Skip to main content

I want more than Bush and Cheney's heads.  I want all of them, every single one who was complicit in the planning and conduct of the Iraq war. If you go back and study the Nuremberg trials and other actions taken in Germany after WWII, you see an effort to completely cleanse the country from the people and policies that caused the holocaust.

Holding agressors personally responsible for agression would fulfill the vision of the post WWII Nuremberg Charter, a landmark document for which the U.S., is largely responsible.  The intent of holding the Nazis accountable was not just victor's revenge, but a desire to establish a precedent against agressive war.  

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was a neocon thinktank cofounded in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagen.  The stated goal was to "promote American global leadership", primarily through the use of our military.  PNAC members and supporters literally filled Bush's foreign policy staffs and clearly influenced the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.  The list of supporters are a who's who of the Bush administration.

I won't get into the details, but the PNAC goals and agenda were all about American world dominance, plain and simple.  That of course included oil.  But more importantly, control of the middle east that would put the U.S. in the best position to retain world dominance.  Those responsible for this agenda have their names all over it.  

The Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which were implemented into international law in 1950 via the International Law Commission are as follows:  

Principle I - any person who commits an act against international law is responsible thereof and liable for punishment.

Principle II - The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who commited the act from responsibiity under international law;

Principle III - The fact the a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as head of state or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV - The fact that a person acted pursuant to order from his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was available to him.

Principle V - Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI - The crimes hereafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

 a.  Crimes against Peace

      i.  Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of agression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.

      ii. Participation in a common plan or a conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under i.

 b.  War Crimes:    Violations of the laws or customs of war, which include but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labor, of for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public and private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, or devastation not justifed by military necessity.  

 c.  Crimes against humanity  Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and any other inhumane acts done against a civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts or such persecutions are are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII - Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as set forth in Principle VI, is a crime against international law.

The Iraq war was clearly illegal according to Principle VIa.  The reason for that is quite simple, they lied. They fabricated evidence to wage an illegal war. And this was done because that was the plan all along. The only way this country can truly move forward is investigate who was involved and mete out the appropriate punishment.  

Obama should start by issuing an apology to the Iraqi people and the international community.  That would put it out there that it was an illegal and inhumane war.  Then uncover exactly who was involved in the conspiracy, including the likes of William Kristol, and ask the Haque to do it's thing.  The United States was largely responsible for the Nuremberg Principles, and the United States should stand up and reaffirm them.

Over 60 years ago, we put Nazis on trial, partly to remind the world that aggressive wars will not be tolerated and those who do so will be held accountable.   It must be done again.

Originally posted to Big AL on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:11 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  What? They can't just all share a cell? (6+ / 0-)

      Standing room only...reminicent of stress positions, Gitmo style.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Den Haag (8+ / 0-)

      is what they call it in Holland.  And all of them should be sent there.  Justice Jackson and Telford Taylor were architects of the Nuremberg principles.

      I've been waiting for someone to point out that Bush, et al have broken pretty much all of them.  And they deserve the harshest penalty.

      Or a harshly worded letter.

    •  Excellent Diary, BigAl...! (7+ / 0-)

      Rec'd, Tipped, and Hotlisted for future reference.

      You've done some good work on this because you have written this with beautifully crisp and clean sentences, the meaning is concise and to the point... and I totally agree as to why war crimes trials need to be done.  US Code, Title 18 also applies if any war crimes trials are to be done in the US, although I feel pretty confident that US legislators believe it's not politically expedient to try these lying war criminals because they will be more interested in talking us into singing Kumbaya and "moving forward." (I'm learning to hate that phrase now.)  Personally, I want to see justice done for the dead and those who were maimed for life for the sake of lies and oil.  I'm not the least bit interested in revenge or retribution; I want justice for those who have no voice in this matter.

      I remember looking up PNAC and the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Conventions a very long time ago just before I joined DKos, and while I know I have the links somewhere, I can't remember this second where I put them.

      My suggestion to you would be to add links at the end of your diary for those who wish to take off on their own like you have (kudos for independent investigation and study!) for any web site(s) you used as a reference for the Nuremberg Judgment principles, and unless the web site has been taken down, as I think I heard it was going to be because it was disbanded and a new name has been invented, PNAC is able to be Googled (what horrifying goals PNAC has, especially in view of how many prominent politicians' names are listed, including a few Democrats, which was a rude surprise to me).

