Gallagher writes: "If the UN convention against torture is to have any hope of fulfilling its mission of preventing torture, the committee must send countries like Canada a clear message."

'The crimes of the Bush era are effectively beyond the reach of justice in the US.' (photo: Getty Images)

Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings

By Katherine Gallagher, Guardian UK

19 November 12

Though signatory to the convention against torture, Canada neglected to investigate George Bush. Will the UN now act?

ne thing brings together these four men - Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurnaz: they are all survivors of the systematic torture program the Bush administration authorized and carried out in locations including Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, and numerous prisons and CIA "black sites" around the world. Between them, they have been beaten, hung from walls or ceilings, deprived of sleep, food and water, and subjected to freezing temperatures and other forms of torture and abuse while held in US custody.

None was charged with a crime. Two were detained while still minors. And one of them remains at Guantánamo.

This week, in a complaint filed with the United Nations committee against torture, they are asking one question: how can the man responsible for ordering these heinous crimes, openly enter a country that has pledged to prosecute all torturers regardless of their position and not face legal action?

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) filed the complaint on the men's behalf. The country in question is Canada, visited last year by former US President George W Bush during a paid speaking engagement in Surrey, British Columbia.

Bush's visit drew hundreds in protest, calling for his arrest, and it also provided bin Attash, el-Hajj, Tumani and Kurnaz the opportunity to call on the Canadian government to uphold its legal obligation under the UN convention against torture, and conduct a criminal investigation against Bush while he was on Canadian soil.

To this end, the four men, submitted a 69-page draft indictment (pdf) that CCR and CCIJ had presented to Canada's attorney general ahead of Bush's arrival in support of their private prosecution. The submission included thousands of pages of evidence against Bush, consisting of extensive reports and investigations conducted by multiple US agencies and the UN. The evidence is overwhelming - not to mention the fact that Bush has admitted, even, boasted of his crimes, saying "damn right" when asked if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee, a recognized act of torture.

Canada should have investigated these crimes. The responsibility to do so is embedded in its domestic criminal code that explicitly authorizes the government to prosecute torture occurring outside Canadian borders. There is no reason it cannot apply to former heads of state, and indeed, the convention has been found to apply to such figures including Hissène Habré and Augusto Pinochet. A criminal investigation into the allegations was the lawful thing to do. It was also what Canada had agreed to do when it pledged its support to end impunity for torture by ratifying the convention.

But Canada looked the other way. Not only did federal Attorney General Robert Nicholson refuse to investigate Bush, but the attorney general of British Columbia swiftly intervened to shut down a private criminal prosecution (pdf) submitted to a provincial court in his jurisdiction the morning of Bush's visit.

Thanks to the Obama administration's call to look only "forward" - even in the face of torture that demands a proper reckoning - and a court system in the US that has readily closed its doors to torture survivors, the crimes of the Bush era are effectively beyond the reach of justice in the US. But the immunity - the impunity - granted to these criminals here should not follow them into other countries, particularly those that are signatories to international laws and treaties against torture.

If the UN convention against torture is to have any hope of fulfilling its mission of preventing torture, the committee must send countries like Canada a clear message: it is their legal obligation to ensure there is no safe haven for torturers; and any action to the contrary makes these states effectively complicit in furthering impunity for some of the worst crimes of the past decade.

These four survivors are asking the UN to enforce its own convention, nothing more and nothing less. They call upon the UN, unlike Canada, to unequivocally reject a worldview in which the powerful are exempt from rules, treaties and prohibitions against senseless acts of barbarity. Will the UN now hear their call?

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+83 # dkonstruction 2012-11-19 11:32

I have no problem saying Bush should be prosecuted for his crimes but he is hardly the only recent president who deserves to be prosecuted...th e Sanctions against Iraq that Bill Clinton pushed for were responsible for the deaths (according to the UN) of at least 500,000 children (a "price" his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, said was "worth it"); and the current administration in addition to the assassination of individuals (including US citizens) that were never even charged with any crimes (let along convicted of anything) we were involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Hondoras (this one seems to have simply been forgotten). so, if we're going to start prosecuting former President's let's at least be "bi-partisan" about this and apply the rule of law equally to all of these criminals.

+119 # hjsteed 2012-11-19 14:47

Of course, the U.N. or International Criminal Court should prosecute all suspect war criminals and hold them accountable if found guilty.

-9 # Robt Eagle 2012-11-20 10:07

Obama then falls right into this category!

+3 # ritaague 2012-11-22 08:21

Bingo, hjsteed! And, thank you so much, Katherine Gallagher, for a terrific and timely op/ed.

Pardon me, but with the great Irish founded Sisters of Mercy getting us into four high school years of logic/critical thinking, I do believe that our pulling away from aversive consequences for unlawful and egregious acts, such as torture, is at the root of today's evil overtaking. Time to punish with mandatory sentencing, no buyouts permitted, and get going on all it's gonna take to overcome the evil and.....

UNDO THE COUP !

+85 # George D 2012-11-19 16:19

I usually find myself agreeing with you but in this case, I think comparing the deeds of Bush and Cheney to the sanctions that you say "were responsible for the deaths (according to the UN) of at least 500,000 children" is a reach too far.

Short of all out war, sanctions are all most countries have, to "pursuade" the leaders of rogue nations to behave in certain ways. The results of those sanctions lay in the hands of the foreign ruler; Not the US or anyone else.

Lets face it; When Obama and the US Congress decided not to prosecute Bush and Cheney, it was a dark day for America and the rule of law throughout the world. Canada has just followed our lead.

+71 # in deo veritas 2012-11-19 17:39

NOT prosecuting Bush and his gang is a lot worse than Ford pardoning Nixon. NO one was killed by Watergate. The net needs to be widely cast to include the little liar and manipulator Rove, whom I doubt too many Repugs would defend after his costly debacle to buy Romneyhood the White House. His role in outing Valerie Plame of the CIA was an act of treason by definition.
As far as Canada goes, their failure to investigate torture makes them look just as bad as this country in regard to justice and human rights. Makes it less attractive as a place to emigrate.

+13 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:22

True, but Ford's pardon of Nixon was actually the cause of the lack of action against Bush and Cheney by way of precedent and the concept of presidential overstepping of authority being justifiable.

+26 # AndreM5 2012-11-20 07:53

"NO one was killed by Watergate."

Although I may agree with your other statements, the quote above is a worthless, factless, extreme right-wing talking point and pure propaganda. Shame on you for repeating it.

THOUSANDS of U.S. conscripts and MILLIONS of Cambodian and Vietnamese civilians were KILLED by Nixon's extension of the WARS in southeast Asia. His Watergate program was NOT a "3rd rate burglary" like Nixon wanted you to believe. It was a systematic black op against his political enemies and an furious attempt to cover up his TREASONOUS intervention in the Paris peace talks in order to get elected, then re-elected.

