Human Rights Watch: Prosecute Bush for Torture

[standin]

One of the most vocal human rights groups in the U.S. is calling on foreign governments to prosecute President George W. Bush and his former cabinet for war crimes, given that the Obama administration has avoided the issue. In a report published today, New York-based Human Rights Watch says Bush, former vice president Dick Cheney, former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA director George Tenet could be prosecuted under the 1996 War Crimes Act among other laws. "There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorized and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses," read the report. It accused the Bush administration of approving waterboarding, authorizing the CIA's detention program and carrying out illegal abductions involving torture, saying an investigation is necessary "if the US hopes to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and reaffirm the primacy of the rule of law." The author of the report, Reed Brody, says he's calling on an investigation now because. "It's become abundantly clear that there is no longer any movement on the part of the Obama administration to live up to its responsibilities to investigate these cases." As the BBC notes, President Bush has "defended some of the techniques, saying they prevented attacks and saved lives."
Related: Will Ferrell Dusts Off His Bush Impression

Want to add to this story? Comment below or send the author of this post, John Hudson, an email. Have a hot tip or story idea? Let us know on the Open Wire.

http://news.yahoo.com/human-rights-watch-prosecute-bush-torture-123500573.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It must be another country that does this. Please support Bush's accountability. ~`~

[BigBadBrian]

http://www.oliverthring.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/spam.jpg

[WACF]

Not on the Bush topic...but I found this very interesting...

http://youtu.be/xss-1pyB2Vo

[standin]

If Bigbadbrain is against it you know it is a good idea.

WAFC, got transcript? :tongue0011:

[sadaist]

If Bigbadbrain is against it you know it is a good idea.

Yeah, but he posted a picture of a can of SPAM. Yummy! I fry up slices about the size of french fries and have them with eggs over easy. Gross to think about for sure. But motherfuck if it isn't delicious as all get up.

Actually, I have yet to find a bad breakfast meat product.







Okay, this was my one thread derailment for today. Carry on.

[PETE'S BROTHER]

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, but he posted a picture of a can of SPAM. Yummy! I fry up slices about the size of french fries and have them with eggs over easy. Gross to think about for sure. But motherfuck if it isn't delicious as all get up.

Actually, I have yet to find a bad breakfast meat product.







Okay, this was my one thread derailment for today. Carry on.

About the only way I can eat Spam is with eggs. Everything else it overpowers as a combination of dogfood/salt lick...

It is good with eggs though...

[Seshmeister]

Not on the Bush topic...but I found this very interesting...

http://youtu.be/xss-1pyB2Vo

Has this guy done any pieces on the orthodox Israelis who are every bit as bad in their treatment of women, I'm guessing no.

[WACF]

Has this guy done any pieces on the orthodox Israelis who are every bit as bad in their treatment of women, I'm guessing no.

Could not tell you...I do not follow everything he does or says.

I do know he has issues with the Canadian Jewish Congress...what they are I do not know.

Regardless...his points in my opinion are valid on this issue.

He is also a supporter of the Canadian Muslim Congress...so anti-Islam is not his thing.

[Seshmeister]

I only raised it because I think he's a big Israel supporter and it seems to me if you want to attack another culture you need to be able to withstand the hypocrisy accusation otherwise it looks like you have an agenda.

The sack costume is obviously a fucking disgrace. I'm not sure what you can do about it apart from educate though.

Uncomfortable as it is if you take the French approach and try and ban it you may well end up with 2 shitty problems.

a) It's not acceptable IMHO for the government to decide what you can wear. It's a breach of freedom in the same way that it's unacceptable for Iranian militants to stop women in the street and question their dress. Where does it end, a government ban on say mohicans or long hair for guys. 'It upsets and confuses the children...'

b) If the situation is fucked up to that extent it seems likely that all that happens if you ban is that they just aren't allowed outside at all.

[Blaze]

How does dressing have anything to do with Bush needing to be held accountable?

It does not.


