"I believe that we must hold all responsible parties accountable: those who created an environment where the prisoners in their charge were to be considered less than human and those who actually acted in such an awful manner to their fellow human beings".

If the Nuremberg Trials taught us anything, it was that war is never an excuse for torture or man's inhumity to man. Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial, wrote "The Nuremberg judgment is a positive precedent for holding the leaders of a state, who formulate its policy and directs its actions into channels which are criminal under International law, personally responsible for such crimes". At Nuremberg, those who used "just following orders" were as guilty as those who issued the orders". If this were 1945, Rumsfeld and Bush would be held criminally accountable for the torture and abuse of detainees (prisoners).

Great post Mary.

There is a lot of damage done that needs to be repaired. And it doesn't start with removing Bush from office - it starts by having us look ourselves in the mirror and ask that figure in front of you: "what have you done to better the world just a little bit today?"

I believe that we must hold all responsible parties accountable:those who created an environment...

How far back to you want to go? Clinton, Bush Sr, Regan, Carter,,,,
Let's play the blame game.
It must be your fault Steve because you did not protest the war enough.
It must be the Florida's Supreme Courts fault for stopping the count.
It must be Clintons fault for allowing Bin Laden to go free.
It must be Bush Sr. fault for not taking Saddam out when he had the chance.
Do you know how ridiculous you guys sound when you want to blame everyone.

Does anyone know the answer to this. If Bush somehow got releected, could he then be impeached or tried for War Crimes with all that keeps dripping out?

Lindsey,

ONLY if the House and Senate switch majorities from Republican to Democrat. That is the only way Bush can be impeached should he win in November.

That I know, and it is a good possibly we might get at least one branch of Govt. back. Who institutes charges of War Crimes?

RC:

I'm sure you noticed that Mary wrote this post, not me, but I still support it. Yet I digress.

Blame goes all around for those that deserve it. George W. Bush deserves it for letting Osama go free at Tora Bora,as well as ignoring Osama in the months prior to 9/11. Clinton deserves it for not getting the CIA and Pentagon to go after Bin Laden covertly when a more overt solution would not have been practical with a "Wag the Dog" GOP Congress.

Do you know how ridiculous and hypocritical you freepers sound when you absolve Bush for blame on things you would have impeached Clinton or Gore for?

Quite simply RC, you have no credibility here.

Bush can face a civil suit by anyone in the United States for war crimes.

He should be criminally prosecuted for them first. Impeachment for war crimes will originate from the House Judiciary Committee.

As long as the lying killing looting Republicans control the House no impeachment articles will be written up. If Bush wins in November (he won't) and the House switched to Democrat he'd be impeached in 30 days.

Bush is in great shape--let's make him a gravedigger at Arlington. Permanently.

Do you know how ridiculous and hypocritical you freepers sound when you absolve Bush for blame on things you would have impeached Clinton or Gore for?

For the record Steve, I never said I absolve Bush for the way he has run this war. You put those words in my mouth. You just like to blame republicans for everything that is wrong with America. That's is why you have no credibility with me.

Quite simply RC, you have no credibility here.

Yes I know Steve. Anyone with an opposing view to yours has that same problem.

No, rightcoater, it is not because you have an opposing view, but because you are an idiot and an asshole.
You say stupid things and you try to justify stupid things with even stupider statements.
That is why you have no credibility.
So, FU.

RC, it's not the opposing viewpoints. If William F. Buckley were here every day reaming us all, it would be different: He would take on our points, state his own assumptions, and proceed to demonstrate that our points were inconsistent either with our own logic or with his assumptions. It's called "rhetoric," and it's an art form that's been around for a long time. If a conservative beats me at the rhetoric game--it happens sometimes, I go to a good law school--I learn something, and I incorporate those points into my thinking in the future.

Before you think you're being all clever by turning around the accusation and saying "but you guys don't extend the same courtesy to me," consider that we don't really owe that courtesy to people who come here to clog our conversations with tangential, angry tripe, and that we would be better able to refute your points directly if you ever bothered to express them with any precision.