These are clearly substantiated facts revealed in the Pentagon Papers and in LBJ's own library. You could look it up.

+4 # Jim Rocket 2012-11-21 22:01

Sadly, the current government of Canada would (literally) line up to (literally) kiss Bush and Cheney's butts. You're certainly welcome to move here but do it with open eyes.

+18 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 06:58

The only thing "rogue" about Saddam was that he turned from being "our guy." Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a brutal dictator but the US has and continues to support many brutal regimes so clearly this was not the reason we ultimately went after him. It was clear, however, that it was the US that pushed for the sanctions and there were those who said at the time that the only thing this was accomplishing was punishing the Iraqi people and was having no effect on Saddam or the gov't as a whole.

So, as far as including Clinton (and Obama) along with Bush as one who should be prosecuted for crimes, well, if you don't agree that the Sanctions against Iraq and a half million dead children are reason enough then how about the illegal overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically elected President of Haiti?

On the other hand, i have no illusions that any of them will ever be prosecuted for anything so at best all of this is mere wishful thinking.

+10 # George D 2012-11-20 18:29

First; Let's agree on your definition of rogue. Not doing what the US expects them to do is exactly what that means.

Second; The point is whether Bush/Cheney not only violated International laws against torture, but openly admitted doing so and got away with it.
Good guys, bad guys; None of that is the point. If we expect to have other nations follow the rule of law, and not just become a Banana Republic ourselves, we should enforce those laws, or better yet, respect them and obey them ourselves. Failure to do so costs us in the end.

Have other Presidents violated International treaties and laws before? Maybe. But if they did, they sure didn't admit it arrogantly and openly with a "bring it on" attitude.

+14 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-11-19 16:36

I'm not an attorney, yet the last time I checked whether or not Bush, Cheney could be prosecuted, I was advised in numerous searches that the U.S. Statute of Limitations ran out on this matter. Question is, did Obama let the Statute Of Limitations run out? That is why Bush could brag so boistrously. And what do we do with Madeline Albright in this matter? Some of us in the U.S. think we need more women in government to "tone down" the flesh eaters and let more of the grass eaters take more control. Not so sure we need women like Albright in office. A real flesh eater in the animal world.

+27 # Third_stone 2012-11-20 06:40

I do not believe treason has a limitation. The charge for the whole lot of them involved in the Valerie Plame revenge outing have perpetrated treason, by their own admission.

+7 # AndreM5 2012-11-20 07:54

My understanding too.

+8 # vicnada 2012-11-20 19:15

Quoting Third_stone:

I do not believe treason has a limitation.

...nor does fraud. And what these scumbags did was systematically defrauded the American people by leading us to war without cause and then setting up their corporate profiteers to make their lying worthwhile.

+12 # George D 2012-11-20 18:31

I suspect there is no statute of limitations on violation of International laws. Didn't they continue to hunt Nazi's for decades? Sure they did. And they prosecuted them too.

+3 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 08:46

At the very least, we should make sure that the Texas Book Company doesn't paint these (censored) out as some kind of heroes with desirable values and admirable stints in office. They need to be identified for who and what they are and clearly marked as bad meat so that future generations won't consume them thinking their policies and behavior, in any way, represent healthy government or true American values. These people are monsters and they need to be labeled as such for all time, just like the Nazis.

+2 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 08:35

There should be no statute of limitations on murder and this is what is so outrageous about these people; they think nothing of murdering anyone they choose.

+15 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-11-20 04:27

Dekonstruction: Good points that are difficult for most Americans to face - we are NOT always the 'good guys' or 'he who is without sin' even though we all too often 'cast the first stone' in the name of "protecting our national interests"! I openly supported and voted for President Obama twice, but it sickens me that he persists with the drone attacks and Gitmo is stlll in business. As for the drone attacks, if we actually kill the current 'no. 1' or 'no. 2' Al Qaida leader at some location doesn't Obama or the military think that numbers 3 and 4 just get promotions each time, therefore number 1 will never truly be eliminated until they are ALL gone? Which leads to this probable reality, even when we attack actual Al Qaida or Taliban targets isn't it likely that not only surviving family and friends become even more angry and hateful, but Islamic people who are enraged by the drone attacks join the cause?! As for Gitmo and Bush's illegal torturing, how does Obama keep a straight face and how do the people of Myranmar not see US as hypocrites when Obama talks about human rights? We still have endless work to do in our own country to ensure equal rights and protection for ALL Americans under our own laws! As for Bush being prosecuted just for torture, why not prosecute him for criminal negligence prior to 09-11-2001 and for using the results of that negligence to justify his long sought invasion and war against Iraq which is a crime against humanity?!

-10 # RLF 2012-11-20 04:52

But Obama gave us health care...or at least he is forcing fus to buy it. A republican in all but name...kind of like Leiberman...his mentor.

-1 # bmiluski 2012-11-20 07:57

Well darlin, if you're the type of person that doesn't have insurance then that means one thing. When you get sick, you go to the emergency room. Which means, I have to pay for your health care. Isn't it about time you paid for it yourself or do you feel entitled to my hard earned money?

+11 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-11-20 12:30

Bmiluski: Great point as well that has been made many times, but the radical right refuses to see. They think doctors and hospitals "eat" those unpaid bills when they really prorate them to all of us who have insurance, and insurance passes the cost on to us via higher premiums. The radical right talk about personal responsibility, which is why they were for this kind of reform before they were against it, but when a Democrat imposes such personal responsibility, albeit with subsidies, the right manically screams,"Social ism"! The other Socialistic aspect of this is their health insurance. They never seem to ask what happens to their money when they and their employer pay $10,000 a year in insurance premiums, but only cost say $2,000 in medical bills. Do they get a rebate or a refund of the extra $8,000 they paid? No, it is used to pay the bills of other unlucky sick or injured people and the bonuses for insurance company executives. Isn't that Socialism imposed by a capitalist 'for profit' corporation? Mutual companies that pay rebates are a thing of the past! The other thing that cracks me up is that the "freedom loving" Republicans, particularly those in their 40s and 50s with preexisting conditions who want to stick with the old system and be a slave to your company in order to keep your health insurance! Real freedom would be to have universal single-payer, or expanded Medicare, so you could tell your dick-head boss to, "take this job and shove it"!

+13 # bcmarshall 2012-11-20 14:06

Quoting bmiluski:

Which means, I have to pay for your health care. Isn't it about time you paid for it yourself or do you feel entitled to my hard earned money?

Sorry, bmiluski, but you sound like a typical "me, me, me" Republican, and I'd be willing to bet that's exactly what you are.