But there is something wrong in the world when a person cannot dress modestly without hassle. Case in point:

In the World, But Not of It
The Adventures of an Almost-Plain Friend

Philip W. Helms

I dislike travelling by air. A person of plain appearance attracts a measure of unwelcome attention in most airports, chiefly from those handling security measures. In Detroit, although my bag and I passed through the metal detectors without difficulty, security insisted on inspecting my hat and the top of my head beneath the hat, to assure that no contraband was concealed there. In Los Angeles, the same bag and I were unable to clear the metal detectors, a curious phenomenon, since nothing had changed between Detroit and Los Angeles. Security required me to empty my pockets, and seemed upset that I was not carrying a wallet; this is suspect in our culture. They concluded the metal clasps of my suspenders had upset the metal detector, but posed no greater hazard. They did not check under my hat.

http://www.michiganquakers.org/Helms.oym.htm

I do not know what that video states, as I am not partaking of video except of necessity. I can tell you that any and every culture has homes plagued by domestic violence. I assume that is what you are talking about because not anything else is issuance. How people choose to live with the exclusion of harm is not your choice to make.

In the secular world, many people choose to partake in various forms of relations. Do you interfere when a couple is together and one is half-naked? Do you say to the naked one, you are degrading yourself? No, you do not.
Granted, some people wear clothing for reasons we do not know.

I will be going to Germany soon, God willing, I have been asked to wear heels. Should I not wear heels simply because I have been told that it would please? They can be very uncomfortable you know.

As I have been spending time with the Plain Folk I have found that I wish to wear a head covering, however I find myself fearful to wear such garb. Is it not wrong that I cannot choose to follow my desire? Why should I feel a need to make others feel less guilt about their nakedness? Because most often the ones that show scorn are the ones in short shorts and a tank or other some such attire. Yes, it is true; one should not do a thing that causes another discomfort that goes two ways. Moreover, some have trouble being satisfied with their own well-being and to those you should just show mercy and gentle care.

[Blaze]

Anyway, Back on topic.

Prosecute Bush for war crimes

One of the most vocal human rights groups in the U.S. is calling on foreign governments to prosecute President George W. Bush and his former cabinet for war crimes

It is only fitting that another country does this. It would be wrong for Obama to do such.

[VAiN]

How much of that is 20/20 hindsight or just half informed?

[standin]

How much of that is 20/20 hindsight or just half informed?

"The US has a legal obligation to investigate these crimes," Roth said. "If the US doesn't act on them, other countries should."
In August 2009, US Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Assistant US Attorney John Durham to investigate detainee abuse but limited the probe to "unauthorized" acts. That meant the investigation could not cover acts of torture, such as waterboarding, and other ill-treatment authorized by Bush administration lawyers, even if the acts violated domestic and international law.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/07/11/united-states-investigate-bush-other-top-officials-torture

Vain, it would be nice to be able to charge him with harsher crimes. It would be nice to charge him with an illegal war, and perhaps claw-back some of the fraud assets lost lost to misappropriations. However, the humanity crimes are more important. Is it hind sight, I do not think so. Would it have been devastating to charge a siting president and his cohorts? Yes, it would have been. I am not certain what you mean by half informed. Simply because the full extent was not known, did not make the crime(s) non-existent.

[standin]

__________________________________
GET THE REPORT
___________________________________
Download the full report (PDF, 641.33 KB)
Click here to download now


Descargar resumen y recomendaciones en español (PDF, 249.92 KB)
Click here to download now


Download the summary and recommendations in Arabic (PDF, 5.87 MB)
Click here to download now


概要と勧告（日本語）ダウンロードはこちら (PDF, 484.75 KB)
Click here to download now


Télécharger le résumé et les recommandations en français (PDF, 129.85 KB)
Click here to download now


Purchase this report in print
Click here to purchase now

_____________________________________
_____________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Getting Away with Torture

Summary

Recommendations

I. Background: Official Sanction for Crimes against Detainees

II. Torture of Detainees in US Counterterrorism Operations

III. Individual Criminal Responsibility

Appendix: Foreign State Proceedings Regarding US Detainee Mistreatment

Acknowledgments and Methodology