John,

Thanks for the post. I see the light now. How could I have been so wrong. Your insight into my politics is amazing. I really don't know how to respond to your higher intellect of the "FU" statement. Did you go to college to get that term or did you come up with that one all by yourself.

Before you think you're being all clever by turning around the accusation and saying "but you guys don't extend the same courtesy to me," consider that we don't really owe that courtesy to people who come here to clog our conversations with tangential, angry tripe, and that we would be better able to refute your points directly if you ever bothered to express them with any precision

I've tried that route with you boys before and I still got the same FU go away. So I really don't care what you think. I will respond to you they way I feel will get the best response.

This post likens war to a college debating society. War is the exact opposite. War is chaos without any rules. It draws profiteers, rapists and psychopaths. If you find yourself in a War, you do what you have to do to survive. Heros are a manufacture of the State to recruit more cannon fodder.

The torture and death in Iraq are a natural outcome of guerilla warfare between two religions and cultures.

If the US leadership was rational, had clear objectives, and exercised command and control, these excesses would not have occurred. But, with secular rational leadership, the USA would not invaded Iraq in the first place.

Actually, RC occasionally makes some very sound arguments. In the "Myths of the Oil Shortage" thread, RC wrote:

High gas prices will step up the investment in alternative energy sources. I'll pay the extra .50 cents a gallon to wake people up to the fact that we can not depend on oil the rest of our lives.

I agree completely. As long as we have cheap gasoline, there will be no market based incentives to look for alternative technologies. Detroit makes huge profits on SUVs, and until high fuel prices drive down market demand, the gas guzzlers will rule the road. Liberals have been making these arguments for decades -- although their prescribed cure (higher gas taxes) is political poison, and has fed the right wing stereotype. On the other hand, allowing market forces to self correct leads to dislocations and destabilization.

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. An ounce of prevention (government regulation) can prevent a pound of cure (excessive marketplace correction).

The torture at Abu Gharib happened because the Bush Administration removed the safeguards from MI (JAG oversight) and suspended the rule of law (the Geneva Conventions) in dealing with detainees. At Gitmo, the first commander was removed, because he showed respect and consideration for the prisoners. He was replaced by General Miller, who implemented a robust interrogation regime, including torture. The crimes of Abu Gharib began when General Miller was brought in, specifically to implement a more robust interrogation regime.

Since Conservatives love personal responsibility, it is our duty to lay this disaster at the feet of those who are responsible: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Now, to the issue of war crimes:

Aggressive war is the ultimate war crime, as it enfolds the others. "Creating the atmosphere" is not a sufficient level of culpability to justify punishment, but ordering a war on grounds that one knows are unfounded--or suspects are unfounded, but deliberately avoids information to the contrary--probably would demonstrate sufficient culpability, but seriously: Who's going to arrest the people who ordered the war?

Soldiers, similarly, need to know that their orders are immoral/illegal--or must strongly suspect that they are immoral/illegal and not care--to be guilty of "just following orders."
If a possibility exists that some abuses of Abu Ghraib arose from good-faith misunderstandings of their duties, war crime charges should not follow.

Soldiers are under a duty to follow valid orders, and their orders are presumptively valid. They cannot be held responsible for going to a war that didn't "feel right." The soldiers are complicit in the ultimate war crime only for going to war where they should certainly have known that the war was morally wrong, and illegal under international law. No such knowledge can legitimately be imputed to our troops. For God's sake, Colin Powell and George Bush got up before the U.N. and the American public and swore up and down that we knew this war was necessary. Some soldiers might have harbored suspicions, but again, their orders bear a presumption of validity.

This is simply a legalistic gloss on the matter. Morality, of course, finds judgment in public sentiment as much as it does in courts. I think that the soldiers who knew their orders were wrong at Abu Ghraib are getting what they had coming; the people who gave the orders probably aren't. I think that the soldiers fighting this war bear no responsibility for fighting it, only for fighting it viciously. Those who bear the responsibility for the war, of course, will skate--except that they will not get another term in which to sin.