      I raise a toast to you for a job well done, and the hope that we can see war crimes trials at The Hague within the next year for both Cheney and Bush since I'm sure our Congress Critters, following Pelosi's lead, won't lift a finger to investigate, let alone try, Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Rumsfield, et alia - (although since Georgie took the US off of the ICC, for The World Court at The Hague to have any jurisdiction, President Obama is going to have to sign us back on to the ICC, which I hope he does the afternoon of 20 January '09 right after he's sworn in; I already know he didn't support impeachment; the only one who did of the prez candidates was Kucinich, the one who drew up impeachment articles against both Cheney and Bush).

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by NonnyO on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:29:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It must be done again (7+ / 0-)

    But it won't be.

    Now what do we do ? ? ?

  •  And, in 1999 (20+ / 0-)

    I was derided on msg boards for warning that PNAC-fueled policies would be empowered through a GW Bush Presidency, with results of rather dire import.

    So-called "moderates" felt I was extreme.  Instead, I contextually quoted from their early Clinton-era, thinktank manifesto and noted how this could easily play out if the wrong people were enabled in DC.

    There's some centrist, pontificating asshats I'd not mind smacking around verbally, these days.

    Yes, highly public trials - let all the evidence out and see how these people live through the charges in both courts of law and of worldwide, public opinion.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM PST

  •  There is one little problem with your point.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico, linkage, FarWestGirl

    The United States never accepted, by approval and then ratification as a treaty the principle you described.

    International Law for acts of war does not exist unless by compact.  We have joined the United Nations by treaty, but would not have done so if we were not in the Security Council, which gives us a veto over any concerted punishment by what is called the "international community."

    The War on Iraq was constitutional, in that it was approved by congressional action, supported by approximately half of Democrats.

    It turned out quite costly, in dimensions that I don't have to repeat to this audience.  

    We don't punish, we learn.  And to focus on punishment would simply tear this country apart, figuratively and perhaps literally.

    •  Well, neither did the Axis powers. (12+ / 0-)

      That was a sticking point of the Nuremberg tribunals, and one of the angles they tried to use in their defense: some of the treaties they were accused of violating they weren't signatories to in the first place.  Didn't matter to the prosecution, but that's the privilege you have when you win a war I guess.

      I don't think the desire for some sort of prosecution stems from a notion of punishment per se.  It's easy enough to say "we learn" when there are thousands upon thousands of Iraqi dead, and though I know from your other work that you aren't minimizing that impact, the focus on "learning" as an acceptable alternative does in fact minimize it.  Do we send them a postcard saying, "Whoops, but at least we elected Obama this time!"?

      Tough choices.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nuremberg Trials was part of destruction of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico

        a Reich, a government and a national mentality.  

        Was it just, or was it the power of a victor to exact revenge.  The allies certainly committed their own war crimes, such as the firebombing of Dresden.   It was not a military target and a hundred thousand civilians were killed.

        There was no punishment for those who ordered this.

        History is it's own judge of actions taken by nations. But in this case those in power, except for individual aberrations such as the Iraq Prison excesses, were part of the foreign policy and commander in chief authority of President.

        And Clinton's bombing of suspected terrorist factories in Iraq were in error, no terrorists only civilians. Smaller in absolute damage, but the same in principle.

        During the civil war, the seceeding states had committed acts of isurection causing the death of more men in proportion to population than all of our other wars combined.   Yet, to continue the union there were no punishments meted out.

        The continuation of the a United States was considered the dominant imperative then, and IMHO it is now also.  

      •  Japanese justified atrocities against POWs on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico

        the grounds they had never signed onto the Geneva Convention and it did not fly. For the ones being tried in the Hague since the slaughter following the breakup of Yugoslavia, how many of those men were under a government that was under "international law" by treaty or pact?
        (remember at that time, there is even the question of which country they were citizens of as the borders shifted rapidly and various militias conducted ethnic cleansing)

        Since a French warrant was taken out for Cheney (and I have not seen that it was quashed at any point) could Cheney be arrested internationally and tried, despite the US not being in any sort of compact?

        Or is it the Kissenger Realpolitic that no nation wants to risk having to take US crap in retaliation? If so, this makes Bismarck correct and puts us back some 120 years in diplomacy.

