Shocking pictures have come to light revealing the extent.War Crimes- New York Times - Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes
This week the world courts are now considering bringing those in highest office in the United States up on war crimes.
Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001.
After reviewing the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib and viewing the shocking pictures have come to light revealing the extent of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - and it's much worse than anyone imaged, it is easy to understand. Thiese are images you would expect from a 3rd world nation or a Nazi prison camp.
What if a foreign government was committing these acts against our soldiers? The following video is for mature audiences only.
Abu Ghraib - Iraq
Shocking pictures have come to light revealing the extent of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - and it's much worse than anyone imaged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=rz7UNxnOI3M
Red Cross Report of C.I.A. Torture of Qaeda Captives finds Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes 7/14/08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?r...
Bush administration guilty of war crimes, U.S. general charges 6/19/08
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stori...
Countdown: War Crimes Prosecutions Possible 7/14/08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3PvIFx-WDE
Should the US be facing War Crimes Investigation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq-_4PtOwc
21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty, Nuremberg Trials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcudlm6tPa0&feature=related
judgment at nuremberg verdict
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3BwK51YFgQ
For more on the Neo Conservatives who have hijacked America and the Republican Party:
http://republican.meetup.com/609/pages/Neo-_Conservativism/
Join the Republican Liberty Caucus or start a chapter in your area:
NOW
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/55889
CNBC- Modern war crimes are increasingly being tried
CNBC- Modern war crimes are increasingly being tried
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25802986
The Real Reasons Behind Torture?
"The Real Reasons Behind Torture?
What, then, accounts for the descent into Inquisition practices of waterboarding and other torture techniques? What accounts for the bizarre decision to round up a whole bunch of people with no provable attachment to terrorism, designate them terrorist suspects, herd them into prisons in New York, New Jersey, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and God knows where else, where they could be — and were — abused?
What accounts for the blithe departure from international and national law — not to mention time-honored civilized procedures for dealing with prisoners and detainees?
What accounts for the marginalization of those military, FBI and other professionals who warned that torture is not only a war crime but also that it doesn’t yield reliable information — that, rather, it is the very best recruiting tool for terrorists?
We suggest four reasons why I-don’t-care-what-the-international-lawyers-say George Bush and dark-side Dick Cheney opted for torture:
1 -- Deceit: Granted, torture does not yield truthful information. It can, though, be an excellent way to obtain the untruthful information you may wish to acquire. All you really need to know is what you want the victims to “confess” to and torture them, or render them abroad to “friendly” intelligence services toward the same end.
One case that speaks volumes is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured and rendered to Egypt, where, under torture, he told his interrogators precisely what they wanted to hear.
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, al-Libi had been identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements to prove that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.
Without mentioning al-Libi by name, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials repeatedly cited information from his interrogation as credible evidence that Iraq was training al-Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
So torture can indeed provide the information you may want to have to grease the skids for war. Al-Libi was practically the poster boy for the Cheney/Bush torture regime; that is, until he publicly recanted and explained that he only told his interrogators what he thought would stop the torture.
2 -- Sadism: Cheney’s open advocacy of waterboarding speaks volumes, but what about the President? Sad to say, as psychiatrist Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch, has noted:
“Bush’s certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs, to shooting his siblings with a BB gun, to branding fraternity pledges with white-hot coat hangers (explaining that the resulting wound was ‘only a cigarette burn’)…
”His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular…Instead of seeing a President in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the absence of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq, in the vain search for which so many young Americans died.”
3 -- Intimidation: Are you perhaps in some “shock and awe” at the prospect of the President designating you an “enemy combatant” and sending you off to the Navy brig in South Carolina for an indefinite stay? He now has court approval to do precisely that, and we are proceeding on faith that this joint article will not bring us “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Indefinite imprisonment is bad enough, but with the fringe benefit of the kind of torture suffered by Jose Padilla? Well, let us just say that the open advocacy of waterboarding and other “harsh” methods may, just may, be aimed at throwing the fear of Cheney into us, as a way of dissuading those of us who still believe in the Constitution from attempting to hold accountable those who break the law.
4 -- Because We Can: Lord Acton was, of course, right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And closeness to it does the same.
Guided by the principle of an unaccountable unitary executive – not to mention the writings of torture apologist Alan Dershowitz, the acting performances of the torture evangelists on Scalia’s TV favorite, Fox’s “24,” and using the fear factor to a fare-thee-well – torture has become the bellwether of exclusive dominant power.
