With Levin's major donors being Guardsmark ("Emloying more FBI agents than anyone else!) and General Dynamics I'm sure Carl will be all over this...sometime. He's busy on stock options and protecting the wealthy. Which is cool, since he is on the Small Business committee. I bet the Big 3 auto makers (his other 3 largest donors) give him a lot of help with that.
Posted by phidipides at June 17, 2007 02:32 PMAbu Ghraib was a war crime, plain and simple.
Except that it's not a war crime if Americans do it or, at least, not according to most Americans.
My Lai was a war crime, yet nearly four out of five Americans disagreed with the verdict and sentence given to Lt. Calley. (If contemporary polls are to be believed.) Hugh Thompson, on the other hand, probably just hated America.
In a country where calling a plainly incompetent general 'incompetent' generates widespread criticism in the corporate press/media, I would not expect Carl Levin or anyone else to be opening investigations of 'our brave troops.'
Posted by James E. Powell at June 17, 2007 03:27 PMI've just started reading Johnson's Nemesis. We're pretty much damned, as far as I can tell. The Dems are only a little less corrupt than the thugs. And the thug base just cheers for more torture. That's what pretty much insures the damnation.
Posted by Delia at June 17, 2007 03:40 PMThis entire Iraq war is a war crime, plain and simple.
The assholes who lied us into it have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis on their hands.
Posted by ran at June 17, 2007 05:33 PMIs this a surprise to anyone? The abuse that occurred at Abu Gharib which has seen the light of day is not the worst that has happened.
Remember the other photos and videos that were ordered realeased by a federal judge? Photos of rape, murder and other henous acts have been buried, dispite this order. Apparently, publicizing these horrors will embolden the enemy and hurt morale. We can't have that now can we.
The world now realizes that the US government is no better than that of Sadaam. We have no moral authority left. The depth to which this administration and their Democratic enablers regularly sink to simply disgusts me.
They cannot be trusted and I pray their day of reckoning will soon come.
Posted by brisa at June 17, 2007 06:36 PMPerhaps Carl Levin will get off his ass long enough from rubber stamping the Iraq "no strings" funding bill to reopen the Abu Ghraib chain of command matter, and find out who knew what and when they knew it.
Well, phid beat me to it, of course much more eloquently than I could.
I'll be waiting impatiently for "Dino Dem" Levin to begin his ivestigation.
Abu Ghraib was a war crime, plain and simple.
Most of us soldiers know that these Privates and Specialists who were convicted had to have gotten their orders from higher ups. Probably from the CIA or Private Contrators, on orders from Rummy.
I've said it a bunch of times, when you're a US Army Private, you literally have to ask permission to use the latrine.
"My Lai was a war crime, yet nearly four out of five Americans disagreed with the verdict and sentence given to Lt. Calley."
James, but wasn't the outcry over Calley not so much about being found guilty, but because people believed that Calley was the fall guy for those higher up, which of course he was. I remember that Americans were shocked at what they saw on TV, and were madder than hell that no one else was brought to justice.
Posted by Judith at June 17, 2007 08:06 PMAbu is the same story repeated again. In the My Lai slaughter only Calley was convicted, if I remember correctly. In Abu Ghraib, only a couple of people were convicted. Same story, same lies.
Posted by Judith at June 17, 2007 08:18 PMIf there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army’s initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found: Taguba knew his report would make him unpopular: “If I lie, I lose. And, if I tell the truth, I lose.”
“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”
In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”
When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, “I don’t want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?”
I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their “extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1
Again I ask, are we so far above the law that not even The Hague can try our leaders for war crimes?
Posted by Judith at June 17, 2007 08:24 PMAgain I ask, are we so far above the law that not even The Hague can try our leaders for war crimes?
Extraordinary rendition may yet have its place.
Posted by phidipides at June 17, 2007 08:34 PMUnless we systematically murdered prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it it irresponsible to call what went on there a war crime.