By it's nature, war creates the "enemy is less than human" idea. The responsibility therefore falls on civilian leadership to force "top-down" the idea of humane tratment. This failure (or approved technique) comes from that civilian leadership.

Hey RC, we're talkin about the prisoner abuse thing, not the frickin war. Separate issues. So stick to reality instead of obfuscation. Lots of people are responsible for what got us to this present pass, but that doesn't make them responsible for specific actions. As for your list, Bush I was never mandated to go to Baghdad, just kick Hussein out of Kuwait. That's because international relations require that borders be pretty much a hard and fast bond, and it takes a lot of energy to break that bond. Thus lots of two bit tinhorn murdering dictators get lots of leeway for actions within their borders. That's how you protect your own borders. Thats why assasination of leaders is not viewed favorably by established states, it sets bad precedent.

That's why war is such a big deal, because it creates all kinds of problems for all parties concerned, beyond death and destruction. It creates flux in all international relations, uncertainty, mistakes, tragedy, confusion, unrest, you name it.

Clinton did go after bin Laden, but didn't pull the trigger because he wanted more certainty and less "collateral" damage. Which bush II clearly isn't much concerned with. Condemn him (President Clinton) for that as you will, but don't be so certain that the consequences of him pulling the trigger wouldn't be any better than what we have now.

Lastly, if the shoe fits, bush II can wear it.

Thoughtful post, Mary.
Truth is often hard to find, but to attempt to find it, both conservatives as well as liberals, must distinguish between Osama and Iraq - and cease using the term 'terrorist' indiscriminately.
I hold Bush responsible for, first of all, declaring a preemptive war - and secondly, for promoting and using those misperceptions.
(Is it hard to imagine that some of those more sadistic MPs would believe that they had a license to handle 'terrorists' that way?)

Dorothy, you made an excellent observation:

Truth is often hard to find, but to attempt to find it, both conservatives as well as liberals, must distinguish between Osama and Iraq - and cease using the term 'terrorist' indiscriminately.

You touched on something we all should discuss - the broad definition, pursued and enforced by the radical right, of just who a terrorist is. When you have Karen Hughes, as an example, insinuating that people who are pro-choice to be in the same bed as terrorists because 'they do not value human life the way we do,' that opens a can of worms that has no business being opened, much less even touched. The right is finding out quickly that their philosophy is not only not working, but it is no longer being accepted in growing areas of the country and throughout the world. And, just like any cornered animal that feels threatened, it bites back. So now, even though they don't mention it outright but have sly ways of describing what they really mean, you have the right, knowing their argument isn't making headway, openly accusing and/or associating those that don't follow their system of beliefs to be terrorists.

You wanna talk about unAmerican? THAT'S unAmerican! Those who want to stifle debate and dissent by accusing those with a differing opinion to be, or be in bed with, terrorists don't deserve, in my opinion, the right to call themselves patriotic Americans. What would Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, our Founding Fathers say?

I will respond to you they way I feel will get the best response.

Shorter RC: "I don't actually have any convictions, but I can't get anyone to pay attention to me offline, so I post here to get a rise out of someone, anyone."

I'll bet RC can also be found trolling on freeper boards posing as a liberal.

This admin doesn't take responsiblity for any damage it caused, so why would their not taking responsibility for the creation of hundreds more children and adolescent haters of the US?

This "war," is never ending. I feel it will go on and on. And I fear the one-up-manship this will cause on a world wide basis. We are not safer and will not be safer until this country changes it ways.

On Wed, Al Gore delivered a long and very strong speech in NYC regarding the responsibility of Bush and team.

It is a must read, with meaty condemnations.

Gore

Matt Davis says that the war for Iraq is immoral and illegal under international law. If this is so, then why is he supporting John Kerry, who voted for prosecuting this war? Why is he supporting a war criminal? Is everyone in the Congress who voted for the war also a war criminal?