The very transparency of the excuses for torture serves to demonstrate that this kind of power is in place, and is not to be questioned."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/071808e.html
You Are Right To Focus On The Command Responsibility…
..., or should I say, culpability, for the predictable, purposeful horror of the neocon policies. The responsibility needs to be personal and needs to be imposed. I'm not talking about the tongue in cheek ....' buck stops here...now let's move on " bullshit from Rumsfield. I'm talking about putting them all in the dock to face a REAL trial, before a REAL judge ( if any can be found), to face the REAL process due. And I do mean REAL DUE PROCESS... it is due us, and the world and the victims... it's not that their cold hearts deserve it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2dw6_AKsPA
I commend some of the links at the bottom of the Wiki page on Abu Ghraib. One makes reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment, which, if it's the one I'm familiar with, gives insight into how most humans degenerate into sadistic bullies when given the authority to domineer. We learned that on the playground as kids. Paramount fault lies with those who convened and organized this dark episode of human history.
What????????? 44% of Americans support torture.
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/24/poll-44-of-americans-f...
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/torture-doesnt...
It may have to do with the question.
Maybe they should state:
"Understanding that rules of engagement apply to both sides of a conflict.
Do you favor foreign governments having the legal right to torture US Troops if captured?
Do you favor the US government having the legal right to torture foreign troops if captured?"
How do you plead?
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/nancy-pelosi-h...
The TRUTH always comes out in the end...
And thanks to the internet, we don't have to wait 50 years!
Please Donate Today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDgz0rODZU&feature=g-upl
Well, yes and no. The power
Well, yes and no. The power structure intentionally ignores the Internet.
The educated public doesn't, but the movers and shakers (and most voters) still ignore Internet news.
So, to do real, lasting damage--something other than driving down public opinion poll numbers--an expose or news story has to surface in the mainstream media and stay there. The mainstream media will do minor coverage of stories like this, but then let them drop out of the headlines and down the memory hole. The TV media will barely cover it at all, then rant and rave the next week about Britney, Paris, Brangelina, and other such National Enquirer-style garbage. A serious story will get one days' airtime, then be replaced by drivel.
If Bush had been stalked by the mainstream Press the way Nixon and Clinton were, his Impeachment proceedings would have begun in January 2007, and Dick Cheney would now be living with Karl Rove in exile in Dubai.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
It's a Mafia. plain and simple....
Our executive and probably most of congress and some of the judiciary is part of a mafia.
blackwater - the hit men...
we - The people are paying for it ... it is where the tax dollars go. We are being cheated and extorted out of our wealth and freedom.
they must be stopped.
The real mafia is the Press.
The real mafia is the Press.
You don't need a Praetorian Guard if you can get the news media to dance for you like a marionette on a string.
If this war crimes stuff is still a major news story in two weeks, I'll eat my hat.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Blackwater declares itself above the law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyHgYaIFUTg
Keep in mind
They will use this gang up on Bush to keep everyone's attention away from the you know what they replace him with.
It is the people who control Bush we need to shine the light on.
Unify
Don't get your hopes up
The US is not party to the World Court (ICC or International Criminal Court) so any verdict it would render has no standing in the US. Further a strict (originalist) interpretation of the Constitution would say that the US cannot be party to the ICC or any external court without significantly amending the Constitution. Please note Article VI paragraph 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
IOW, no law supercedes the Constitution.
If we are to be true to Ron Paul's claim as "defender of the Constitution", then that means defending the entire Constitution regardless of consequence. Failure to do so makes us no different than McBama and their supporters who mostly see the Constitution as an inconvenience to be circumvented. Also note, the ICC is part of the UN, and we all know what Ron Paul thinks should become of the UN.
If anyone is to be prosecuted, it must be under US law, not through the verdict of some foreign court. To hold otherwise would betray our most fundamental beliefs in the primacy of the Constitution.
Regards,
Eric
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
— Ed Howdershelt
As Winston Smith points out, the phrase
"and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" in Article 6 has been used in order to bypass the traditional method envisioned for amending the Constitution.
For one example of how that clause has been used, and can be used, in order to change the Constitution, see: Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920). The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The court (Oliver Wendell Holmes) acknowledged that, although Congress was not granted the constitutional authority to legislate regarding the subject matter of the treaty, this did not matter. Since the treaty was lawfully entered into by the U.S. and Canada, Congress "obtained" the necessary power to comply with the treaty via Art. 6, Clause 2.
I also completely agree with Winston Smith's statement regarding the awful wording of Art. 6, with regard to treaties.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
The key phrase is
"under the Authority of the United States." That authority comes exclusively from the Constitution, so any treaties entered into must be consonant with it. It is only by pretending there is some other authority independent of the Constitution that politicians can pursue treaties that seem to require extra-constitutional legislation or enforcement.
The constitution does not
create the United States of America.
That was done by the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution merely constituted a government for that Confederation. Therefor there is an Authority of the United States entirely separate and not dependent on the Constitution, however, the states would have to assemble in Congress under the Articles to agree such a treaty as the ICC. And yes, even though they haven't been in practice, the AoC were never ended and are still in effect for all 50 states. (new states entered the union on an equal footing with the original 13, so they are therefore a party to the AoC.)