Abu Ghraib is a propaganda tool in the hands of exactly two kinds of people.
Not much of a mystery to it.
Posted by Toby Petzold at June 17, 2007 08:47 PMAbu Ghraib is a propaganda tool in the hands of exactly two kinds of people.
And no one died in the Nazi death camps.
What part of fucking kids in the ass at Abu Ghraib don't you understand?
Posted by phidipides at June 17, 2007 08:53 PMAnd just so you know, Toby the Torture Supporter, our agreement with the Geneva Convention against torture states that once any individual is made aware that torture is occuring and they don't stand against it, that person commits a crime punishable by death. J'accuse.
Posted by phidipides at June 17, 2007 08:58 PMToby, if you think what we did to everyday Iraqis wasn't a war crime, then be gone. It's one thing to use aggressive interrogation tactics against Taliban or Al Qaeda. It is quite another to use it against Iraqi children, women, and men simply to get information from them. Since when did rape and sodomy become an acceptable practice for you? You really do belong in another country.
Get lost.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 17, 2007 10:34 PM"The world now realizes that the US government is no better than that of Sadaam."
"And no one died in the Nazi death camps."
Ain't moral relativism amazing. Comparison of the USA to the Nazis shows an incredible misunderstanding of what the Nazis actually did.
If you guys really think that the USA is as bad as Saddam or the Nazis were, then you're beyond help.
"the Geneva Convention against torture states that once any individual is made aware that torture is occuring and they don't stand against it, that person commits a crime punishable by death."
Utter rubbish. The Convention does not state this.
"Again I ask, are we so far above the law that not even The Hague can try our leaders for war crimes?"
Which war crimes? "But the whole Iraq invasion was a war crime, man" doesn't count, because it simply wasn't according to any established international law. Abu Graib doesn't count, as it was not officially sanctioned, and was rectified when discovered.
"Again I ask, are we so far above the law that not even The Hague can try our leaders for war crimes?"
I'm going to burst your bubble, and answer this question for you properly, once and for-all.
The answer is 'the Hague (specifically, the ICC) can't try any US national'. Look up 'The American Servicemembers' Protection Act' (ASPA). The Act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the Court. For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the United States to the Court; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the Court; and it prohibits agents of the Court from conducting investigations in the United States. The Act authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. It also required any country receiving American military aid to agree to never turn over American nationals to international criminal courts.
Posted by CaptainReality at June 17, 2007 11:07 PM"You really do belong in another country. Get lost." - Steve Soto.
Steve, this is your typical reaction to anyone who disagrees with you. By banning everyone who thinks differently to you, you're turning your forum into an echo chamber.
Toby didn't insult anyone. He stated his opinion. I think that it speaks volumes about the regulars on this forum that when someone disagrees with them, that person is always immediately insulted and told where to go.
I fully expect a flood of bile to follow this post. It's up to you guys to disappoint me.
Posted by CaptainReality at June 17, 2007 11:12 PMMmmmmmm, flowing bile. ...Homer
Posted by TIKI AL at June 17, 2007 11:21 PM"Mmmmmmm, flowing bile. ...Homer"
Ha ha! That's very funny!
I like this TIKI person already. Tell me: are you the famous 'TALKY TIKI'?
Posted by CaptainReality at June 17, 2007 11:32 PMAah the troll patrol makes its rounds mawkishly chest pounding to defend the indefensible. I'm guessing it is some sort of impact indice.
With a useless and supine media and a headlong flight to madness in the nations rush to emulate Caligula, something must be causing the ongoing decline of fearless leader in what will surely be the lowest approval polling ever after another run of months of thuggery, vile incompetence, looting and hogging.
What would be the cause of all these disturbing poll tanking truths percolating up from the street, a blogosphere, naah?
And the diligence of the troll patrol amounts to a canary fart in the increasing sawmill roar of national discontent just beyond the many delusional gated communities destined to one day be ghost towns.