If you had any sense you'd realize that 1) there's no need for sickness insurance companies. Calling them health insurance companies is a misnomer and a bad joke. Their only function is to extract profit between provider and patient, and to limit the care you receive to the bare minimum they can get away with before they cut you loose if you get too expensive.

I can see you whining about "Obamacare" to anyone that will listen while being grateful that pre-existing conditions will no longer disqualify you and while you keep your kids on your policy till they're 26.

What we need is single payer. The private companies and their filthy profit motive deserve the dustbin of history. The ONLY motive in health care should be health, not how much money they can make and how much they pay their shareholders. Only national health care can provide that.

Oh, and one other thing. If it were nationalized, everyone would be paying into it at some level according to their means, so your greedy little "I'm paying for it" crap wouldn't even apply.

+8 # reiverpacific 2012-11-21 11:52

Quoting bmiluski:

Well darlin, if you're the type of person that doesn't have insurance then that means one thing. When you get sick, you go to the emergency room. Which means, I have to pay for your health care. Isn't it about time you paid for it yourself or do you feel entitled to my hard earned money?

Typical selfish, blinkered, reactionary, non-populist, griping meanness.
Have you ever tried to pay for insurance out of unemployment? And yes, it can happen to you too.
People like you would likely vote against Universal health care, the rest of the "Civilized" world's solution.

+3 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 08:56

This is SUCH Right-wing talking points bunk. Once upon a time, going to the doctor was affordable. Who the Hades do you think has driven up all the prices on health care? Think fast! (hint: insurance companies. And who owns the insurance industry? The banks. And who are the banks in cahoots with? Wall Street!) SO, darlin, they have sold you on being a selfish, petty, small minded jerk and you can't buy into it deep enough. Who built the roads? Who gives you your police department, fire department, bridges, your education and a whole spectrum of other things YOU enjoy that YOU never paid for but just take for granted? But, oh no, you would take away health care from your fellow beings so that the banksters can be "obscenely" rich. Shame on you!

+1 # reiverpacific 2012-11-21 11:53

Quoting RLF:

But Obama gave us health care...or at least he is forcing fus to buy it. A republican in all but name...kind of like Leiberman...his mentor.

Where the Hell did you get lousy-Lieberman as Obama's mentor?
Backup please.

+2 # bingers 2012-11-21 15:51

You can't blame Gitmo on Obama, the Republicans blocked it when he tried to close it. H's the president, not the king.

+16 # RLF 2012-11-20 04:49

Yeah! And the Native Americans (of which I am part) want our land back.

+2 # bingers 2012-11-21 15:55

Quoting RLF:

Yeah! And the Native Americans (of which I am part) want our land back.

I can dig it. My stepfather was a Cree, but he was an illegal alien from Canada who served in the Navy in WWII.

+1 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 09:00

Yah, ALL of it! I could go for having the First Nation folks running things. At least Monsanto would be out the door and destroying the forests and murdering all the animal for sport would be off the table.

+118 # Barbara K 2012-11-19 14:27

George Bush and his cronies absolutely should be prosecuted. The fact that he gave immunity to himself and his cronies before leaving office should not have any affect on it. Immunity doesn't count before a person is charged with a crime or even arrested for a crime.

+14 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 18:49

Seems a conflict to have let him give one to himself eh?

Thanks for all your great work during Campaign. Great Support

+2 # bcmarshall 2012-11-21 20:53

Quoting Barbara K:

The fact that he gave immunity to himself and his cronies before leaving office should not have any affect on it.

Your statement is incorrect. Cheney was furious at Bush for NOT pardoning him. Scooter Libby's jail sentence was commuted but he was not pardoned, and Bush did not pardon himself.

I agree with your sentiment but your facts are wrong.

+1 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 09:07

That's like Hitler pardoning himself before HE left office. These guys ignored the laws or bought off people in the Congress to change the laws to accomplish their evil deeds. We don't have to be made accomplices to their crimes by observing or supporting the things they have done as if what they did had any correctness to it.

+61 # Trueblue Democrat 2012-11-19 14:39

Let's face it. President Obama chose to "look forwards" because he knew even as early as the first months of his first term that he would also be violating numerous U.S. and international laws in respect to human rights; that he would also be doing his part to destroy our Bill of Rights. In fact, he moved very rapidly to get legislation through Congress that retroactively legalized the illegal wiretapping crimes of AT&T, Verizon et al. His attorney general has put the likes of Alberto Gonzalez to shame in the number of times he's yelled "State Secrets" to prevent incarcerated individuals from having their day in court - ever.

By their deeds ye shall know them.

+71 # MainStreetMentor 2012-11-19 14:45

Failure to persue a criminal investigation of Bush and his administrations ' officialdom, remains the major reasona and cause I will NOT support Nancy Pelosi. She had the opportunity to persue that avenue and refused to allow the issue to be placed "on the table" of the House. Bush and Cheney could have found themselves in a much more "inconvenient" place today had an investigation been permitted then.

+55 # Erdajean 2012-11-19 15:51

Yes, yes! And thank you. Obama's "forgiveness" of his predecessor Bush was too disgusting, and a bad omen. But Nancy Pelosi's "Off the TABLE!" defense of America's Most Despicable (yeah, second maybe to Dick Cheney) was a major crime in its own right.
We will NEVER be right with the world, nor with our own consciences, until we demand and achieve prosecution of our most vile criminals and justice for their victims -- or at least those who live to see it.
How can we expect better of our children, with the "Not Responsible" legacy we leave them, otherwise?
Neither Obama nor Pelosi not any of that ilk have the moral right to protect such criminals. We need to let them know that, in no uncertain terms.

+1 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 09:11

I think we need to get rid of the whole notion of "statute of limitations". This is just a free pass for the guilty.

+10 # AndreM5 2012-11-20 07:57

She also had the right to throw Rove in jail for refusing a Congressional subpoena. Really should have done that one.

+89 # fredboy 2012-11-19 14:47

Yes, and we still need a full criminal investigation of the 9/11/2001 attacks and related crimes. All we've been given is bullshit, a knot of loose ends, and a puff report. Let's find out what really happened, who helped or looked the other way, and prosecute the bastards.

+23 # robcarter.vn 2012-11-19 15:51

Why do you suppose Ambassador Smith was attacked, his CIA staff of 10 didn't help and couldn't use smoke masks to find him in the rubble. Hours later Libians found him nearly dead, sent him to hospital for 90 minutes attempt to save him. And why Smith meeting in the remote consulate no staff at 10pm meeting when attacked? Did someone someone produce the evidence of the WMD lie Bush sold to Blair as Annan says they both need to face Sadam's fate at ICCJ I agree.

+14 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 18:51

Another CIA Dirty Deeds done dirt cheap

+1 # bcmarshall 2012-11-21 21:22

A better question is to wonder what the Ambassador was doing at a Consulate at all. That's not normal behavior for an Ambassador.

Could it have something to do with the remarks that Petraeus' mistress Paula Broadwell made at the University of Denver on Oct. 26?

"Now I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgsLSsSKMI&feature=related

Broadwell had secret and classified information which she clearly was not entitled to, but if she's right, we were holding prisoners and their allies were trying to release them. Was the Ambassador there to see what information these prisoners had?

+8 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 18:50

I believe papa would go down also on that one

+55 # bikewriter 2012-11-19 15:02

A truth and reconciliation commission here in the US would be nice, so that we can heal, learn and grow from all these Bush-era atrocities, not to mention reducing our chances of repeating them.

+27 # vitobonespur 2012-11-19 18:47

The chance that any of us will ever see the Bush cabal prosecuted, let alone punished, lies somewhere between "slim-and-none. " I suppose, having no other choice, I can live with that. But what really chaps my ass is that "We, the People" have to pay pensions to that crew of miscreants.

And Georgie-Porgie actually gets paid for speaking engagements? That imbecile can barely string together two or three sentences without inserting a Malapropism or other slip of the tongue. And people actually pay him real legal tender to do so...???

I guess we're all crazy. Luckily we're not all crazy on the same day!

+2 # RLF 2012-11-20 04:56

come on...you all know these guys are smarter than us and taking care of us when we're not doing it ourselves.

+42 # Regina 2012-11-19 15:04

Unfortunately, prosecution takes resources, which we don't have, since Bush, Cheney, & their co-perps blew the treasury on their unbudgeted wars. They also instigated the tax policies that have further driven our economy into the cesspool. Just yelling "J'accuse!" won't get them into custody.

+35 # jwb110 2012-11-19 16:50

Quoting Regina:

Unfortunately, prosecution takes resources, which we don't have, since Bush, Cheney, & their co-perps blew the treasury on their unbudgeted wars. They also instigated the tax policies that have further driven our economy into the cesspool. Just yelling "J'accuse!" won't get them into custody.

Ken Starr spent $40 million to find out if the Presidents member tilted to the left or the right. Torture is an entire other story. If the Bush criminal/cronie s aren't held to account by the International Community, these same tortures maybe visited on our own citizens. The test case of getting away with it has already been made. The American people gave the key to the henhouse to the fox Geo. Bush and he granted himself and all his buddies immunity. What a sham.
Spend the money and save the Democracy of America!!!

+12 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 18:53

Torture is gong on right now in many places probably right here in USA by our own
Doesnot mean everyone knows it..or wants to

0 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 09:17

I have an idea: End all wars and use the Pentagon budget to prosecute these slime bags. Two birds, one stone.

+53 # DPM 2012-11-19 15:09

Since the USA "outsourced" torture, perhaps we could "outsource" a trial. If nothing else, have an "extra-judicial " trial held and publicized, somewhere. That would help call more attention to these people. Even if nothing "legal" ever did happen to them, they could be made more uncomfortable. And, most of all and something very important to people like that, it would destroy their names in the history books. Their ego's would suffer and that is something even more valuable to them than money.

+23 # Majikman 2012-11-19 17:45

DPM, I have a recollection of a famous Spanish judge attempting to do just that....before Spain disbarred him at the request of the US and threw out the case.

+7 # DPM 2012-11-19 21:28

You are right. Time to try again.

+9 # indian weaver 2012-11-20 05:18

Yes you are right. Obama paid off Spain to disbar one of the most effective well-known competent Human Rights attornies in Spain. Obama is guilty of removing the intention of Spain to indict Bush for War Crimes, like Switzerland, Malaysia, etc. Obama is accessory to war crimes of dubya's, actually a Co-conspirator at this point, but we all know that, those who read and think anyhow.

-16 # bmiluski 2012-11-20 08:02

I love it....You people just can't stop can you? Please, proof, proof, proof. If you don't know the meaning of the word, look it up.....P R O O F.

0 # indian weaver 2012-11-22 12:15

Obama's payoff of Spain to remove the human rights attorney issuing a war crimes indictment against dubya has been published. This is not mere guesswork but fact. Maybe you missed the loveboat on this one bmiluski?

0 # bcmarshall 2012-11-22 16:50

Quoting indian weaver:

Obama's payoff of Spain to remove the human rights attorney issuing a war crimes indictment against dubya has been published. This is not mere guesswork but fact.

Can you post a link? I haven't seen it and I'd like to archive it.

Thx.

0 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 09:23

I don't want to be resigned to nothing legal ever happening. If they broke the laws to get what they wanted, then we are not required to uphold their evil doings by giving them a free pass with a pardon or any "statute of limitations" bunk. No statute of limitations on murder, torture, treason or fraud. Why are we so willing to not hold anyone accountable and allow all of this to slide to be made willingly complicit with their treachery?

-62 # letsfixit 2012-11-19 15:53

Yeah right like Obama should face proceedings for denying security in Benghazi.

+9 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:26

Quoting letsfixit:

Yeah right like Obama should face proceedings for denying security in Benghazi.

Non issue as testified to by Petraeus. Time to give it up wingnuts.

+13 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 07:06

Quoting letsfixit:

Yeah right like Obama should face proceedings for denying security in Benghazi.

No evidence of this in Benghazi whatsoever; just more right-wing talking points.

However, though it seems to have been completely forgotten in this United States of Amnesia, the US was clearly at the very least complicit in the 2009 illegal overthrow of Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected President of Hondoras.

+13 # bmiluski 2012-11-20 08:03

Wasn't it the republicans that cut the budget for embassy protection?

0 # rockieball 2012-11-20 14:19

I think that argument was blown out of the water in last Fridays testimony by General Petraus.

+3 # pernsey 2012-11-21 06:34

Quoting letsfixit:

Yeah right like Obama should face proceedings for denying security in Benghazi.

This is just the Fox news bubble crew making something out of nothing as usual, living in their fantasy reality. Fox news listeners are the most uninformed people in America, they should make the lies of this so called news organization pay for ruining and dumbing down America. Comments like these prove that Fox news brainwashes Americans and anyone else who takes their crap seriously.

Fox news wants Fear, anger, and hate to keep circulating so people will hate Obama. They have no clue about Obama they just blindly hate him because of Fox news lies.

My one friend thinks Hannity is a serious source of news. You cant tell them anything though, they think they know it all...these are brainwashed masses, with a skewed reality and they are dangerous.

George Bush and his crew PLUS Fox news should all be brought up on charges of treason and murder.

