It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive: DoJ veteran sees 'dangerous precedent' in letting Bush officials walk

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective


We will have to literally detach from this current system entirely and start a grass roots system from within if we want any possibility of the 'little people' being heard again. The system as it is has been entirely infiltrated and corrupted. All one has to do to see this is look around at what is becoming of our country.

I like your optimism. Already there is grass roots movement happening in Saudi Arabia so quickly after Tunisian President seeking refuge there.

Americans should stay vigilant and even pre-educate the people we put forward as candidates. The Tea Party was quickly infiltrated by the monied and ideological status quo interests. Those who won office were then initiated into the 'lobby game'. The people who put them in office should remind them that, "We did not send you to Washington to become part of the corrupt system there. We sent you to represent the people who have been under represented, as compared to the military-industrial-media complex, they already have over representation."

I think that in order for change to occur people really must boycott the two party system, as in, "Republican, Democrat, you must run under another party or you will never get my vote." The time for talking about ending the two party system is over. Boycott for real.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I couldn't help but wonder why the International Law, has not filed war crime charges. There are charges filed now against Rumfeld for war crimes in was in "Press Tv"

Here link to International Law info:

www.lawofwar.org...

Here is the link to Press Tv Jan. 14, 2011 about Rumsfeld being charged

www.presstv.ir...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I hate to repost so soon, I don't want to dominate the thread. But a thread about Bush buying a ranch in Paraguay has been on ATS. Which I will put up a link to. If he can't be extradited from paraguay by US courts can the International Courts extridite him. Someone needs to file charges in the International Courts. I really thought it was so dumb of him to admit in a book he ordered torture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think I am suppose to show the text but I don't yet know how to do that. Some help please.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by coolottie


I couldn't help but wonder why the International Law, has not filed war crime charges.

Some of the wikileaks US embassy memos reveal how State Dept and other US agencies put serious pressure on Spain especially to kill investigations. I think Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic and other States were also pressured. I think Spain is re-opening investigations.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by coolottie


Some help please.

You can click on the QUOTE button on a post and see how the formatting looks, alternately, when replying there are formatting bubbles like (HEADLINE) (BOLD) (ITALIC) that you can use

and remember you have some time(2 hrs.) to use the EDIT function to go back and doctor things up.

edit on 18-1-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
There is change in the air....

kx



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
As a head of state there is some immunity from the law due to the challenges of the job and stability of the nation. Once they are out of that role they are considered citizens and liable to prosecution on par with everyone else. There are some political challenges in getting the trials moving, but I cannot see any strong legal arguments to prevent such investigations and trials from taking place.

Let me briefly address some of these notions, and hopefully clarify some misunderstandings. I will exclusively approach these as related to the chief executive and law of the United States.

While in office, the President enjoys absolute immunity from civil suits, insofar as “acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office.Nixon v. Fitzgerald. A President can’t be sued for civil damages for any action he has taken in his official capacity. A President is not, however, immune from civil suits related to conduct or actions that originated before he was in office, as was the case with President Clinton related to the Paula Jones affair. (Cf. Clinton v. Jones).

Other federal and state officials also enjoy a form of immunity from civil suits, but contrary to the absolute immunity granted to the President, it is somewhat conditional, and it’s usually called qualified or “good faith” immunity. The Supreme Court has construed it to mean that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.Harlow V. Fitzgerald. It’s codified as 42 USC 1983.

This is all in relation to civil suits. Federal or state employees, or even the President, are not immune from criminal prosecutions. Although we have witnessed some conservatives argue that he is, when there is a Republican in office of course.

As to the question posed by this thread and the article linked, there’s no doubt the policies and methods used by the United States constituted torture, and therefore, there is no grounds for immunity in my opinion, as torture was clearly established as a crime, both under domestic and international law.



edit on 18-1-2011 by aptness because: thanks to DimensionalDetective for pointing out my error



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 



Do you mean there is >no< grounds for immunity? Did you leave out the 'no' in that last paragraph? I'm assuming on the rest of what you wrote there that this was a typo.

This isn't so much about civil suits (although I guess the illegal spying programs couldn't venture into that territory), but there are at the very least SEVERAL areas warranting investigation which could undoubtedly result in criminal charges.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolottie
I couldn't help but wonder why the International Law, has not filed war crime charges.

International law is not a body, an organization or a court.

Spain was initially investigating and trying to prosecute some Bush administration officials under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which says that some crimes pose such a serious threat to the international community, that states have the duty and moral obligation to prosecute the offenders, irrespective of the nationality of the offender, or the country or area where the crimes occurred. Spain has in the past investigated crimes in several countries (Argentina, Tibet, El Salvador, Rwanda) under this principle.

But as pthena pointed out, the Obama administration pressured Spain into stopping the investigation.

War crimes are directly under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), so, generally, war crimes should be filed there.

But even if war crime charges were filed in the ICC, and in the event of Bush or other officials were prosecuted and found guilty, it’s unclear what would happen next, seeing as the United States has yet to officially recognize the legitimacy of the court.

In 1998 the United States was one of the only 7 nations to vote against the statutes that would create and regulate the ICC, called the Rome Statute. The other 6 nations being China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel. All bastions of democracy and human rights


In 2000 President Clinton signed the Rome Statute treaty but said he wouldn’t send it to the Senate for ratification until the US government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court. Until ratification the treaty is not legally binding.

In 2002, however, the Bush administration withdrew the US signature from the treaty. The US is, in fact, the only country to have ever signed and subsequently withdraw its signature from the treaty.

Congress then, assisted the Bush administration in its efforts against the ICC, by passing the American Service-Members' Protection Act (text), which, prohibits cooperation with the ICC by any US agency or court (Sec. 2004); exempts members of the US armed forces “from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States” (Sec. 2002(8)); and even authorizes the President to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person [American or allied person] who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” (Sec. 2008(a)).

The Obama administration has showed some interest in reestablishing discussions and cooperating with the ICC. But even then, it’s very unrealistic that if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or some other high US official would be found guilty by the ICC, the United States would extradite them. Obama, much like his predecessors, could care less about the rule of law if it politically hurts him at home.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness


Congress then, assisted the Bush administration in its efforts against the ICC, by passing the American Service-Members' Protection Act (text), which, prohibits cooperation with the ICC by any US agency or court (Sec. 2004); exempts members of the US armed forces “from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States” (Sec. 2002(8)); and even authorizes the President to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person [American or allied person] who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” (Sec. 2008(a)).

I should have read the full text before. A major piece of evidence to support the allegation that the U.S. is an extremely chauvinistic state, not unlike Nazi Germany.

Chauvinism
in its original and primary meaning, is an exaggerated, bellicose patriotism and a belief in national superiority and glory. By extension it has come to include an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards rival groups. Jingoism is the British parallel form of this French word.

In "Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism", in The Review of Politics 7.4, (October 1945), p. 457, Hannah Arendt describes the concept:

Chauvinism is an almost natural product of the national concept in so far as it springs directly from the old idea of the "national mission." ... [A] nation's mission might be interpreted precisely as bringing its light to other, less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by history without a national mission.

To put it quite bluntly: "Any person working on behalf of the U.S., be he the vilest committer of crimes against humanity, is in a position too high and exalted to be brought to justice in some measly international court. The full military might of the United States stands ready to insure that any lowly, unfit, national or international body will regret the attempt to impugn the holy sanctity of the American agent, be he even the vilest of criminals against humanity."

Yeah, that's chauvinism.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join