Posted by Chris Rich at June 18, 2007 12:08 AMYeah, Chris, that's great.
"delusional gated communities destined to one day be ghost towns". Irrelevant and melodramatic.
You didn't address a single point that I made.
Posted by CaptainReality at June 18, 2007 12:50 AMWe recall Mi Lai as a black reminder of Viet Nam - a massacre of civilians by American soldiers. I think in the back of our minds, we let it pass as the result of "the fog of war." Abu Ghraib will be the lasting memory of the Iraq War. It wasn’t combat stress this time. It wasn’t a rogue unit out of control. It was something else. It was the kind of thing that happens when armed forces are lead by people who have no earthly idea about what the stakes are in a war; who have no idea why the word "honor" is associated with the military; who have no place in the leadership of soldiers; and who have no right to be in the American government as it was intended.
Posted by Mickey at June 18, 2007 01:12 AMI am no expert of war crimes or International Law, but whether or not I have such knowledge, I do know that the inhuman treatment of any human being is wrong. While CaptainReality seems to think we have such rights, to torture, and obviously approves of such tactics, I am not sure he is correct about the Geneva Convention.
CaptainReality, I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Regardless, what do you call shoving objects into someone's rectum or wiring a prisoner for shock treatment? I would be interested in what you consider torture.
There was a reason Gonzo, Bush and Rumsfeld sent a letter stating that they would not agree to the Articles of the Geneva Convention. Why would that be, if they intended to follow Articles of War and treatment of prisoners?
International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Article 3 Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his or her name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Article 5: In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
18 § 2441, "War Crimes" provides:
(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such breach or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States.
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
http://lawofwar.org/18%20USC%202441.htm
"Abu Graib doesn't count, as it was not officially sanctioned, and was rectified when discovered."
Well CaptainReality, it may have been rectified at Abu Graib by its closing, but torture continues at Guantanamo Bay. Check Google.
War Crimes
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22
THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20986-2004Dec22.html
Posted by Judith at June 18, 2007 03:24 AM"I'm going to burst your bubble, and answer this question for you properly, once and for-all."
Well, I've never asked you that question before, so "once and for all" sounds just a bit condescending. By-the-way, answering the question properly requires the truth.
Posted by Judith at June 18, 2007 03:29 AM"Unless we systematically murdered prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it it irresponsible to call what went on there a war crime."
Toby, crimes during WWII were not just the murder of individuals, but the torture of human beings. Torture was indeed defined as a war crime. Remember Dr. Josef Mengele, who was famous for torture?
"Abu Ghraib is a propaganda tool in the hands of exactly two kinds of people. Not much of a mystery to it."
You surpass any sense of decency and lack any moral compass. I feel sorry for you.
Posted by Judith at June 18, 2007 03:48 AMJudith,
"Well CaptainReality, it may have been rectified at Abu Graib by its closing,"
Not closed.
I truly believe if we wish to re-establish our credibility in the world, we need to send Bush and the neo-cons to the Hague, for an exercise in "the rule of law".
I can guarantee that once the world sees terrorists like Cheney at the end of a rope, terrorism will no longer be a useful tool. Once dictators see that they can be remanded by the world to a real court of rule, they will find other ways to exercise power than violence.
Of course that will compel the C.Reals and Toby to take their personal deviations underground, where, perhaps, they belong.
Posted by IntelVet at June 18, 2007 05:48 AMAbu Ghraib is a propaganda tool in the hands of exactly two kinds of people.
Read the article next time Toby! Especially the last paragraph.
Neo-con speak = I'll call the truth: propaganda from the left and Al Queda.
From Taguba himself:
“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
How many Generals is that now speaking out against bu$h/cheney Administrtion, but that's propganda to you Toby!
And did you see that Capt. Reality, Gen. Taguba wants "civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
The troll idiots are cut from the same cloth as the pro-Libby (anti-law) letter-writers. How predictable. Losers.
