You are herecontent / Blogosphere Drafting of Bush Torture Indictment

Blogosphere Drafting of Bush Torture Indictment


UPDATE: Version 2.0 posted here.

--

This is a joint effort to draft the best possible indictment of Bush for torture. While we can and have drafted indictments and articles of impeachment for Bush for many crimes worse than torture, and while a torture conspiracy could include many people beyond Bush, this project is simply Bush and simply torture. Will you help by posting your comments below on how this document can be improved?

Proposed Indictment of George W. Bush

United States of America,
Plaintiff
v.
George W. Bush,
Defendant

18 U.S.C. Section 2340A
18 U.S.C. Section 2441

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

Introductory Allegations:

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

2. Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH ("BUSH") was employed as President of the United States from January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009. BUSH took a constitutionally mandated oath to faithfully execute the Office of President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. BUSH is also constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

3. As Chief Executive, BUSH exercised authority, direction, and control over the entire Executive Branch, which includes the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of State, Defense, and others, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

4. As an employee of the Executive Branch, BUSH was governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

5. Pursuant to the Constitution, his oath of office, his status as Executive Branch employee, and his presence in the United States, BUSH is required to obey Amendment VIII of the Constitution which prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment; as well as treaties which under Article VI of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which requires that the United States work to prevent all forms of torture; as well as Title 18, United States Code, Section 2340A which prohibits conspiring to torture; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2441 which prohibits conspiring to torture or inflict cruel or inhuman treatment or murder.

6. As used in Section 2340A, the term "torture" means 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 another person within his custody or physical control; “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from — (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

7. As used in Section 2441, the term "torture" means the act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

8. As used in Section 2441, the term "cruel or inhuman treatment" means the act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

9. As used in Section 2441, the term "murder" means the act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

The Conspiracy to Commit Torture, Cruel or Inhuman Treatment, and Murder

1. On Sept. 17, 2001, BUSH produced an executive order authorizing the CIA to set up unacknowledged detention facilities around the world. For years after this date, prisoners in these facilities were not identified to the International Committee of the Red Cross or provided due process.

2. On January 25, 2002, the White House Legal Counsel Alberto Gonzales produced a Memorandum for the President on the subject of "Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict With Al Qaeda and the Taliban." In this memorandum, Gonzales stated that he had advised BUSH on January 18th that "the Department of Justice had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda," and that "DOJ's opinion concludes that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban." Gonzales stated that BUSH drew that conclusion: "I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW." Gonzales reported that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had requested that the president reconsider his decision. Gonzales advised BUSH that a positive consequence of adhering to his earlier determination was that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)." Negative consequences listed by Gonzales included: "The War Crimes Act could not be used against the enemy," and "Concluding that the Geneva Convention does not apply may encourage other countries to look for technical 'loopholes' in future conflicts to conclude that they are not bound by GPW either." Gonzales recommended that BUSH not reconsider his decision.

3. On February 7, 2002, BUSH produced a Memorandum for the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, Chief of Staff to the President, Director of Central Intelligence, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the subject of "Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees." In this memorandum, BUSH "determined" that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world," and "[C]ommon article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees," and "[T]he Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under article 4 of Geneva," and "al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war."

4. On June 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners held under BUSH's command at Guantanamo Bay.

5. BUSH's subordinates, through the years of his presidency, established an official policy of torture, and cruel and inhuman treatment. The CIA produced secret guidelines authorizing torture. The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice produced secret opinions authorizing torture.

6. BUSH's subordinates engaged in the widespread use of officially sanctioned torture. Incidents of torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and murder by torture are extensively documented, including by a February 2007 International Committee of the Red Cross Report on the Treatment of Fourteen 'High Value Detainees' in CIA Custody.

7. Numerous incidents of torture have resulted in murder. On October 24, 2005, the government released to the American Civil Liberties Union military records that included 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents showed that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and "OGA" (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term used to refer to the CIA. According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appeared to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. On March 16, 2005, the Associated Press reported that "At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel."

8. In his January 28, 2003, Address to Congress on the State of the Union, BUSH stated: "All told more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States." On April 11, 2008, ABC News produced a video interview of BUSH during which he was asked about meetings his top subordinates had held to approve of specific instances of torture. BUSH stated: "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." The National Security Council's Principals Committee, which held the meetings, included Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. In the same interview, BUSH defended the use of the drowning torture on prisoner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stating: "We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it. And no, I didn't have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew." On January 11, 2009, Fox News aired a video interview of BUSH in which he admitted personally authorizing the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stating: "One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made."

9. On January 15, 2009, Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the Guantanamo military commissions, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that the United States had tortured prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani. "We tortured Qahtani," she said. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture."

10. On January 29, 2009, John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel who had drafted secret memos authorizing torture, published an article in the Wall Street Journal with the headline "Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo," in which he wrote: "On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)"

11. On May 10, 2009, former Vice President Richard Cheney appeared on the CBS News television program "Face the Nation." Asked what BUSH had known about torture methods, Cheney replied, "I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."

12. BUSH never voluntarily made public what he knew about torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, or murder by his subordinates. Instead, for years, he publicly denied that the United States ever used torture. When evidence of torture was made public, including photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq made public in 2004, BUSH did not investigate the problem, remove those responsible from office, or punish them. The military convicted several low-ranking soldiers, but did not pursue responsibility up the chain of command.

13. In furtherance of the above-described conspiracy, the defendant and his coconspirators committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:

Overt Acts

1. On February 7, 2002, BUSH produced a Memorandum for the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, Chief of Staff to the President, Director of Central Intelligence, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the subject of "Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees." In this Memorandum, BUSH denied rights protected by the Geneva Conventions to certain categories of prisoners.

2. On December 30, 2005, BUSH signed a signing statement, "President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863," in which he claimed the power to ignore a new prohibition on torture contained in the bill he had just signed into law.

3. BUSH personally authorized the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and authorized meetings by his top subordinates at which they approved the torture of other prisoners.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2340A and 2441.

A TRUE BILL

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

John J.Coghlan

Even before our government's torture program, Bush exhibited sadistic tendencies. He also has a long history of liking to tell people about it. When Governor of Texas, he almost bragged that they had the highest rate of executions in the country. When interviewed after seeing a women who was about to be executed, he was asked what she said. He replied that she begged him to spare her life. When he said that he looked at the camera, and grained, and chuckled. George Bush's Achilles Heal may be his small brain, and his big mouth.

We let Bush go on this one we might as well just forget about what went on in Nazi Germany.

I am happy you use Title 18, most people do not know that we have statues on the books that makes what these monsters did a serious felony. When we protest outside of the 9th Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon we use title 18: 2340
2340A
2340C
2341

Thanks David

Although Bush was "employed" as chief executive, technically I believe any elected official SERVES in whatever capacity, eg president. Bush, then "served" as president, a senator serves, etc. These people aren't "hired and fired", they run for election, and either win or lose.

Unless there is a specific "legal" reason for using the term "employed", I think it should be changed.

Although Bush was "employed" as chief executive, technically I believe any elected official SERVES in whatever capacity, eg president. Bush, then "served" as president, a senator serves, etc. These people aren't "hired and fired", they run for election, and either win or lose.

Unless there is a specific "legal" reason for using the term "employed", I think it should be changed.

David, this is excellent. I have two suggestions. One is to add, at the end of item number on under "Conspiracy to Commit Torture, Cruel or Inhumane Treatment and Murder" the phrase "in violation of US treaty obligations."

The other is to add the case of Mohammed Jawad, the kid arrested in Afghanistan and brought to guantanamo at age 12. Under the Geneva Conventions, kids that age are never to be considered combatants, even if captured in the act of fighting. Jawad, as it turns out, may not have even been fighting, but even if he was, at 12 the law states that he is to be treated as a victim of the conflict if captured, not as a combatant. This and his continued incarceration for 8 years is a war crime. His torture adds to the crime.

The importance of adding this is that I think treating a kid this way is particularly likely to generate sympathy for an indictment.

Dave

Jo Beall

Agree 100% with Dave L....

busting Bush for this crime and many others, but it doesn't look like part of the 1 particular indictment for torture being drafted here

tell me if i'm wrong

I'm sorry I do not know more about drafting an indictment, but I am happy to see this phrase:

...as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

as I see this as the most heinous of their crimes. Is it just in there "for show" or does it need to be substantiated?

This is great. What's required is political will to implement it, the legal issue is realtively clear. Have you considered a Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) process rather than prosecution? Because we don't have the political will to prosecute, perhaps T&R will allow those ready for "Scrooge conversions" to come forward. Our benefit is rapid access to truth, ending criminality, and the least blood and cost. What do you think? I've written my take here: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m8d2...

the allegations in the indictment and a request to the U.S. Attorney to present this and the evidence supporting it to a grand jury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3332 which can be viewed at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003332----0...

You can also ask the U.S. Attorney to inform the grand jury of the identity of the person making the request, and therefore, I suggest asking for people to join in the request so that the grand jury will see that hundreds or thousands want to hold these criminals accountable for their crimes.