+32 # reiverpacific 2012-11-19 15:53

Under a more progressive PM than Stephen Harper, who is a very right-wing holy-roller like Dimwits "doing God's work", there may have been a chance of prosecution but the two are cast from the same righteous mold.
As "Main Street Mentor" states, the action should have started at home so that the whole gang of chicken-hawks attached to the Dim-Bulb would be hauled up and over to the Hague. Of course the current SCOTUS would never have upheld anything anyway -they put the swinehund there in the first place. Maybe Pelosi realized this but she should have tried anyway.
But their world is shrinking; perhaps that's why the Bush dynasty has acquired a large parcel of land in northern Paraguay. Wonder if they were behind the recent right wing coup in that long-suffering country?

+1 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 11:19

They are floating balloons about running George Prescott Bush, Jeb Bush's son who is half Hispanic to capture the Hispanic vote, (v. Hillary Clinton) in 2016. Great! Just what we need: More Bush policies v. More Bush policies. I say, let's turn the page on both the Bush and Clinton dynasties and get rid of the whole lot of them. The best thing would be to have all of the (D) voters walk out and join the Green Party; the GP prohibits any form of corporate funding, but they DO have the Green New Deal. Either the (D) party is going to tack Left or we do.

+39 # pegasus4508 2012-11-19 15:53

If nothing else, we should welcome any other country that wishes to pursue the justice for the liars Bush/Cheney. The are the original war criminals. Don't get it twisted.

+36 # munza1 2012-11-19 15:56

If President Obama was so anxious to look forward why is the hero who blew the whistle on torture, John Kiriakou going to jail for thirty months? Talk about going backwards!

+8 # reiverpacific 2012-11-20 11:59

Quoting munza1:

If President Obama was so anxious to look forward why is the hero who blew the whistle on torture, John Kiriakou going to jail for thirty months? Talk about going backwards!

Not to mention Bradley manning.

+2 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 11:20

Or the witch hunt for Julian Assange.

+22 # pappajohn15 2012-11-19 16:01

There may be more Republicans, but there are many, many Democrats with blood on their hands. It is the same argument: both parties are bought and paid for by the 1% and the corporate (owned and operated) media will never work to expose.

We have one political party, one weak Fourth Estate and zero chance of fixing this broken system!

+5 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:27

Quoting pappajohn15:

There may be more Republicans, but there are many, many Democrats with blood on their hands. It is the same argument: both parties are bought and paid for by the 1% and the corporate (owned and operated) media will never work to expose.

We have one political party, one weak Fourth Estate and zero chance of fixing this broken system!

There is NO equivalency, for every bad Democrat there are dozens of bloodthirsty Republicans

+5 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 07:08

Quoting bingers:

Quoting pappajohn15:
There may be more Republicans, but there are many, many Democrats with blood on their hands. It is the same argument: both parties are bought and paid for by the 1% and the corporate (owned and operated) media will never work to expose.

We have one political party, one weak Fourth Estate and zero chance of fixing this broken system!

There is NO equivalency, for every bad Democrat there are dozens of bloodthirsty Republicans

If this is true then why did vitually every democratic member of congress support and vote in favor of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the patriot act and NDAA? And, what about this administration' s role in the illegal overthrow of the democratically elected President of Hondoras in 2009?

+2 # bingers 2012-11-21 16:02

Quoting dkonstruction:

Quoting bingers:
Quoting pappajohn15:
There may be more Republicans, but there are many, many Democrats with blood on their hands. It is the same argument: both parties are bought and paid for by the 1% and the corporate (owned and operated) media will never work to expose.

We have one political party, one weak Fourth Estate and zero chance of fixing this broken system!

There is NO equivalency, for every bad Democrat there are dozens of bloodthirsty Republicans

If this is true then why did vitually every democratic member of congress support and vote in favor of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the patriot act and NDAA? And, what about this administration's role in the illegal overthrow of the democratically elected President of Hondoras in 2009?

Because honest people believe it when the president says there are WMDs ready to be used. The few Dems who were briefed officially couldn't say anything without being arrested and charged with secrecy violations.

-1 # pernsey 2012-11-21 20:00

Quoting bingers:

Quoting dkonstruction:
Quoting bingers:
Quoting pappajohn15:
There may be more Republicans, but there are many, many Democrats with blood on their hands. It is the same argument: both parties are bought and paid for by the 1% and the corporate (owned and operated) media will never work to expose.

We have one political party, one weak Fourth Estate and zero chance of fixing this broken system!

There is NO equivalency, for every bad Democrat there are dozens of bloodthirsty Republicans

If this is true then why did vitually every democratic member of congress support and vote in favor of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, the patriot act and NDAA? And, what about this administration's role in the illegal overthrow of the democratically elected President of Hondoras in 2009?

Because honest people believe it when the president says there are WMDs ready to be used. The few Dems who were briefed officially couldn't say anything without being arrested and charged with secrecy violations.

Bingers you are right!! Republicans lied to get the Dems to vote for the war.

+1 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 11:24

I don't agree. Go LOOK AT the Green Party and their platform; the Green New Deal. It is just beginning to get some real traction and needs people in every state to run for office. They don't accept corporate contributions. We could Occupy that party and make it work to our advantage. Just have a look. It needs a lot of work still, but that's where YOU come in. Rahm Emanuel said the libs have no place to go... wrong.

+40 # DaveM 2012-11-19 16:13

If I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein attempted to defend himself by saying that he only issued orders or words to that effect. Well....

How about if we turn George Bush over to the Iraqis?

+21 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 18:55

All the Bush's

+18 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:31

Quoting KittatinyHawk:

All the Bush's

It's for certain there are no good Bushes, but the kids are just whack jobs, not criminals. OTOH George H W's father was a traitor, even more so than his son and grandson. Not only did he back Hitler, he arranged loans for him, and he was part of the cabal that tried to overthrow the government until the whistle was blown on them by General Smedley Butler.

The Bush crime family is an actual thing.

+2 # peacefulvoice@bellsouth.net 2012-11-21 09:06

Quoting bingers:

Quoting KittatinyHawk:
All the Bush's

It's for certain there are no good Bushes, but the kids are just whack jobs, not criminals. OTOH George H W's father was a traitor, even more so than his son and grandson. Not only did he back Hitler, he arranged loans for him, and he was part of the cabal that tried to overthrow the government until the whistle was blown on them by General Smedley Butler.

The Bush crime family is an actual thing.

Wish this knowledege backed with historical facts would have more public awareness

0 # bingers 2012-11-21 16:04

Yeah, but FDR hushed it up to prevent tearing the country up and causing a constitutional crisis.

+1 # peacefulvoice@bellsouth.net 2012-11-21 09:02

Best suggestion yet!!!!!!!!!

+32 # Dave_s Not Here 2012-11-19 16:22

A black stain on Canada's otherwise excellent international reputation. There will be similar failures to act correctly so long as mini-Bush, S. Harper, is running Canada.

+34 # grouchy 2012-11-19 16:23

Do it simply for the fact such action would announce to any future leader they also would be held accountable should they try the same acts! Currently, I'd love to see these characters locked up for many years.

If someone goes to jail for robbing a corner grocery store and killing the owner, then someone responsible for the killing of thousands should at least spend the same amount of time behind bars!

+37 # chuckw38 2012-11-19 16:24

I'm so sick & tired of saying that yes this GWB "person" should be tried & prosecuted for War crimes due to his "dream" of getting "Glory" for taking us to War, in spite of all the deaths of our Veterans ensued as a result, but it appears clear that he and his cronies have some deep pockets who continue to protect him from what is due: his conviction for War Crimes!!!!!!!!! !

+6 # bmiluski 2012-11-20 08:06

Those "deep pockets" have been filled because of the war. That's why bush and company will never be prosecuted.

+16 # Antemedius 2012-11-19 16:25

Yes. He should be sitting in a caged prisoners dock in The Hague, right beside Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Barack Obama, and a few others...

+20 # bcmarshall 2012-11-19 16:38

It seems simple. Arrest Bush and charge him with war crimes.

Unfortunately, it's not so simple. There's a little-known law on the books euphemistically called the American Service-Members ' Protection Act http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm which is really about protecting Bush, Cheney, et. al.

Section 2013(4) identifies "covered persons" as:

COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS- The term `covered United States persons' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.

So any elected official (arguable in Bush's case) is covered.

And what does the act specify?

Section 2008(a) answers that.

AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

In effect, it authorizes Obama (the guy who likes extra-judicial executions) to attack, even with nuclear weapons should it be deemed "necessary", any country holding a "covered person" for war crimes.

Read it yourself. I posted a link.

Canada risks military attack by the US if they arrest Bush.

Like I said, not as easy as it seems.

+22 # reiverpacific 2012-11-19 17:31

@"bcmarshall".
Thanks for that; good information and well researched.
I suppose it could be boiled down to the "Cover a war-mongers ass act".
So would this cover and protect PFC Bradley Manning, who only committed an act of patriotism?
And will the president pardon Leonard Peltier?

+6 # bcmarshall 2012-11-19 18:26

Of course it won't cover Bradley Manning. It's written specifically to cover service members and elected officials held by a foreign nation for war crimes at the behest of the ICC.

Perhaps there's a loophole for Canada if they don't arrest on ICC's behalf, but instead under their own laws, but don't count on Obama noting the distinction.

I wish I weren't so cynical.

0 # WestWinds 2012-11-22 11:32

It's time to get some new laws on the books. Ones that say any law that supports criminal activity is criminal in itself and therefore can be vacated. I mean, look at Scalia (SCOTUS) with his insane "innocence shall not be an impediment to incarceration." If the SCOTUS can support this nonsense, then it's high time we changed a few things so the law begins to make sense again and is no longer configured to protect the rich guilty and abuse the innocent poor. Moses didn't bring this stuff down from the Mount; it was put in place by sick, evil men and we need to get a back bone and change this!

+8 # herman_the_german 2012-11-19 16:57

I'm hardly one to defend W, but if no one has evidence that will stand up in court, it ain't worth it.
Also, why do I feels as even if proven guilty we'd end up with a pardon. Governors, yes; but a former President? Doesn't seem likely, not in this current USA.

+26 # walt 2012-11-19 17:05

The USA will have no credibility in the world until a full and complete investigation into the Iraq invasion and the use of torture in conducted.

And we will have no credibility when we protest such crimes if done by another country against us.

Americans must demand a
full congressional inquiry.

+4 # Robert B 2012-11-19 20:31

Thanksgiving also happens to be the 49th anniversary of JFK's assassination. We sure got to the bottom of that, didn't we?

+16 # wfalco 2012-11-19 17:47

A nice thought but totally unrealistic, and hence, will never happen.
So many crimes we as a Nation have committed that were never prosecuted:
LBJ-(Vietnam)
Nixon/Kissinger-Chile
Reagan-Nicaragua(to include Iran/Contra), El Salvador, Grenada.
BUSH I (Panama-El Chamorro massacre and cover up)
BUSH I (IRAQ I)
Clinton (Haiti)
BUSH II-Iraq/Afghanistan/911

And this is just a taste. Too many to contemplate. Where to begin if one is true about uncovering the sordid past of this country- which was built on a Holocaust of our Natives and the importation of slave labor.
Where has the justice ever been? Who but the few actually care? Just another leftist wish that will remain just that.

-5 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:33

Sorry, but Haiti was legit.

+6 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 07:10

Quoting bingers:

Sorry, but Haiti was legit.

The overthrow and forced exile of the democratically elected President of Haiti was legit?

guess then you would say the same thing about the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Hondoras in 2009?

+15 # markrosenblatt 2012-11-19 18:05

Torture????? That's the least of Bush's crimes; Read Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." He build's a great case but neglects to tell us how to proceed other than any State DA could indict him no that he's out of office.

+2 # reiverpacific 2012-11-20 12:02

Quoting markrosenblatt:

Torture????? That's the least of Bush's crimes; Read Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." He build's a great case but neglects to tell us how to proceed other than any State DA could indict him no that he's out of office.

Yep that's a great book -he does state though that he'd stand behind any DA who came forward with an indictment and gives guidelines for how to proceede.
So far nothing (surprise, surprise).

+14 # Archie1954 2012-11-19 18:09

Canada and British Columbia should be severely censured by the UN and other international agencies dealing with human rights for its decision not to live up to its duties under its treaty. Prime Minister Harper should also be criticized for his lack of leadership in this matter.

+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-11-19 19:05

Good to see the Juices running but stop a minute and look at where this Article came from..."UK calling the US Toturers seems a bit ironic doesn't it"
I mean Monty Python should have showed us all the Insanity of how to get information.
England back again to Middle East all are excellent Role Models of Torture. I believe that 007 Movies even honored it.

Bombing people daily is torture also. Enslavement of people to work for nothing ? There is no Nation, Island, Country that does not aid and abet in Torture Daily.

Torture.... Yes, Mankind is the Leader in Killing. All the watching of Animals, Animals really do not torture their prey. Their Game is for food, lesson in killing for food so the pack survives. Torture serves only the purpose to satiate a need to cause harm to others. The Torturers are no better than Pedophiles, Serial Killlers, Junkies in fact they are all of the above.
UK has no business airing our dirty laundry when they have out done us all when they wanted to.

Torture...Depravity Mankind Excels no matter where they are from.

0 # bcmarshall 2012-11-22 17:48

Quoting KittatinyHawk:

Torture serves only the purpose to satiate a need to cause harm to others. The Torturers are no better than Pedophiles, Serial Killlers, Junkies in fact they are all of the above.

Super well-said, KittatinyHawk. If I coulda Liked the comment twice I woulda! :)

+3 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-19 20:54

I sent Mr. Harper a very critical letter on this matter and others such as the recent trend toward returning US War Resisters and failing to deal adequately with the case of the child-soldier Omar Khadr, the last citizen of a Western country held at Guantanamo. Mr. Harper, predictably, failed to respond. Tomorrow I will send a similar letter to the Attorney-Genera l of British Columbia who is also likely not to respond.

This is annoying but there is an opportunity for relief. Mr. Harper can be voted out of office by 2015, and the provincial government in BC will almost certainly be defeated in the next provincial election - even sooner.

The federal "Conservatives" and the provincial "Liberals" are ideologically identical. Their ouster will not turn on this issue; but, since both richly deserve the wrath of the Canadian electorate on a host of issues, it will be pleasant to imagine that at least some voters might exercise their franchise responsibly and throw them both out - to their confortable retirement and appointment to numerous lucrative corporate board positions.

+9 # Antemedius 2012-11-19 18:50

Title 18, U.S.Code,Sec. 2441

“a) Whoever, [while being a national of the U.S.] commits a war crime, [shall be guilty of a felony].” “(d) [T]he term ‘war crime’ means any conduct-(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the U.S. is a party.”

Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec. 4

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other [U.S. authority, shall be guilty of a felony.]”

U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec. 2340A

Prohibits torture and conspiracy to do so by U.S. nationals outside the U.S. Torture is an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon [a] person within his custody or physical control.”

http://antemedius.com/files/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment-violations.pdf

+17 # ganymede 2012-11-19 18:56

As usual, confusion reigns. For sure the US has been the biggest international warmongering nation since World War II. Vietnam was bad enough, but nothing equals Iraq, where Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons lied us into a totally unnecessary war that destroyed a country, causing 500,000-1,000,0 00 deaths, thousands of American deaths and drove our economy into the ground. Someday, history will condemn these people for their treachery, maybe sooner than we realize. Yes, Obama and the drones has to be condemned and, hopefully Obama will rescind this immoral policy. At the same time he is restraining the Israeli warmongers who are itching to start a full scale war in the Middle East that could be much worse than Iraq.

-10 # bingers 2012-11-19 19:39

So, all you people who hate the drones want us to allow those who have waged war upon us to go free or to have us send ground troops into a (supposedly) friendly country to start a ground war?

While you can surely make a case that drones are evil, they're also the least evil course we can follow. Any other course either leaves our enemies carte blanche to attack us or a ground war killing thousands of times more innocents. Get real and down off your high horses.

+4 # dbriz 2012-11-20 08:23

Quoting bingers:

So, all you people who hate the drones want us to allow those who have waged war upon us to go free or to have us send ground troops into a (supposedly) friendly country to start a ground war?

While you can surely make a case that drones are evil, they're also the least evil course we can follow. Any other course either leaves our enemies carte blanche to attack us or a ground war killing thousands of times more innocents. Get real and down off your high horses.

Let's get real for a moment.

"...those who made war upon us...", were 19 Saudi Arabians armed to the gills with wire cutters and penknives.

They were in the sites of the Minneapolis Branch of the FBI well before 9-11. DC was informed of this and for some reason chose to deep six it.

No one was fired for this egregious failure.

We then declared war on an adjective.

And followed up by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

Ever since, the CIA/MIC that is running the country, along with their bankster/corpor ate crony friends have used the bloodcurdling threat of third world bandits running from cave to safe house to frighten folks like you.

Are there "bag guys" in the world? Yes.

Do they pose an existential threat to the USA? Get serious.

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia could round them all up and do away with them in a month or less if they wanted to.

+2 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 12:53

Quoting bingers:

So, all you people who hate the drones want us to allow those who have waged war upon us to go free or to have us send ground troops into a (supposedly) friendly country to start a ground war?

While you can surely make a case that drones are evil, they're also the least evil course we can follow. Any other course either leaves our enemies carte blanche to attack us or a ground war killing thousands of times more innocents. Get real and down off your high horses.

As dbriz points out below it was 19 individuals that "made war upon us" so in response we spent trillions to go to war against countries that never attacked or even threatened to attack us.

By your logic Pakistan and Yemen should conclude that we are making war against them and thus have the right to drone us.

-2 # George D 2012-11-20 18:45

The 19 people were soldiers; Not just a group of guys with a bad attitude.
Yes; This "enemy" should have always been given a title of AlQuaeda, and yes, their members should have been the target following 9/11.

GWB actually stated that as the intention, not long after 9/11 occurred. But then the chicken hawks got to the scarecrow's "brain" and Iraq became the target of "opportunity" for all of them.

Drones are a valuable weapon and, oh yeah, let's agree that all weapons are evil. Now that we have that out of the way, let's also agree that, when people mean to do you harm, there's plenty of evil on both sides of what defines survival.

Nature is full of "evil" acts. As a non-believer, I don't care to be a dead Monk or a war monger Christian, so I will vote for peaceful policies but back a good defense at the same time.

+1 # bcmarshall 2012-11-20 19:53

I am so tired of this foolishness! I see the continued use by supposedly intelligent people in supposedly intelligent discussions of the official fiction of 19 guys with boxcutters overwhelming the most sophisticated air defense system in the world.

THREE concrete and steel structures collapsed into their own footprints on the same day in the same place, the only three in world history ever to have done so. And it allegedly happened because of airplane impacts (on only two, mind you) that those buildings were specifically engineered to resist? Puh-leeze!

If this link is about Bush's war crimes, how about his murder of 3,000 on American soil, or if not their murder, his complicity in the cover-up of their murder, along with his intentional use of fiction to justify a war on another nation?

Bush is a war criminal by OUR standards, the standards that WE set at Nuremberg.

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. AND WE MUST NOT ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE DRAWN INTO A TRIAL OF THE CAUSES OF THE WAR, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." - Robert L. Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals and Associate United States Supreme Court Justice

One other thing, George. If 15 of 19 "hijackers" were Saudis, WTF were we doing in Iraq?

-2 # George D 2012-11-21 11:33

Wow;
Not sure how to respond to this one.
I understand the anger but I think, buried in this rant somewhere, is the allusion that 9/11 was all plotted and carried out by GWB and his regime. On that note, all I can say is that, you sound a lot like an anti-science TeaPartier right now; Pretending to know something other than what most structural engineers and people that have eyes that were open on 9/11 know and accept as the truth.

