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:17:42 AM PDT

                              •  Not everyone who does not agree

                                with your far-left position is an ignorant f-cker. I know that it is difficult to have a discussion with someone who has a better understanding of things than you and your hippie friends, but you should try staying civil. No wait, you people don't know such a thing as civilization. Never mind. You stay here, Ian, so that we have great example of how stupid some Europeans are.

                                by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:23:36 AM PDT

                                •  And

                                  You stay here too Fillibuster, you nom-de-plume wanker so everyone can see the worst excesses of American arrogance, ignorance and self-righteousness manifest in the form of a lovely little troll.

                                  by ian1973uk on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 03:25:57 AM PDT

                                  •  Yeah right

                                    Like the New England farmer who was asked "How is your wife", and answered: "Compared to who?" If I'm arrogant, it's compared to who?

                                    Compared to someone who hates Western civilization and wants to have it destroyed by Al-Qaeda? Yep, count me in as arroagent.

                                    You really shouldn't assume that everyone is as extreme as you are. Probably, the other garbagemen agree with you, but that in no way represents the opinions of civilized society. So shove it. Go blow yourself up in Iraq if you love the terrorists so much.

                                    by FilibusterAlito on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:50:54 AM PDT

                    •  It IS moral relativism

                      if you say that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". You are saying that there is no such thing as a terrorist. I believe that the people who struck America on 11 September were terrorists. You quite clearly don't.

                      By the way, I was not advocating moral relativism. I think that theory is dangerous and destructive. And you are advocating it.

                      by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:49:28 AM PDT

                      •  I

                        don't condone anybody attacking innocent civillians, whether it is with improvised airliners or F-14 fighter jets.

                        Your country has persistently bombed Iraq for nearly 15 years, as well as dooming a million Iraqi children via the miracle of UN sanctions.  

                        And all for what?  Was it because the tinpot dictator you sold all your weapons to represented a real threat to your homeland, or just a threat to the profits of Exxon?

                        by ian1973uk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:12:05 AM PDT

                        •  Finally...

                          you say something I agree with. I don't condone attacks on CIVILIANS either. I don't think a country as great as America should attack civilians.

                          Your country has persistently bombed Iraq for nearly 15 years,

                          Yeah, Iraq, not Iraqi civilians.

                          as well as dooming a million Iraqi children via the miracle of UN sanctions.  

                          Okay, so these were UN sanctions, but the US carries all the blame for that. You should blame the British, they have a seat in the Security Council too.

                          And all for what?  Was it because the tinpot dictator you sold all your weapons to represented a real threat to your homeland, or just a threat to the profits of Exxon?

                          Because he was an enemy of the US.

                          by FilibusterAlito on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:17:33 AM PDT

      •  One thing Im curious about...

        (and im totally ignorant on such matters) are what are the implications under international law for Cuba? Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't Guantanamo still "technically" Cuban territory that we occupy as "tenants" under this absurd interpretation of the pre-Castro lease? Does the fact that the US still sticks to this faux legal nonsense open them up to international review via Cuba? Sounds like theres reason to suspect torture of POWs on Cuban soil!

        Maybe someone should try to drag Castro before the ICC to answer for Gitmo! Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?

        by odum on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:23:04 AM PDT

  •  Good comment

    You make some important points about what WIlkerson says vs. what the realities of law are.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:02:11 PM PDT

  •  How do you know the prisoners are terrorists?

    Even if one were to accept your premise (which I do not), why should some poor peasant we picked up in Afghanistan be considered a terrorist?  On the word of the President?  What's the proof?  

    Or is it, as it was in my day, 'are you or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?'  If you lived through that nightmare, you would know what I am talking about.

    by Knut Wicksell on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:35:10 PM PDT

    •  How do we get to Guantanmo?

         Practice practice, practice. That's why many of those people are there and there still, so  'we' can practice interrogation techniques on them!
           That was the opinion of a congressman iirc last week on Democracy Now, I don't know the date. Some of you must have heard the whole peice.
          Wilkerson and Murtha, very brave to be (even at this late date) standing up.
          I keep hoping for this kind of military over..
      whats the word...response..where they just won't do this crap anymore. This administration has used them like... well..badly and disrespectfully, from the officers to the rank and file, and they're gonna snap.
      

      by KenBee on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 08:26:55 PM PDT

•  Why does it take Government Officials so long...

  ....to say what many of us have been saying for a while?  Yes, Cheney and Bush have violated international law and comitted war crimes.  

  We've gotten to the point where our leaders aren't leaders, but merely followers.  Where were these government officials when the lead up to war in Iraq took place?  Not speaking out, that's for sure.

  I'm glad Wilkerson is speaking out now, but what the heck took him so long?

  by The Bulldog Manifesto on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:16:37 PM PDT

  •  he was on the ship

    and now he's off the ship.  

    Onto a different ship, taking potshots at his old ship.

    It doesn't excuse him.  Better late than never, but yes, this is why we must always ask what anyone's agenda is when they say anything.

    What is his agenda here?

    To vindicate Powell?  Or just to vent on Cheney, who he obviously despises?  Maybe both?  

    by Nordic on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:30:30 PM PDT

    •  If Wilkerson knew that

      war crimes were about to be committed or were being committed, it places some responsibility for such activity on him as well.

      He is risking his own freedom by bringing such information to the public's attention. It probably took him so long to tell of it because of misgivings about his own participation in the matter. He, after considering his own involvement, is in effect being a patriotic American at his own risk.

      by Skylor on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 09:54:20 PM PDT

•  this is complicated

  Who has exposure?  Cheney and Bush for sure but don't Powell and others in the inner circle share the blame?  I guess this is the reason that Powell himself hasn't publicly repudiated the guys that "hoodwinked" him, poor fellow.  

  Powell is really between a rock and a hard place here and Wilkerson isn't making it any easier for him.  He was either a fool (a poor wimpy bitch that let Bush /Cheney push him around) or he conspired with them to lie to America about the "War."

  I don't see any middle ground for him unless he does a mea culpa and sponsors a public movement to end the war.  The longer he keeps silent the less wiggle room he will have in the end game.

  by Keone Michaels on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:41 PM PDT

•  This is an important story ...

   ... and yes, it has be diaried at least once already.  There were some good post in that other short thread, here

  Personally, I'd rather see Bush and his gang of liars hanged on the steps of the Capitol.  No need to send them all the way to The Hague for war crimes, we can hang them here for treason.

  by Yellow Canary on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:46 PM PDT

  •  Public execution

    by firing squad would be the humane way to do it. No need to lower ourselves to their principles.

    by Skylor on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:00:05 PM PDT

•  Maybe not war crimes

  Cheney and a nice grouping of other Bush Administration members (including Bush himself) certainly deserve to stand in the docket and answer to not only the world but history itself for what they've done.  However, since I don't really think that's going to happen, it would be very nice indeed to see them all utterly disgraced for all time.

  by Splicer on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 03:20:57 PM PDT