If you want to know the truth about torture and why U.S. government agents can get away with committing these and other horrible crimes, see Why does the U.S. government torture people? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-...

Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

...that without the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, there would be no torture subject to be following. But, I guess at this point, we'll take any opportunity to get "The Crew" behind bars for Life...

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: "People Before Profit!"
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

[2 words deleted from this post - any further posts that suggest support for violence will be deleted. -DS]

Thanks David!
Being way out here in New Mexico it is hard to feel like I am able to do anything. I apprecciate After Downing Street and Code Pink, keep up the good work!
IBETT

good ally

When Rudy Giuliani was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, his indictments were famous among prosecutors for being perfectly clear at first hearing, whether at a press conference or at trial.

Such a gem of an indictment is, in effect, an extra opening statement for the prosecution. When the prosecutor delivers the official opening statement, the Jury hears the government's case for the second time. This is a real advantage for the prosecution.

Producing an indictment as easy to follow as one of Giuliani's, however, takes work.

When you're satisfied with the substance of each section of this one, I'd strongly suggest reading it aloud. Edit as necessary until it is easy both to deliver and to understand aurally.

E.g., para. 1 at present:

"The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services."

The reader is out of breath already. And the listener? with pages and pages yet to go?

Try something on these lines instead:

"The United States Constitution (or, Constitution) sets forth the fundamental law of the United States. The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President of the United States. The Constitution also provides that the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services."

When you've edited a portion so that you can read it aloud readily, then get, e.g., an intelligent 10-year-old to listen and to tell you when anything is unclear. Recast whatever is unclear until it is clear.

What you are doing is a wonderful effort! Yes, it's a long shot. Yet I'd guess that a prosecutor would be more willing to take it on if the indictment is not only sound as to its law and its facts, but is already easy to read aloud, and easy for a jury to understand.

It is the next step.

Also,
will there be any change in how the various accountability groups do their petitions now that a special council has been appointed by Holder?

I think we have 37 listed on our website at http://AngryVoters.Org and many are now redundant. Do you think we as a movement would get more signatures over all if we had fewer petitions that listed all the group names but that every group promoted? ADS could create one to go with ImpeachBush.org's IndictBushNow.org and just a few others perhaps. Just an idea. Let us know how we can help.

John

John H Kennedy, Denver CO, 44 yr Democratic voter, Obama supporter, organizer of Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
and http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

KEEP ASKING ALL POLITICIANS AT ALL PUBLIC EVENTS

"WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TORTURE?"
If they aren't actively calling for enforcement of our Federal Torture Laws,
They DO Support Torture.

Pressure them to support investigations and prosecution.

SIGN THE PETITIONS
Demanding
both a Commission of Inquiry
and prosecution for all those leaders
in Bush's Administration that
Conspired to Torture at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Only Prosecution Stops Torture!
Only Prosecution Stops Abuse of Power and
of Our Constitution and Rule Of Law

.

She has a very good point...I could help with this.

Human beings held in indefinite detention, without charge, and without due process, were tortured and murdered in Bush's custody at his brutal and murderous detention centers, camps, and black sites. He promoted and authorized these illegal and immoral policies and practices resulting in death and false imprisonment in violation of U.S. laws, our Constitution, and International Treaties as well. This Blogosphere Torture Indictment should move forward and every American should be given a chance to sign on. Obama needs to rejoin the International Criminal Court in the Hague and bring Bush to justice overdue Link http://apps.facebook.com/causes/342789?m=edd8a396

I'm not sure as to what I would change, except, perhaps, noting Dave Lindorff's remarks, as well as sarahmckee's.

A minor detail, in Para. 3, you refer to "[T]he Taliban detainees are unlawful combattants and, therefore, . . . ." Is that truly the way it was said, or was it or intended to be "unlawful enemy combattants?"

A couple of thoughts, although I don't espouse necessarily to their inclusion, are the following:

I would just like to note that both al-Libi and Zubaydah (and gawd knows how many others) were tortured long before the so-called "legal memos." (I'm sure you know that, but I think that is such an important point, because of the Adm.'s attempt to say they were following the "legal memos." -- there are many links on these tortures, but here's two: Washington Independent ; Raw Story.

Additionally, from a comment of mine:

The General Assembly stressed that allegations that such forms of ill-treatment have occurred "must be promptly and impartially examined . . . [and with respect to nonimmunity and the duty to prosecute,] those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture must be held responsible, brought to justice . . . and severely punished, including the officials in charge of the place of detention[.]"15 This is from Paust. (see the rest here: Paust!