    •  It is absolutely essential (8+ / 0-)

      that all those who wrote the Bush definition of torture, those who aided and abetted putting it into law, policy and practice, those who approved the torture and those who actually performed the torture are held to account. If the United States won't do it, the World Court must.

      Allowing them to escape untried and unpunished would mean it will happen again, but worse and even more brutally and more publically. It would also mean that US troops will be treated even more horrifically with nothing the US can say.

      When will the United States realize that no nation, including the United States, is above the law? When will Americans realize that they are not entitled to decide that citizens of other countries, who were the overwhelming number of victims, will be denied justice?

      Sorry, just a little frustrated.

          Heather

      •  Unbelievable! (5+ / 0-)

        The evidence demands a verdict!  Thanks for this.  

      •  This is the dichotomy of the US mind (0+ / 0-)

        On one hand the majority of Americans believe that there is a Higher Power who has created a Higher Law for people to follow. At the same time, they reject a natural Higher Law that exists because its tenets are the essence of what it is to be human (and humane)
        So while there is a lot of talk about morality and a higher law (abortion, gay marriage etc), we do not believe that an international law exists to which we are liable, making us sort of national pirates in some people's eyes.

        I witnessed this dichotomy with Glen Beck on Christian News Channel when he was discussing his faith and sins and the general platitudes you would expect. However on the other networks he has advocated all sorts of horrendous policies, almost making him the Lord Haw Haw or Toyko Rose for the US.

        It seems to me that either one accepts there is a Higher Law and accedes to it or not. The source of any such law is irrelevant.    

        •  Nice point (0+ / 0-)

          Americans are schizophrenic by nature.

          Personally, I have a lot of fun beating up rightards using "natural law" and an almost Colbert-ish persona. A defense of Roe using this principle always results in temper tantrums. :)

    •  Agreement is only one source (5+ / 0-)

      of recognized authority under international law as recognized by the U.S.  

      Restatement of the Law 3d: Foreign Relations Law of the United States , Articles 102 (Sources of International Law).

      § 102 Sources of International Law

      (1) A rule of international law is one that has been accepted as such by the international community of states
      (a) in the form of customary law;
      (b) by international agreement; or
      (c) by derivation from general principles common to the major legal systems of the world.

      (2) Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.

      (3) International agreements create law for the states parties thereto and may lead to the creation of customary international law when such agreements are intended for adherence by states generally and are in fact widely accepted.

      (4) General principles common to the major legal systems, even if not incorporated or reflected in customary law or international agreement, may be invoked as supplementary rules of international law where appropriate.

      http://www.law.columbia.edu/...

      Rome is burning ... put down the fiddle.

      by ancblu on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:01:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This was preventive war, not (6+ / 0-)

      even pre-emptive.  There is no 'Just War' theory by which this hostile action could be justified.  The use of lies and deception, the dismantling of normal CIA and intelligence functions led to large scale resignations.  Congress authorizing the use of force in the pursuit of terrorists wasn't a Declaration of War against entire nations.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  preventive war is a nice medical sounding name (0+ / 0-)

        taken from public health where preventive measures include inoculation against diseases so the body's immune system reacts to any sort of attack.

        However, preventive war is not possible, neither for Hitler (thought I would dispense with him first) Julius Caesar, Napoleon, W or any other leaders who attacked to prevent an attack.

        Problem is inoculation is reactive; the production of antibodies is dormant until activated by the presence of disease.  Sometimes this goes awry with a false positive and there is an allergic reaction.  However, a preventive war is a failure on its face. A war cannot prevent a war; the fact it is a war defeats that purpose. Second the very nature of it being preventive is questionable as no one can surely predict wars.  I wish someone could explain to me the threat of Saddam. He had been bled dry in the Iraq/Iran war and would have been obliterated except for US aid. Then Desert Storm rocked his world and destroyed most of his regular units, leaving his Republican Guards for internal security.
        Then he was placed in a box by sanctions so that he was only able to get necessary materials by nontraditional routes. His military was largely 1970s and 1980s Russian technology (with TV monitors from K Mart)and bits and pieces scrounged here and there.

        Who was Saddam going to attack and why would they not be able to defend themselves? Saddam's forces had largely lost control of the north and his forces were no match for the Pesh Merga so what did the US invasion prevent?    

