CONTINUITY and CONTEXT is the problem now. The tragic
flow of events and the rebellion of significant and
formidable elements within the US government itself
(i.e., US military, intelligence, State Dept, etc.)
has FORCED the "US Mainstream News Media" to report
the truth, but it is handing it to you in jigsaw
puzzle pieces...Here is the BIG PICTURE: the stench of
Abu Ghraib is in the White House, the stench of the
White House is in Abu Ghraib, and it is worse than
that...The incredible shrinking _resident has brought
us Mega-Mogadishu and more...
Micheal Ishikoff, Newsweek: The White House's top
lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S.
officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a
result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush
administration in the war on terrorism, according to
an internal White House memo and interviews with
participants in the debate over the issue.
Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734
Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so
Suspected Taliban and al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo
Bay Naval Base kneel down before military police as
prisoners are processed into the detention facility in
January 2002
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 1:21 p.m. ET May 18, 2004May 17 - The White
House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that
U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as
a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the
Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according
to an internal White House memo and interviews with
participants in the debate over the issue.
The concern about possible future prosecution for war
crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush
adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a
crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo
by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by
NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the
war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban
and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of
the Geneva Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a
little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the
War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from
committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave
breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the
law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments
for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales
told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with
confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might
apply the law in the future. This was especially the
case given that some of the language in the Geneva
Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon
personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of
prisoners—was "undefined."
advertisement
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al
Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention
protections is that it "substantially reduces the
threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War
Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.
"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors
and independent counsels who may in the future decide
to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441
[the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.
THE WAR CRIME MEMOS
• Click here to read the Gonzales Memo
• Click here to read Colin Powell's response
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted
charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be
for President Bush to stick to his decision—then being
strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell— to
exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters from Geneva convention provisions.
"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in
law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which
would provide a solid defense to any future
prosecution," Gonzales wrote.
The memo—and strong dissents by Secretary of State
Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William
Howard Taft IV—are among hundreds of pages of internal
administration documents on the Geneva Convention and
related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and
are reported for the first time in this week's
magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online
today.
RELATED STORY
A Secret History: How Torture Took Root
The memos provide fresh insights into a fierce
internal administration debate over whether the United
States should conform to international treaty
obligations in pursuing the war on terror.
Administration critics have charged that key legal
decisions made in the months after September 11, 2001
including the White House's February 2002 declaration
not to grant any Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters
prisoners of war status under the Geneva Convention,
laid the groundwork for the interrogation abuses that
have recently been revealed in the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq.
As reported in this week's magazine edition, the
Gonzales memo urged Bush to declare all aspects of the
war in Afghanistan—including the detention of both Al
Qaeda and Taliban fighters—exempt from the strictures
of the Geneva Convention. In the memo, Gonzales
described the war against terorrism as a "new kind of
war" and then added: "The nature of the new war places
a high premium on other factors, such as the ability
to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists
and their sponsors in order to avoid further
atrocities against American civilians, and the need to
try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing
civilians."
But while top White House officials publicly talked
about trying Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes, the
internal memos show that administration lawyers were
privately concerned that they could tried for war
crimes themselves based on actions the administration
were taking, and might have to take in the future, to
combat the terrorist threat.
The issue first arises in a January 9, 2002, draft
memorandum written by the Justice Department's Office
of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that "neither the
War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions" would apply
to the detention conditions of Al Qaeda or Taliban
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The memo includes a
lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which it
concludes has no binding effect on the president
because it would interfere with his Commander in Chief
powers to determine "how best to deploy troops in the
field." (The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and
Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a
question by the Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not
be tried for violations of the laws of war in
Afghanistan because such international laws have "no
binding legal effect on either the President or the
military.")
But while the discussion in the Justice memo revolves
around the possible application of the War Crimes Act
to members of the U.S. military, there is some reason
to believe that administration lawyers were worried
that the law could even be used in the future against
senior administration officials.
One lawyer involved in the interagency debates over
the Geneva Conventions issue recalled a meeting in
early 2002 in which participants challenged Yoo, a
primary architect of the administration's legal
strategy, when he raised the possibility of Justice
Department war crimes prosecutions unless there was a
clear presidential direction proclaiming the Geneva
Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan.
The concern seemed misplaced, Yoo was told, given that
loyal Bush appointees were in charge of the Justice
Department.
"Well, the political climate could change," Yoo
replied, according to the lawyer who attended the
meeting. "The implication was that a new president
would come into office and start potential
prosecutions of a bunch of ex-Bush officials," the
lawyer said. (Yoo declined comment.)
This appears to be precisely the conce