I'm so glad you continue to keep the drum beat going on the issue of torture (it should be on the genocide of the Iraqi people, as well. but we have to take step by step, I guess!).

Big thing is to feature Feb 7 02 memo, as you have, but to add the SASC report that also highlights it as "opening the door..."

Common Article 3 seems so key that you might want to describe it in some detail; and make sure to mention it when you discuss Geneva.

Only other thing would be to consider including what Condoleezza Rice said to those pesky Stanford students...about when the president says it's not illegal...... I'm trying to remember....I guess she did not actually say, "The president told me that when he says to do something it is not illegal. Probably not worth including....over to you and folks with more expertise.

The whole project is a good idea.....to have in RESERVE. My own notion, you and others may differ, is to give Holder a little time....Durham too.

Here's what I thought you might cull from, if you wanted to add the SASC stuff:

SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY (for release Dec. 12, 2008)

(full text of entire report was released (after being sanitized) on April 22, 2009; i. e.,

US Senate Armed Services Committee

Inquiry Into the treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, November 20, 2008

Released, April 22, 2009

Executive Summary (the release on Dec. 12 contained only this Executive Summary, but it was quite descriptive and telling. The full text, released in April, is also full of useful detail, but the exec summary carries it, for our purposes: Below are ExecSum exerpts.

[[[THE POINT IS THAT SASC HIGHLIGHTED THE FEB. 7, 2002 PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, SAYING IT “OPENS THE DOOR TO CONSIDERING AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES” (pls see below, pasted in verbatim, with page references):]]]

Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques (U)

(U) On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President’s order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. While the President’s order stated that, as “a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions,” the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. (p. xiii)

…………………

Department of Justice Redefines Torture (U)

(U) On August 1, 2002, just a week after JPRA provided the DoD General Counsel’s office the list of SERE techniques and the memo on the psychological effects of SERE training, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued two legal opinions. The opinions were issued after consultation with senior Administration attorneys, including then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-Counsel to the Vice President David Addington. Both memos were signed by then-Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee. One opinion, commonly known as the first Bybee memo, was addressed to Judge Gonzales and provided OLC’s opinion on standards of conduct in interrogation required under the federal torture statute. That memo concluded:

[F]or an act to constitute torture as defined in [the federal torture statute], it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under [the federal torture statute], it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.

(U) In his book The Terror Presidency, Jack Goldsmith, the former Assistant Attorney General of the OLC who succeeded Mr. Bybee in that job, described the memo’s conclusions:

Violent acts aren’t necessarily torture; if you do torture, you probably have a defense; and even if you don’t have a defense, the torture law doesn’t apply if you act under the color of presidential authority. (p. xv)

…………………………….

Senate Armed Services Committee Conclusions

Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.

Conclusion 2: Members of the President’s Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA’s interrogation program during that period. (p. xxvi)

……………………..

Thanks in particular for mentioning the 8th Amendment, by which torture has been illegal since the acceptance of the Constitution. Perhaps you should debunk the specious notion that only US citizens have the inherent human rights protected in the Bill of Rights.

What are the chances of getting a group of local prosecutors to file these charges simultaneously in a variety of courts, rather that holding our breath for Holder?

---------------------------------------------+
| __o CONTINENTAL CRITICAL MASS
| _`\;,_ plan to ride from home
| (*)/ (*) CONVERGE ON WASHINGTON, DC
| 22 SEPT - World Car-Free Day
|

Dave Lindorff and sarahmckee both have very good suggestions and while I can see Ray McGovern’s point about giving Holder a chance, I don’t think that it’s necessarily the best option, or if it’s used that this should be left too deep in the wings. Get it ready, make it known and let it be understood that if Holder doesn’t come through, we’re starting the top of the pyramid...

But I do not think those in charge who are continuing the crimes after Bush is no longer president and complicit in bush/cheney crimes when they{bush and cheney} were in office are going to self incriminate. I hope that is not the case. But I do not think the dems want to do anything but cover up the crimes they actively participated in and did nothing to stop. Chris Dorsey, RVA4Peace

P. Welch:
While your indictment is very well written docyument, the only changes I would make is to add Obama,Geithner,Holder,Emannuel for their Duplicity in all of the same War Crimes as Bush,Cheney, et al;

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Speaking Events

David Swanson at St. Michael’s College, Colchester, VT, October 5, 2016.

David Swanson in Fairbanks, Alaska, October 22, 2016.

Find Events Here.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

***

Families United

***

Ray McGovern

***

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.