        •  'Preventive War' doesn't mean Just or approved. (0+ / 0-)

          It's a term the administration tried to push, to gain some acceptance.  Preventive is even more extreme than pre-emptive which is a strike made to quash the impending attack by an enemy--for which valid evidence is in hand.  

          Preventive War fails to meet the terms of a 'Just War' by any measure.  Most mainline religious groups opposed this, and most humanitarian groups.  Only extremist groups like Pat Robertson's 700 Club and CBN wanted war.  The administration had to resort to saying a nuclear attack was imminent by Saddam upon US interests and send Colin Powell to the UN to obtain it's blessing.  It still was 'preventive war' and not 'Just'.  This Preventive War notion is the 'Bush Doctrine'--the one upon which Sarah Palin was quized and couldn't identify.

          When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

          by antirove on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Iraq war was NOT constitutional (3+ / 0-)

      AUMF only covered going to Afghanistan and going after OBL.  It was Bush/Cheney who diverted funds, munitions, and troops to Iraq.

      The raison d'État for the illegal invasion of Iraq (according to PNAC goals) was - ultimately, after all the lies were exposed - to steal oil from the Iraqi people, give it to the US oil corporations using public armies for private gain (altho they added a couple of private armies that get our tax dollars, and one was a subsidiary of Halliburton; two men from Minnesota who were killed in Iraq worked for DynCorp).  The Iraq invasion was planned before the 2000 election (that was the lie when Bush said he 'wouldn't do any nation building' during the 2000 prez debates, and his body language screamed he was lying; I knew at that instant he planned to invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war).  It was only much later I heard others talk about the fact that the invasion was planned before the election, and in January '01, right after they were sworn into office, Georgie and Dickie were already talking about invading Iraq.  Think that came from an interview I saw of Richard Clark who was there.

      The whole big to-do, even rhetoric used by some Dem senators in their speeches as recently as six months ago or so, about our still staying in Iraq is that the Iraqi parliament has not yet approved their US-dictated constitution... the amendment that gives most of the profits from their national oil wells to US oil corporations and future drilling rights to US oil corporations.  If US oil corporations own all the oil beneath Iraq's sands, then the US controls the profits and the access to that oil.  It's about the oil.  It was always about the oil, the profits from that oil, and control of future drilling rights.

      And where does that leave the Iraqi people and their government with its multiple factions?  Where do they go?  Where and how do they make a living after the US imperialistic forces take everything away from them?  Did we learn nothing from our own history with the Native Americans?!?  We can't carry on these two wars Georgie and Dickie started with the current personnel levels.  There will either have to be a total cease fire and US withdrawal, or the draft will have to be reinstated... which would result in death tolls approaching that horror that was Vietnam (I lost school chums in that idiocy).

      If Georgie, Dickie and their corporate oil and mercenary buddies had been good little capitalists, they would have simply purchased the oil outright, then turned around and sold it for a profit.  It's the US who is the illegal aggressor in this case, and the whole damned world knows it and detests Bush and Cheney for their actions... and they're hoping the next administration will fix the problem.

      So much death... only to enrich US oil corporations.  No matter how it's parsed for misleading words and phrases, we didn't have a good reason to invade Iraq, we don't have a good reason to occupy Iraq.  Why the hell is the US military treating grown Iraqi men like children?  They had a standing army that they trained themselves before the US invaded, police forces in their cities that were trained before the invasion, so we do not need to stick around and train them now.  They can train themselves since they are adults, not children.  The imperialistic bombast is outrageous.

      The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime (not to mention Gitmo, another war crime).  There is no "winning a victory" while in the commission of a war crime.  The very maximum action that should have been taken after 9/11 is communication with international law enforcement agencies to go after that misbegotten ragtag bunch of international gang members.  Starting a war over criminal actions done by gang members who represented no one but themselves (and who were killed with their victims) is just insane on the face of it.

      There was a news blurb on the BBC web site a few months ago about how the Israeli military satellites from thousands of miles out in space were tracking these little rare rodents in the desert (there was a pix, looked kinda like a big mouse, more or less).  They can track little rodents with military satellites... but they can't find the most wanted man in the world...?  Nah.  Something is wrong with that picture.  Bhutto said OBL was dead in one of the videos done before she was killed.  It's on YouTube.  Georgie also disbanded the office that was opened to look for OBL, too, and has repeatedly said he never thought about OBL... why should he if the man's dead?  He only used OBL as a boogey man to scare the bejeebers out of people and coerce Congress Critters into giving him precisely what he wanted for de facto dictatorial power.