Posted by Sharon at June 18, 2007 06:57 AMAs Judith demonstrates, abu graib was a violation of the Geneva Conventions (certainly Taguba thought it was and that was how it was reported at the time) and federal law makes it a war crime to violate the Conventions.
Posted by euzoius at June 18, 2007 07:32 AMNo wonder we have so many suicidal soldiers coming home. What they saw and what some did will probably haunt them forever. How could they have allowed children to be hurt that way?
Posted by dianne at June 18, 2007 08:23 AM"Tell me: are you the famous 'TALKY TIKI'?"
...No, that's my cousin. The one who shoved a Chatty Cathy doll up Private Delusional's ass.
You didn't address a single point that I made.
You didn't make a single point worth addressing. Those who justify atrocities against their felow man because of different tribal/ethnic/religious origins seldom do.
Ain't moral relativism amazing. Comparison of the USA to the Nazis shows an incredible misunderstanding of what the Nazis actually did.
Dismissal of said comparisons, without any sort of rational argument as to why it's an incredible misunderstanding, isn't exactly going to win the debate around here, PrivatelyUnrealistic.
We can't be tried by the ICC because the pResiDunce opted out of joining. That doesn't mean that there's nothing to try, however, as it seems you are implying with your comments.
Invading Iraq is a war crime because unjustified premeditated invasion of another sovereign nation is a war crime. Which is what america did to Iraq, according to the international community.
More of an answer than you deserve, but probably less than you expect.
Perhaps you could explain why you think america hasn't been torturing people; why you think we haven't committed war crimes; and why you think the abuse at Abu Gharaib has been rectified (or even why it was justified in the first place)? Cause I don't believe any of that, no matter how many times Rush tries to tell me it's true.
Posted by (: Tom :) at June 18, 2007 10:26 AMTIKI AL ROFLMAO
Posted by Judith at June 18, 2007 11:35 AMWere we just hit by a drive-by troll?
Calling CaptainReality, where are you?
Posted by Judith at June 18, 2007 11:38 AM"You really do belong in another country. Get lost." - (Steve Soto.)
-No Steve, you have it backwards. It is YOU who belong in another country. Fascists, like Toby, embody the essential American demiurge and understand the implacable structural givens in American society which promulgate torture and state terror, and not as some aberration.
Torture is the sine qua non of American values. How can you possibly, at this late date, say it is not? America is as America does.Torture and sate terror is what America does. Do you somehow think that this apparatus will suddenly stop when a Democrat is elected to the White House? Please.
It continues to astonish me, that liberals, when responding to the fascist right, continue to exculpate themselves from a verdict already rendered by history; the denial is extroardinary.
Posted by Jill Bains at June 18, 2007 12:09 PMNo Steve, you have it backwards. It is YOU who belong in another country.
Don't you mean that most of us, including you, Jill Bains, want to "belong in another country"?
Posted by Seven of Six at June 18, 2007 04:48 PM
Another country? What kind of delusion is that? We are all on the same planet. The "borders" of countries are just shared hallucinations. Surely the historic procession of wars and their innumerable dead show that lines drawn in the sand and on various official charts are as transigent as a cheap Niger Forgery. The Pen and The Sword are one hell of a combo when it comes to enforcing one's favorite hallucinations.
As humans, we owe a duty to each other and every other form of life that exists in our shared habitat, to treat each life with respect and care. Anything less than caring mutual kindness and respect is a crime against humanity, in which we all share responsiblity, however remote. I voted and paid my taxes, so I share in the crimes being committed in my "country's" name.
I don't care what a detainee is believed to have done. Human to human, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we have no right to deprive another of their liberty, let alone mistreat them mentally or physically.
Justifying torture for others' transgressions, real or perceived, is descending to the level of the worst elements in our species. How does emulating the most depraved members of our species benefit society?
I pity those who are comfortable with cruelty.
Posted by Kax at June 21, 2007 10:07 AM