USA is Guilty of Committing Useless War Crimes! According to 30 year intel vet

reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

Thanks for the link to the story, I hadn't seen that info before. A couple of quick comments. Yes it was published in Global Research, but the story there was a copy of the one written for The Daily Kos and comes from four years ago. I didn't see anything in the article even mentiong Bush's AG, maybe it was in a different article?

The story seems to treat two subjects, one, Bush Administration torture, and two, whether Holder and the Obama administration were going to do anything about it.

There is so much I don't know. I don't know how to reach a conclusion on this.

The article talks about children and mentions 17 year-olds. Is a 17 year-old in a combat zone a child? I don't know. "Detainees" is another interesting word, it includes people being held after their village has been destroyed until they can be transferred to another place. How many were that kind, I don't know. Are some of the sources biased and likely to give an exaggerated report? Yes, but how many? I don't know. The teenaged girl who was stripped then had buckets of water poured over her, torture or a shower? I don't know.

The one thing I do know from the article is that the present administration has decided not to make the facts known or conduct any prosecutions. The article implies that it was for political reasons, it would interfere with Obama's first term domestic agenda.

I suppose people will go with their biases and become convinced of their positions in a loud and angry manner. I wish I could join in on one side or the other, but I just don't know.

With respect,
Charles1952

you have a good eye for details Charles
GW Bush's AG

John Choon Yoo (born July 10, 1967)[4] is an American attorney, law professor, and author. He served as a political appointee, the Assistant US Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (OLC), during the George W. Bush administration. He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions which legitimized the War on Terror by the United States. He also authored the so called Torture Memos, which concerned the use of what the Central Intelligence Agency called enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding....

Yoo is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under Attorney General John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration.[10][11][12] Yoo's expansive view of presidential power led to a close relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney's office.[11] He played an important role in developing a legal justification for the Bush administration's policy in the war on terrorism, arguing that prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions does not apply to "enemy combatants" captured during the war in Afghanistan and held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.[13]

In addition, in what was known as the Bybee memo, Yoo asserted that executive authority during wartime allows waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" usually regarded as torture.[14] Yoo argued in his legal opinion that the president was not bound by the War Crimes Act. In addition, he provided a legal opinion backing the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.[11][12][15][16]

Yoo's legal opinions were not shared by everyone within the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly opposed what he saw as an invalidation of the Geneva Conventions,[16] while U.S. Navy general counsel Alberto Mora campaigned internally against what he saw as the "catastrophically poor legal reasoning" and dangerous extremism of Yoo's opinions.[17]

In December 2003, Yoo's memo on permissible interrogation techniques, also known as the Bybee memo, was repudiated as legally unsound by the OLC, then under the direction of Jack Goldsmith.[17] In June 2004, another of Yoo's memos on interrogation techniques was leaked to the press, after which it was repudiated by Goldsmith and the OLC.[18]

Yoo's contribution to these memos has remained a source of controversy following his departure from the Justice Department;[19] he was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in 2008 in defense of his role.[20] The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began investigating Yoo's work in 2004 and in July 2009 completed a report that was sharply critical of his legal justification for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.[21][22][23][24] The OPR report cites testimony Yoo gave to Justice Department investigators in which he claims that the "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"[25] The OPR report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

I'm not sure I want to get to deep into a discussion of John Yoo. It seems a little off-track, but, maybe it's not.

I'm not too concerned about Yoo for a variety of reasons.

He wasn't the big legal man in the Bush administration, John Ashcroft was the AG, Jay Bybee was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel working for Ashcroft, and Yoo was somewhere below Bybee.

From your source, Yoo wrote the Torture memo in August 2002. By 2004, all of his memos were officially withdrawn. There had only been a limited period when these memos were used.

Yoo has not had any succesful actions taken against him in any criminal or civil court. He has not even been referred to any State Bar Association for discipline.

Again from your source:

"... [Yoo's and Bybee's] memoranda represent an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions which reflected his own extreme, although sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client."

That's a very bad thing to do. It sounds like Holder.

I feel as though I'm holding on to a position of ignorance here. I still just don't know enough, and probably never will.

With respect,
Charles1952

James Steele, in charge of the US Death Squads [Paramilitary] in El Salvador where 75,000 civilians were killed was placed by Cheney and Rumsfeld as ‘OUR MAN IN IRAQ’ to train the counter insurgency. Also involved with Elliot Abrams and Ollie North in the Iran Contra Affair. War criminal

pieczenik.blogspot.ca...

here is another aspect of the war crimes- US lead death squads

reply to post by charles1952

here is Ashcrofts legacy
of course one usually gives the dirty job to the expanable employees like Woo

Ashcroft defends waterboarding before House panelStory Highlights
Ex-attorney general says waterboarding more effective than other techniques

John Ashcroft says he opposes torture but says waterboarding isn't torture
Congress failed to override President Bush's veto of bill to ban waterboarding
Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowning

edition.cnn.com...

say, what about Carters comment re torturing?
I have alot of respect for Carter's integrity, he was very highly regarded submariner

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

So, to claim that the US is the worst country and government that has ever existed seems extreme and makes me wonder about the value of your opinion on the subject.

Let me help JohnPhoenix a bit , by giving you a example of his view, Layman Terms if I may.

Lets say you Charles are walking down the street , and end up in a fight with a bully thats your size and Strenght, .......that is what other Governments are like.

Now Charles , you are walking down the Street , and end up in a fight with a Bully, who is the Town Cop, Former College Quarterback..... thats the US Government.... Fully Jacked and Armed to the Teeth.

reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

It's midnight here, perhaps that's the reason for my confusion. But, I'm curious. Where are we going? Now John Ashcroft, Iran-Contra, and Jimmy Carter are all interesting subjects, but I'm missing the point.

Ashcroft said he thought waterboarding did not fit the technical definition of torture, so it was allowed. We may disagree with him, but I believe he honestly thought that.

Iran-Contra? I don't know enough about it.

Jimmy Carter? I wish I could share your opinion. His positions on world affairs have become a little, well, strange. It doesn't look like his military career was anything remarkable. He spent five years in the Navy just barely missing the end of World War II, so he didn't see combat. He graduated from Annapolis, which is a huge career advantage, and moved from his start as an Ensign up two ranks in his five years. He spent three and a half years on subs.

I feel adrift here. Has the CIA done things that in ordinary situations would be illegal? Sure, I expect it. I might find myself agreeing with you if I knew what you wanted me to agree to.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


the admiral above Carter said he was the most able sailor that ever served under him
submariners are usually the best of the best I'm told
its a tough job

I guess what we are looking for here is a bipartisan review seems to have determined that these US presidents (where the buck stops ) and some of their employees have commiteed actionable offences re torture.
I guess we are examiming the validity and ramifications of this and maybe ruminate on why there is zero media coverage of something like this...

The us claims the moral high ground as justification for several wars and invasions, and for the revoking of rights from the US people too...whom I think are in the gun sights for some of this torture themselves possibly

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Dear Tw0Sides,

You're absolutely right. For the last, oh, maybe 100 years, the US has been the big kid on the block. But even in the modern world we were not prepared to take on Stalin or China. We're not the only tough guy.

And go back through history. Tammerlane was believed to have killed 5% of the entire population of the world. Atilla the Hun nearly conquered all Europe. The Roman empire was the world's great power. They were all bigger boys than we are. Tammerlane and Atilla are both known for terrorizing the land (and for their mountains of skulls) Nero? Soaking people in tar and setting them on fire to serve as torches for parties?

I'm having trouble with the idea that we are either the biggest in terms of world domination, or the worst in mistreatment of people.

Thanks for pointing out where I might have missed JohnPhoenix's point.

With respect,
Charles1952

well, we have a bipartisan report that says the uS is basically in the same league as every evil dictator they have (often installed ) ever used as an excuse for regime change

wouldn't that leave the US open to regime change inflicted by the UN or the rest of the world?

reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

Good point, and worth thinking about.

You know, the report itself is interesting. What would have happened under Hitler's rule, or any of the other dictators' rules if someone approached them and said "You're a bad person, you're committing crimes and should be in jail?" (That is, assuming they were able to get past "You're a bad person," before they were executed.)The answer to that is just one of the reasons I think the US is different, and not in "the same league."

If I recall correctly, perhaps the main reason Obama won his first term was the US war in the Middle-East. I have serious doubts that Atilla the Hun was worried about the people's vote.

One of the other marks of the policies of the other dictators was that they were applied in a sweeping and arbitrary manner. Six million? We're not in that league by any stretch.

Waterboarding as torture was subjected to a long review by several people who went to the trouble of finding a legal justification for it. Other dictators' policy was "Just do it!"

wouldn't that leave the US open to regime change inflicted by the UN or the rest of the world?

I'm not sure the UN could inflict regime change on anyone let alone the US. The rest of the world? Italy, for example, is going to say "Your secret agencies killed a thousand people in South America outside the rule of law, and you waterboarded three terrorists, so we are going to forget our former friendship until we replace your government with one chosen by the people. Oh, wait." Simply to say it is to show how nearly inconceivable it would be.

Even if the rest of the world wants to overthrow the US, so? Russia, China, and lots of other countries want that now. We've learned to deal with it.

At least two countries beside the US have thought about trying those officials invoved and decided not to. They can't bring someone to trial, but they're willing to force regime change/ Not very likely.

Honestly, I thought Obama would charge them, but he didn't either. It appears that the opinion of the world is that the US was naughty but they don't really want to challenge us on this. Doesn't that make the rest of the world enablers?

With respect,
Charles1952

excelent post

You mention Italy

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.

Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks

rense.com...
imho
this is something I think may have been covered in the classified docs mentioned in the NYTIMES article

"enablers" good term
IMHO
may be they are
untill the USD is not the world's reserve currency....and the world's best market, and the worls most dangerous military

I agree with this. Its true

reply to post by theuppergots3


Id say they are past Hitler numbers. Vietnam and Korea took about 5 million lives each

as kissinger said when asked if he regretted the loss of innocent lives re Viet Nam
he called the dead "poor dumb animals"

reply to post by theuppergots3

While it's not central to the main point of the discussion, Death figures for Korea and Viet Nam combined of 10 million is way to high. You might have been directed to a source with faulty information.

Korea?

The toll of the war included about 1.2 million deaths in South Korea, 1 million deaths in North Korea, 36,500 deaths for U.S. troops and 600,000 deaths for Chinese soldiers.

Total of 2.2 million. A good guess would be that half of the deaths, or more, were uniformed soldiers fighting each other. War is terrible, but not illegal.
www.cnn.com...

How about all of the wars, fought all over the world from 1955 - 2002?

Results From 1955 to 2002, data from the surveys indicated an estimated 5.4 million violent war deaths (95% confidence interval 3.0 to 8.7 million) in 13 countries, ranging from 7000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo to 3.8 million in Vietnam. From 1995 to 2002 survey data indicate 36?000 war deaths annually (16?000 to 71?000) in the 13 countries studied. Data from passive surveillance, however, indicated a figure of only a third of this. On the basis of the relation between world health survey data and passive reports, we estimate 378?000 globalwar deaths annually from 1985-94, the last years for which complete passive surveillance data were available.

www.bmj.com...
Again, how many of these were uniformed soldiers fighting in terrible but legal wars? By combining these estimates we get 7.6 million deaths in every war combined from the end of World War II to 2002. That figure is far below that attributed to Hitler. World War II accounted for over 48 million deaths.
warchronicle.com...
The US isn't in his league.

reply to post by Danbones

Dear Danbones,

I'm really not trying to look like a jerk. I took a look at FM 30-31B and found there is some question about whether it was a Soviet forgery. Of course, our government says it is. They pointed out that FM's are never classified Top Secret, and another writer mentioned that it uses the phrase "off on holidays," which is a British expression not used by Americans.

Gladio is described just about everywhere as a "stay behind" operation designed to resist Communist efforts in Italy. It had some members that jumped the rails, but that wasn't it's purpose.

Those are interesting, they don't mean much to me, but I'm not denying that the US has conducted assasinations and influenced or overthrown other governments. I can't even remember how we got here anymore.

I'm just saying that the US doesn't violate human rights on a scale that makes them the world's worst criminals. I suspect North Korea, China, and some other countries hold that title now. Certainly we look small compared to rulers throughout history.

Violations of human rights are bad things. War is a bad thing. It would be nice to see it all stop.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

I'm just saying that the US doesn't violate human rights on a scale that makes them the world's worst criminals. I suspect North Korea, China, and some other countries hold that title now. Certainly we look small compared to rulers throughout history.

Violations of human rights are bad things. War is a bad thing. It would be nice to see it all stop.

With respect,
Charles1952

Right......the U.S. doesn't violate human rights on a large scale. We "outsource" that job overseas to places like Egypt or Turkey or Iraq etc..., via a little known tool called secret renditions. That way we maintain maximum deniability. You know, what happens in Egypt, stays in Egypt. Kinda like, what happens in GITMO stays in GITMO.

I'm not going to get into every war crime or false flag every committed and whether or not we should expend a lot of energy trying to prosecute those responsible for them. Most of those responsible are probably dead anyway.

However, I do feel a responsibility to demand that justice be carried out for those guilty of war crimes in the present day. It's important that Americans stand up and say "No More!"

To Danbones, F&S for the Op!

reply to post by Flatfish

Dear Flatfish,

I don't think our disagreement is as large as you might think.

However, I do feel a responsibility to demand that justice be carried out for those guilty of war crimes in the present day. It's important that Americans stand up and say "No More!"

Do you think I disagree? I don't.

There are practical and philosophical difficulties involved that make this difficult. Is it also important that Iranians, Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and many other regions stand up? If they do, what is the likely result? When the protests in those countries are stopped, the world will only hear condemnations of the actions of the relatively free West.

Who will judge? The UN with a majority of countries governed by repressive regimes with no record of concern for rights and a great interest in Western money? The countries themselves? Then, again, only the free West will subject itself to judgment.

How would any ruling be enforced? With UN troops? Nonsense.

War crimes are wrong and should be punished. Only the relatively free Western nations would submit to it. Short of a devastating war, only it's own people can hold a nation accountable. While we may shout about it, only a few in our country believe that trials of George Bush or Barrak Obama would be helpful or necessary.

The people who care can't do anything about it, and the people who can do something about it don't care. The end (at least for the foreseeable future)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I think that was a very astute post Charles.
Also I think GWB passed laws which supposedly exempt or protect the government and corporations from war crimes justice in Iraq. ( which is as diametrically opposed to all thats "good", "and holy, and democratic as it gets)
so I think the crimes are identifiable
the question is whats to be, or what can be, done about it?

Geneva International Centre for Justice considers that the catastrophic Human Rights situation in Iraq must be addressed by all relevant UN agencies and mechanisms as well as by civil society organisations working in the field, as a matter of priority.
snip
Moreover, it has resulted in numerous far-reaching consequences world-wide. As Desmond Tutu said, the immorality of the United States and Great Britain`s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.All necessary means to sustain modern life were largely destroyed, looted, or burned down in defiance of the Geneva Conventions

www.gicj.org...