      Let's just declare "hostilities over" and bring our troops home.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by NonnyO on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:15:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are mistaken (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      entlord1, BigAlinWashSt

      The United Nations Charter is a treaty to which the US is party (and one of its principal architechts.) It contains very few substantive norms, but one of those are the prohibition against the use of force against another state.  There are only two exceptions:  self defense and to confront a threat to international peace and security as determined by the security council under Chapter VII.  Almost any act force involving the territorial integrity of another state that does not fall within those exceptions is an act of aggression.
      The statute for the international criminal court, like the Nuremberg Tribunal statute provides criminal liability for the crime of aggression.  However, because negotiators at Rome in 1998 could not agree the definition of aggression, that provision is suspended until negotiations on a definition can be concluded.  So there is presently no jurisdiction by the ICC at the Hague.
      However, the prohibition of aggression is both a rule of customary international law and, more importantly, a number of countries has provided universal jurisdiciton over the crime of aggression in their domestic law.  So, in principle, US officials could be held accountable in those courts.
      Of course, other crimes under international law committed by BUSHCO officials are legion- from war crimes in the carrying out of hositlities in Iraq and Afghanistan, to torture, disappearances and practices surrounding the thousands arbitrarily detained.

      "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."- Franz Kafka, "Before the Law"

      by normal family on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:58:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I, too, have to strongly disagree. I believe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      entlord1, tlemon, BigAlinWashSt

      that many if not most Americans are outraged and disgusted by the actions of the Bush Administration and it's minions. I believe that there is substantial support for investigation and prosecution of the crimes, both domestic and international, committed by the Bush Administration. If the investigation is public and the crimes are laid before the people in their entirety I believe there will be, if not unanimous suport, at least majority support for justice and fair punishment, and those not supporting it would be ashamed to admit their stance. The types of people who commit crimes of this nature are people who fear both ridicule and retribution. Both have deterrent qualities for them. They have no innate conscience, they are bound only by externally enforced rules and if they think that they can get away with something, they will try. What we are seeing now is the consequence of no consequences from previous crimes. Nixon escaped reckoning for his crimes because of his position. So Reagan's people went farther, and he also dodged responsibility, Bush Sr's people pushed it even more and Bush Jr's cronies and handlers, who were by and large either themselves veterans of Nixon or their direct and philosphical decendents, did what we have seen and undoubtedly many more things that  we have not. Punishment is ineffective and counterproductive under certain circumstances, but it is essential with some types of people as an example to others of the same ilk. If we do not address, in the strongest possible terms, the flagrant breaking of our laws, our Constitution and international standards which we helped to write, the next generation will do worse. We must draw the proverbial line in the sand and say,'No further. If you cross this line, you will be punished, your reckoning will come and we will be the authors of it.'

      What exactly are we supposed to learn and fix? We already have laws against torture, they broke them. Flagrantly. We already have laws requiring people obey Congressional subpoenas, they ignored them. Flagrantly. We have laws against lying to Congress, they did anyway. Flagrantly. We were signatories to the Geneva Convention, they ignored it. Flagrantly. Because they expected no punishment. What exactly do you expect to be more effective next time?

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

      by FarWestGirl on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:06:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Saddam did was legal (0+ / 0-)

      under that paradigm.  Unless we recognize some bare minimum of decent conduct to which all governments must adhere, we can forget the nonsense about human rights altogether.

  •  we have adjacent diaries on related topics (9+ / 0-)

    must be the time of night, eh?

    do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

    by teacherken on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM PST

  •  Americans simply don't care anymore (4+ / 0-)

    regardless of the letter after their name, if there' some thing 98% of Americans agree on it's that no American leader should ever be held responsible for war  crimes, torture, illegal invasions, all these things, as well as elevating America's elite into a special class immune to the law and thus shit-canning the whole concept of equality before the law, are perfectly okay in the name of "pragmatism".