I have not looked into that
I have not looked into that particular case, however the idea that the rights which the constitution goes to such lengths to protect and make so difficult to change could be so easily circumvented through treaty is absurd.
It would say for example, that while the SCOTUS has ruled foreign nationals held in Gitmo are entitled to habeas corpus protections, US citizens if tried by the ICC would not be. In addition, US citizens would have no protections against double jeopardy, self incrimination, right to trial by jury, to bail and to a speedy trial as provided for under the USC.
Further, there is significant case law supporting this view including Amaya v. Standard Oil & Gas Co. (1947) which held "the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.'" Similarly in Reid v. Covert (1957) the SCOTUS ruled no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Regards,
Eric
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
— Ed Howdershelt
I cite your own quotations. Those holdings are
*not* contrary to Missouri :vs: Holland. The 1920 decision did not recognize a power that was specifically denied to Congress, unless one considers the 10th Amendment as having already reserved the authority at issue, in that case, to have been assigned to either the States or the People. Obviously, the court recognized no such supremacy of that part of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) compared to the terms of the treaty at issue. The court, in that case, surmized that the treaty had, via Art. 6 Clause 2, given to Congress an additional power not specifically granted to it in the Constitution, by way of being somehow "necessary", in the opinion of 5 or more people, to carry out one or more terms of the treaty. That specific power was also not denied to Congress in the Constitution and, in accordance with the language and intent of the 10th Amendment, such power is reserved to the States or to the People.
That represents a change in the powers granted to Congress. The power did not reside in Congress, according to the Court, prior to the treaty. Congress acquired the power after the Senate approved the treaty. The treaty, therefore, changed the operation of the Constitution.
The Reid decision, which you cited, confirms this very point. In fact, the court even references the Missouri :vs: Holland decision, saying:
"There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, which is contrary to the position taken here. There, the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier."
The foregoing comes in the decision after the passage which you quoted.
If one accepts the constitutional position (I do not) that "the Tenth Amendment is no barrier", then it is plainly evident that the attitude, expressed in the Reid decision, shows a clear supremacy of the terms of a treaty over the wording and intent of the 10th Amendment. This is unavoidably clear in the language used by the court when they say: "To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier." But the Constitution contains a specific amendment that denies any such transfer of power, as a result of a treaty, and that is the 10th Amendment. It was placed there in order to make clear that no such additional authority could be assumed by Congress. The court's statement establishes that those powers, reserved by the 10th Amendment (which is still part of the Constitution), can be altered or transferred via treaty, in addition to any process of modification which is outlined in the Constitution involving the Congress and the subsequent permission of state legislatures.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
It Has Always Been A Question Of Victor's Justice
Here is a fascinating discussion:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080718_victors...
Might Makes Right
Law is window dressing.
All it would require is for the US to be part of the (a) treaty
as much as I would like to see meted out to Bush, that which he so gleefully meted out to others, I think it was a grave mistake to give treaties the same weight as the constitution itself.
Must see this - Verdict is same accusations as today
21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty, Nuremberg Trials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcudlm6tPa0&feature=related
Bush wants to pardon himself from war crimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc
Excellent Link
Ironic or iconic ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E4eeGvvQE
No need to read between the lines. The obscenity of this administration's agenda has been bald face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to2hIhXrRTk&NR=1
Digg this
Make it go to front page...
http://digg.com/world_news/Secret_Photos_of_Bush_s_Abu_Ghrai...
BBC's Newsnight UK
"According to BBC's Newsnight, Lawyers working under the Bush administration fear they could be subject to a war crimes investigation and may have been left vulnerable to explain themselves to an international court much like the Nuremberg Trials."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq-_4PtOwc
--------------------------------------------------
The Law
by Frédéric Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001
I watched, "Judgement at Nuremburg"...
last week, and, WOW, it's spooky how much it parallels what's happening in America today. We're going in the wrong direction and the film illustrates how dangerous and immoral that direction truly is.
Everyone should watch this film inasmuch as it offers a glimpse of the future disgrace of our nation. Everyone will ultimately be held accountable for the mistakes of our leaders if we don't stop this evil progress now, sooner than later!
It Is More Poignant For The Context...
... as we must now be held to our own standards.
Can we handle the truth ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3BwK51YFgQ
As soon as I woke up this morning,
the Abu Ghraib video was on my mind. Sending this video to family/friends and asking them to forward it on to others was a step in the right direction, for me. However, I don't think it's enough. I don't know if any good will come of it, but I have decided to contact my small-town local newspaper and see if I can get them to do a write-up on this issue.
Perhaps others can do the same. I have also decided to forward links about this to my Reps, which will probably be ignored, but hope springs eternal...
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...
good idea
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139/sizes/l/
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul