President Barak Obama campaigned on a promise of change. When he was elected in November, 2008, many of us were justifiably elated, because the administration of George Bush, who will be known throughout history as one of our most stupid presidents, would be shortly leaving office and hopefully, replaced with more intelligent and persons more interested in civil liberties. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that this has not happened.
Torture of prisoners is a violation of not only the Geneva Conventions but a violation of US law. Yet, under the Bush Administration, the CIA and others routinely engaged in torture, including but not limited to waterboarding. The famous "torture memos" that were authorized by senior lawyers of the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Department were later released in connection with various litigation. These document revealed that as early as 2002, the Bush administration, seemingly ignoring both federal law and international agreements, began torturing prisoners to extract "high value" information.
Despite the fact that torture doesn't work.. a person tortured will tend to provide the torturer information that the torturer wants, not necessarily correct, easily verifiable information, torture is legally and morally wrong. A president who stands for such morally correct opinions that abortion is murder and that homosexuality is wrong should know that torture of a prisoner is morally wrong as well. Obviously, this was an administration which preferred that people do what they say, and not what they do.
Now, two years after the administration is over, we come to a point where we do not have anyone standing indicted for their involvement in torture. Rather, the Obama administration has indicated that it is not interested in prosecuting Bush era officials for ordering acts of torture, nor for war crimes or other committed under the Bush administration. Some of those possible charges would include: Levying a war of aggression... (note that this was a charge on which multiple Nazi leaders were convicted and executed after World War II), torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, (the US Supreme Court made it clear that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could not be held indefinitely without charge), and last, but not least, the most serious war crime of all, (which really isn't a war crime, but a crime of stupidity), is that of starting a war with no plan to win it, and of repeatedly lying to the American people.
I don't believe for a minute that George W. Bush is truly evil. I think he's too stupid to form the requisite evil intent. However, he willingly let himself be led by truly evil, rapacious men such as George Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld into a war in which the US should have never found itself. In doing so, they bankrupted the US, ruined our economy, are directly responsible for over 4,000 US service personnel dying, and may have lost us the opportunity to truly deal effectively with Afghanistan. For this and their other crimes listed above, I am truly sorry that the Obama administration is unwilling to prosecute these evil men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well first let me say...you did a good job at luring me in to read an article about Obama and his Admins "war-crimes". The article seemed to me to be mostly about bashing Bush rather than actually discussing war-crimes by Obama. You actually don't mention one example of an Obama Admin war crime.
That said I think it's a little too early to judge the Bush Admin just yet. You're also incorrect in some of your assertions. The war with Iraq can not even slightly be described as "levying a war of aggression". Ask the pilots who patroled the UN mandated No-Fly Zones over northern and southern Iraq if about aggression. Iraqi anti-air batteries frequently light-up and at times fired on coalition air-craft.
If you're refering to being "lied" to in regards to the claim of weapons of mass destruction again you're stretching the truth. It would appear that there was an incorrect assumption by nearly the entire world that Iraq had the abilitiy to develope or was working to develope or had develope chemical and/or biological weapons as well as delivery systems. It wasn't JUST the USA or the Bush Admin. Even the Clinton Admin assumed this to be true. Furthermore, Saddam didn't help clear this up by denying access to UN inspectors to certain sites, destorying documents, can sanitizing sites. Kicking out the UN inspectors didn't help his cause either. Then there's the fact that the whole controversy about the Nigeria Yellow Cake inteligence was ACTUALLY inteligence that was developed under the Clinton Admin and NOT the Bush Admin. While the Bush Admin used it as a reason to invade and it turned out to be falsified documents it's also true that these documents came to light in 1999 about 4 years prior to Bush even talking about them. Don't forget also the fact that the IAEA knew that Iraq was in possession of at least 550 tons of Uranium Yellow Cake. They found it during their inspections after the first Gulf War. They left them their though. For 13 years prior to the invasion of Iraq! Then about 4 years after that (for a total of about 17 years) the US allowed the Iraqi government to sell the Yellow Cake to Canada. There are bunkers in the Iraqi desert that were destoryed during the first Gulf War that are still "hot" today. So yeah I'd say Iraq had/has materials that could quite easily be used to construct WMD's. It's estimated that Iraq's 550 tons of yellow cake could potentially be used to manufacture approximately 130 nuclear bombs. Just to compare this as of January 2009 it was estimated that Iran could produce about 30 nuclear bombs. Even if it was only used as a dirty bomb I'd call it a WMD.
As for torture I don't feel pity for ants if they're stepped on. The animals that organized the 9-11 attacks don't deserve my pity. I'm really unconcerned with their treatment. It's also an incorrect assumption that all harsh interigation is or should be considered torture. I personally have no problem with some of the techniques used so long as we're not talking about permanent physical harm. Waterboarding, loud music, and loose women, desicration of the Koran, sleep deprivation don't arise to a level to be considered torture. Khalid Shiek Mohammed did in fact give up useful information. If harsh techniques are not applied correctly or taken too far then you're correct you end up with false information and potentially torture. The claim that a "tortured" person will give up "information" the "torturer" wants to hear is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Remember though, the torturer will then go and try and verify the information. If the information turns out to be false or incorrect it will only get worse for the "tortured" person. So a skilled interigator needs to know when the person they're interigating has reached his/her limit and is now just supplying information they have no idea about just to please them.
There was a plan to win the war and the war was technically won. There was an assumption that the Iraqi people would rise up and build a democracy and thank the US for fearing them from a horrible dictactorship. Wrong as that assumption was you can't claim they didn't have a plan. It was just the wrong plan.
As for dealing effectively with Afghanistan you must realize that Afghanistan can never be dealt with effectively. Afghanistan is a landlocked country with no access to any major waterways. So it's physically impossible for Afghistan to ever develope a stable economy which would lead to a stable middle class which would lead to a stable government. So if your goal is to bring stability to the Middle East via democracy and you pick Afghanistan as a place to do it you've failed before you've started. However, Iraq on the other hand has an existing middle class, access to major waterways and natural resources. If Iraq can become a stable democracy in the middle east it will lead to other countries like Iran and Pakistan to become peace loving democracies. I sight East Europe as an example of this. If Iran and Pakistan can become stable Afghanistan has a chance to stabilize because then there is a possibility for a safe, stable route to the sea for their manufactured goods.
I'm no fan of Bush but you need to stick to truth and not rhetoric. Supply examples of Bush's lies, how the war bankrupted and ruined the economy. If you want to claim that his budget deficiets are an example of how the Bush Admin killed the economy then I got news for you Obama's Admin is WAY out spending Bush's. By that reasoning Obama has buried what Bush killed.
Post a Comment