    This sig line is in foreclosure. For details on acquiring a credit default swap on this sig line, contact H. Paulson, Dept of the Treasury, c/o Goldman, Sachs

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM PST

    •  I wonder about people who want an (4+ / 0-)

      8 year old prosecuted for murder, yet don't give a rat's ass about 1 million Iraqi's.  

    •  Pragmitism. I'm starting to not like that word. (4+ / 0-)
      •  Kissengerism may be a better term for the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt

        thing; Kissenger's deals with VN, South and Central America and the ME were for short term goals sacrificing long term successes. He was the George Allen of diplomats "The Future is Now". Shortsightedness is not pragmatism or if it is, it is the stupid sort of pragmatism, like putting your walls into the fireplace because there is a snowstorm outside.

    •  I profoundly disagree, there a LOT of Americans (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, BigAlinWashSt, ppl can fly

      who care deeply and passionately about justice for crimes both domestic and international committed by the Bush Administration. Not just evidenced by the fact of related diaries. I, for one, will continue pushing for investigation, prosecution and whatever comes after. We can't reclaim the moral high ground without doing the messy, unpleasant work required to earn back our right to stand there. We've let it slide and this is where it led. It is absolutely unacceptable to me as an American that crimes this egregious that have been commmitted against me and in my name be left unanswered to rot and resow themselves for another generation to reap. Americans believe in justice and that we're good and honorable. We have an obligation to live up to that belief and not give in to an expedience that is merely laziness or cowardice and that sets up another wave of even worse crimes in the future.

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

      by FarWestGirl on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:34:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  from an article by Jeremy Scahill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO, BigAlinWashSt, ppl can fly

    Ivo H. Daalder

    Daalder was National Security Council Director for European Affairs under President Clinton. Like other Obama advisors, he has worked with the Project for the New American Century and signed a 2005 letter from PNAC to Congressional leaders, calling for an increase in U.S. ground troops in Iraq and beyond.

    Joe Biden

    There was no stronger sign that Obama's foreign policy would follow the hawkish tradition of the Democratic foreign policy establishment than his selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. Much has been written on Biden's tenure as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq stands out. Biden is not just one more Democratic lawmaker who now calls his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq "mistaken;" Biden was actually an important facilitator of the war.

    In the summer of 2002, when the United States was "debating" a potential attack on Iraq, Biden presided over hearings whose ostensible purpose was to weigh all existing options. But instead of calling on experts whose testimony could challenge the case for war -- Iraq's alleged WMD possession and its supposed ties to al-Qaida -- Biden's hearings treated the invasion as a foregone conclusion. His refusal to call on two individuals in particular ensured that testimony that could have proven invaluable to an actual debate was never heard: Former Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, a 32-year veteran diplomat and the former head of the U.N.'s Iraq program.

    Both men say they made it clear to Biden's office that they were ready and willing to testify; Ritter knew more about the dismantling of Iraq's WMD program than perhaps any other U.S. citizen and would have been in prime position to debunk the misinformation and outright lies being peddled by the White House. Meanwhile, von Sponeck had just returned from Iraq, where he had observed Ansar al Islam rebels in the north of Iraq -- the so-called al-Qaida connection -- and could have testified that, rather than colluding with Saddam's regime, they were in a battle against it. Moreover, he would have pointed out that they were operating in the U.S.-enforced safe haven of Iraqi Kurdistan. "Evidence of al-Qaida/lraq collaboration does not exist, neither in the training of operatives nor in support to Ansar-al-Islam," von Sponeck wrote in an Op-Ed published shortly before the July 2002 hearings. "The U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA know perfectly well that today's Iraq poses no threat to anyone in the region, let alone in the United States. To argue otherwise is dishonest."

    With both men barred from testifying, rather than eliciting an array of informed opinions, Biden's committee whitewashed Bush's lies and helped lead the country to war. Biden himself promoted the administration's false claims that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, declaring on the Senate floor, "[Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons."

    Go here for full article about Obama's advisers and cabinet members.

    (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

    by dancewater on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:52:31 PM PST

  •  It should, but it will never happen. (2+ / 0-)

    We're always The Good Guys, only foreigners are war criminals.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:55:43 PM PST

  •  I must sleep now, but many thanks for (0+ / 0-)

    the great comments!  Such wonderful Kossacks!

  •  more PNAC info is here > (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt
  •  great diary BigAl (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt

    The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda

    by FireCrow on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site