No, Toby, John Kerry's mistake was trusting the Bush administration.

John Kerry never manufactured information to justify the war and certainly would not have started a war without an international resolution from the UN. The Bush administration PROMISED to get a second resolution. But when their evidence of Saddam's overwhelming threat to the US and the world was proven to be shoddy and totally bogus, they couldn't get the UN to go along. Bush decided he was going to take out Saddam and screw the rest of the world because HE wanted to do it. (Afterall this was the man who said "Feels good" just before going on air to tell the American people HE decided to go to war.)

Kerry would never have blithely gone to war to prove a point. Bush likes war because he never has faced it and probably thinks its a big video game -- he doesn't even bother to attend any funerals of those he sent into war for a lie. Kerry, having actually experienced war, doesn't think it is right to send men and women into war for a lie.

AND Kerry would never have abrogated the Geneva Convention. Neither would have John McCain. Only Bush and his band of immoral warmongers would come up with something so anti-American as that. He promised to protect and DEFEND the constitution and all he did was spit on it.

If this is so, then why is he supporting John Kerry, who voted for prosecuting this war? Why is he supporting a war criminal? Is everyone in the Congress who voted for the war also a war criminal?

Everybody who voted for the resolution while they genuinely believed Iraq was a threat was wrong factually. Everybody who voted for the resolution believing that it was just good politics was lacking in courage.

It's entirely possible, Toby, that Kerry belongs in category 2. But one can't equate Kerry's amoral lack of courage, and Bush's immoral tactics of putting it to a vote in the first place.

Mary:

Kerry would never have abrogated the Geneva Convention.

But John Kerry claims that he himself has committed war crimes, if by no other standard than his willful participation in the Viet Nam War, which was "illegal." And he certainly described his fellow-servicemen as war criminals, even if he had to concoct bullshit to do so.

Bob Kerrey committed war crimes, too. Don't know about John McCain, but I'm sure there's lots of people with black magic shrines to Nixon and Kissinger in their basements who'll be happy to call him one, as well.

Davis:

Everybody who voted for the resolution while they genuinely believed Iraq was a threat was wrong factually. Everybody who voted for the resolution believing that it was just good politics was lacking in courage.

Not to be obtuse, but the notions of what kind of threat Saddam posed are necessarily subjective. Nevertheless, they are based on our best intelligence. And, I'll say it again: if Kerry was misled by our intelligence, then how is he less culpable than Bush? They both approved of going to war, so what's the difference? Is it a matter of Bush's approval counting for more? If so, then that is a function of executive ---and not moral--- authority. Therefore, Bush is no more to "blame" for the facts as we knew them than Kerry.

Can I get a concession on anything?!

It's entirely possible, Toby, that Kerry belongs in category 2. But one can't equate Kerry's amoral lack of courage, and Bush's immoral tactics of putting it to a vote in the first place.

That is so wrong, Matt! If Kerry is willing to withhold his approval of the $87 billion supplemental explicitly because it was a protest vote, just how hard do you think it is for the man to have cast the first vote because it was "good politics"? Get serious!

You're backing a guy who's a sell-out on major issues ---and you can't even admit it. Is there any doubt that Kerry voted nay on the supplemental because he was trying to prove his anti-war bona fides to the Dean crowd? That's all it was. Have you ever heard a convincing explanation for his totally schizoid position on the war for Iraq? Did he vote nay when Congress and Clinton voted to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the Government of the United States? Did he not speak of the dangers that Saddam posed in the years before a Republican took the White House? He did They all did. But even that was a flip-flop because he voted against the Gulf War ---when we had a coalition that not even a Frenchman could say no to!

Ggrrrrrrr......

Let's put it as simply as possible:
Bush invaded Iraq based upon a big lie - therefore, he must be accountable for the war and all of its consequences.

You're backing a guy who's a sell-out on major issues ---and you can't even admit it.

Sure I can. But admitting that he is a sell-out on the war is not the same as admitting that his role in starting the war is the same as Bush's.