As far as 9/11 is concerned, I remain convinced that America elected a complete idiot that dismantled (or at least set aside) the work of the anti-terrorism efforts in the Defense Department, by appointing Condi Rice to lead them. Richard Clark makes the case very clear about what happened leading up to 9/11.

As far as Iraq is concerned; Why ask me? I agree that Iraq was a disaster, wrong headed, and was done for un-American reasons. I even agree that it should be considered a treasonous event, with continued treasonous acts like allowing OBL to escape in Tora Bora, failing to pursue him in Pakistan, and using lies to stoke fear in America for political gain.

-1 # bcmarshall 2012-11-22 17:59

Quoting George D:

Pretending to know something other than what most structural engineers and people that have eyes that were open on 9/11 know and accept as the truth.

Apologies if I came off a little aggressive, but your original comment about the 19 guys implies that the official fiction is actually real.

I snipped the above section from your reply in order to offer a link which I believe destroys your assertion that "most structural engineers and people that have eyes that were open on 9/11 know and accept as the truth" the official story.

www.ae911truth.org

Or, Architects and Engineers for truth.

I can point to a website with the names of thousands of professionals who have gone on record calling the fiction by its proper name...a lie.

You assert that "most structural engineers" agree with the Big Lie. I assume you have something more than rhetoric to back that up.

-1 # George D 2012-11-22 23:35

Thousands? Really?
This is absurdity to begin with.
Sorry but I don't care to compare one list of "experts" to another. As an engineer myself, some things are evident because of something called physics. "Loose Change" was a great conspiracy theory movie. Not reality; Not even close. And GWB and his gang were idiots; Not evil masterminds.
Have a nice (fantasy) life.

+3 # Vermont Grandma 2012-11-19 19:42

Long, long, long overdue.

-10 # elijahblue 2012-11-20 01:44

How foolish. There are no rule in combat. We might like to think a nicely written "agreement" that states that you can not water-board someone for that is torture and unacceptable, but just shoot him/her and that's alright at least they, the shot ones, were not tortured. Unfortunately, there are no gentlemen "wars." any longer. Rules of Engagement and Permissibility do not exist when you are in middle of a fire-fight. The UN has a bunch of high paid "you can't do that" folks for which the US pays upwards of 75% of the UN's budget. What a honor we have in that respect!
I'm sure the UN will prevent another 9/11 here and the Canadian's will back them up. Of course, the first go round didn't go very well. I have not heard where the UN, or any other country is embracing the idea of bring to justice those that sponsor terrorism.

+2 # Antemedius 2012-11-20 05:29

** I have not heard where the UN, or any other country is embracing the idea of bring to justice those that sponsor terrorism.**

Not so. Both Bush's and Obama's war crimes can be prosecuted through the US War Crimes Act of 1996, and are prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many countries have condemned Obama with his drones.

If you "have not heard" about it, you need to pay closer attention.

+7 # dkonstruction 2012-11-20 12:55

Quoting elijahblue:

How foolish. There are no rule in combat. We might like to think a nicely written "agreement" that states that you can not water-board someone for that is torture and unacceptable, but just shoot him/her and that's alright at least they, the shot ones, were not tortured. Unfortunately, there are no gentlemen "wars." any longer. Rules of Engagement and Permissibility do not exist when you are in middle of a fire-fight. The UN has a bunch of high paid "you can't do that" folks for which the US pays upwards of 75% of the UN's budget. What a honor we have in that respect!
I'm sure the UN will prevent another 9/11 here and the Canadian's will back them up. Of course, the first go round didn't go very well. I have not heard where the UN, or any other country is embracing the idea of bring to justice those that sponsor terrorism.

so the US should repeal its prohibition on torture and stop going after those that commit "crimes against humanity" since there are no rules?

+5 # Antemedius 2012-11-20 05:44

Even Obama agrees that Bush "should" be prosecuted for war crimes.

He just doesn't agree with actually doing it, for - in his mind - good reason...

......................
"No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,”
-- Barack Obama, Nov. 18, 2012

So says the guy who regularly bombs innocent women and children in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen while his Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking for Obama, tries to shift the blame to the kids by saying they should have chosen better parents.

+7 # video4315 2012-11-20 10:47

We as Americans have allowed the matter of our torturing people to have been swept under the rug, but that big lump under the rug is still there. Torturing changed us, changed our perspective on the world, and certainly changed the world's perspective of us. These are large issues, to say nothing of what the acts of torture did to those to whom they were applied. We need to have an open, in-depth hearing/trial on these matters for ourselves and for the world. Many of us are still very angry about what W and his administration did and are still angry that he was never held to account for it. The U.S. is diminished as long as we never face up to what was done.

+1 # kalpal 2012-11-20 11:35

Canadians are nice people but they lack the cojones to stand up to the US GOP.

Had Bush been arrested there would have been hell to pay. After the GOP was forced to stand by and allow Nixon to be forced out of office, it swore that it would never again allow any GOP presidents to be harmed no matter how many or how heinous the crimes they commit.

The GOP approves of torture, even that anti-torture posterboy John McCain who should know better but is incapable of standing up to his party, is unwilling to speak the truth on this matter. If the party wants torture then torture is OK by him.

+2 # herman_the_german 2012-11-20 12:41

We can't even arrest Lindsey Lohan. Please don't take it too hard on us...

+4 # David Starr 2012-11-20 15:44

Putting it simply, directly and bluntly: It wouldn't exactly break my heart if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. shared the same fate as Saddam Hussein.

That would be appropiate justice regarding the estimated one million Iraqis killed for Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

+1 # vicnada 2012-11-20 20:06

I defy anyone to read even half of the 69 page draft indictment linked to in this article without coming to the inequivocal determination that GW Bush and his henchmen must be tried as their forebearers at Nurnberg.

+2 # natalierosen 2012-11-20 21:35

I have always thought Bush/Cheney cabal et al should have been prosecuted not only for torture but for the dastardly deed of taking a nation to war based on lies. There were NO WMD. And it is NOT true that the international community accepted this war. Gen. Powell was given faulty evidence to make his claim before the UN. This was a vicious deed because it has taken thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, has destabilized a tinder box region the upheaval of which is biting us in the posterior as I write this. For this alone and torture with it the hierarchy who prosecuted this war SHOULD be prosecuted itself for war crimes. BUT they never will be. Why? Because NO president is going to diminish the power he has been by Congress given to expand executive power.

It is tragic. War .... ALL war should be declared by Congress as the Constitution gives it no demands it do so. War is such an IMPORTANT decision that it can not be left up to one man alone. NEVER AGAIN should we prosecute a major war on the president's say so alone. We have done terrible things the price for which we continue to pay in blood and treasure of wars that no longer in the traditional sense can ever be won!

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.