The Scum also Rises...again

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Jun 11, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    By JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN

    <blockquote>The Bush administration has yet to accept much responsibility for the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. True, the president has apologized for the abuse on Arab television, and several top military officials in Iraq — including the general in charge of the prison and her boss — have been quietly suspended or will soon be transferred. But so far, legal responsibility has fallen exclusively on the seven court-martialed soldiers who were directly involved. Administration officials have argued that they themselves are not liable, since the incidents were the work of a few bad actors.

    This may or may not be true. Even if no smoking gun is ever found to directly link American officials to the crimes, however, they could still find themselves in serious jeopardy under international law. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, officials can be held accountable for war crimes committed by their subordinates even if they did not order them — so long as they had control over the perpetrators, had reason to know about the crimes, and did not stop them or punish the criminals.

    This doctrine is the product of an American initiative. Devised by Allied judges and prosecutors at the Nuremberg tribunals, it was a means to impute responsibility for wartime atrocities to Nazi leaders, who often communicated indirectly and avoided leaving a paper trail.

    More recently, the principle has been fine-tuned by two other American creations: the international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which were established in the last decade by the United Nations Security Council at the United States' behest. These tribunals have held that political and military leaders can be found liable for war crimes committed by those under their "effective control" if they do nothing to prevent them.</blockquote>

    We may yet see administration officials in the dock for the abuses perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. That the administration was complicit is becoming increasingly clear, and the possibility that cabinet members may be named as war criminals looms...Its time for them to pay the piper.
     
  2. Xenimus
    Online

    Xenimus Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I watch the full testimony of John Ashcroft on this subject. Funny how repubs never do this stuff. He got his ass handed to him, because he would release the memos, even though they were already leaked.
    He said that the president a memo on torture saying to signing off on upholding the geneva conventions.
    BUT! when asked if the president got any other memos relating to torture, he couldnt answer! and he would say no, or yes.
    The commitee members realized he was dodging the question and said he would be in contempt of congress unless he came back with a valid answer to the simple question.
    there were a few other moments like this, was great. Should watch it. Funny how cons pay less attention to these things. :rolleyes:
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    THis is a violation of attorney client privelege, something libs like to invoke when getting murderers back on the street.
     
  4. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    Come on, when you're criticizing Asscroft you've got to make sure that your sentences make sense. :D
     
  5. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Are you in the 1st grade? This was so poorly written I gave up half way through the 1st paragraph. What a joke!
     
  6. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    This is when I invoke the "Are you drunk?" question.
     
  7. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    You referring to me?
     
  8. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    Not this time.:wine:
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    There is no issue of attorney/client priviledge here. Herr Ashcroft is just stupid enough to be willing to fall on his sword for Dubbyuh.
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Of course there is. Tell me why not. Is he not an attorney advising the president?
     

Share This Page