Bush Admin War Criminals
by KevinJune 18th, 2008
Send them to the Haugue:
The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn’t the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.
It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.
… The quintet of lawyers, who called themselves the “War Council,” drafted legal opinions that circumvented the military’s code of justice, the federal court system and America’s international treaties in order to prevent anyone — from soldiers on the ground to the president — from being held accountable for activities that at other times have been considered war crimes.
The Bush Administration — out of abject cowardice or simple hatred of democratic norms — acted in a way that a Stalin or a Pinochet would have appreciated. These people are dime store monsters, nothing more, and they should be hel accountable for their actions. I hope that, like Pinochet, they one day run out of places to hide.
Categories: General, Legal Issues, Terrorism |
While I agree with the premise, your comparisons to Stalin and Pinochet are WAY over the top and damage the validity of the rest of your comment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but thousands upon thousands of detainees haven’t been murdered in cold blood have they? That was the mark of Stalin and Pinochet.
Criticize, yes. Hold accountable, yes. But over-the-top rhetoric simply makes you look foolish, at least in the eyes of reasonable people. With that kind of comparison, you place yourself on a level ground with those you so easily criticize and I’m sure you do not want to be at that level.
Its a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. They use the same tactics and the same arguments, even if not on the same scale.
I would say it is the difference between effectively communicating your position and being dismissed as a kook. If your intent is to please yourself and preach to like-minded people, great, don’t change a thing. If your intent is to attempt to affect change, then Big U’s comments are spot on.
I guess, Ted. But, c’mon - can’t we tolerate some hyperbole.
Plus, he just said Stalochet (they got married in California, and now they have a celeb couple name) would have appreciated the Bush Admin’s actions. I assume they would, at least to a greater degree than say, Thomas Jefferson, would (I bet Sally Hemmings had a much more ass than Conde Rice).
He only actually equated to the extent that he wishes “they run out of places to hide.” I feel the same way about the entire cast of The Hills, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re just like Pinochet.
*Note: I’ve officially stepped into 2004 or something by replacing Paris Hilton with the cast of The Hills as the stand-by representation of worthless life that I’m continually fed “news” about for some reason.
Ted
The fact that you could look at the system they have and the actions they have taken and says comparison to the system of Stalin or Pinochet is somehow over the top speaks to how corrupted our discourse has become.
They started a war under false pretenses that ha skilled tens to hundreds of thousands of people, they approved torture and kangaroo courts and hiding prisoners form the red cross and not prosecuting people who tortured prisoners to death. We literally have no idea how many of these prisoners actually exist. If I am a kook for pointing out who else behaved like that, then, well, I guess I am a kook. Maybe if there are enough of us willing to be kooks we can start getting this taken half as seriously as a blow job.
If Bush were to start rounding up and killing off thousands of Democrats and any political opponents in the US, then you have a comparison. Until then you don’t. And making comments such as you are shows an over-the-top eagerness to paint the administration in a certain light.
The actions you mention need to be dealt with severely and completely but there still is no comparison. It would be no different if you were to say what the Bush administration is doing is comparable to what Mugabe is doing and that would simply be ludicrous.
So, it only matters that he just occasionally does it to American citizens and generally confines himself to busing foreigners, so the fact that he uses the same techniques and justifications as a person like Pinochet is excused.
Bush may not have applied these tactics in as widespread a manner as Pinochet, but they are not aberrations or one off mistakes. they are systematically embedded into the Justice Department and the Pentagon and that embedding came at his orders. there is certainly a difference in degree between Pinochet and Bush, but there is no difference in kind.
A thief that steals a hundred diamonds is still a their, even if another thief stoled a thousand.
*A thief that steals a hundred diamonds is still a their, even if another thief stoled a thousand.*
And anyone will tell you that each thief will be judged accordingly. They will not both get identical sentences which you seem intent on delivering.
Now, you seem to think I am excusing what Bush has done but I see nowhere that I have written that or even suggested it. If you truly believe what you are saying in stating that there is no difference between Bush, Pinochet and Stalin, then you are really no different than the intolerant right wingers that you so vilify. You just happen to occupy the opposite side of the spectrum.
One demonstrable difference is that if Bush were Stalin, Kevin would no longer be breathing.
Bush has crossed the point where his sentence should be the same as Pinochet and Stalin. Historically, obviously, they will not be judged the same, but they committed similar crimes and instituted similar system, even not to the same degree.
We have to stop assuming that just becasue someone is not the worst of the worse that they are still not bad enough to justify the harshest punishments or condemnations. We also have to stop assuming that just becasue someone isn’t able to take their system to its logical end that it share no similarities with the systems of people who were more extreme.
And, frankly, try having this argument with the Iraqi people. I am reasonably sure that the war Bush started has killed more of them than Pinochet killed.
But, whatever: I am just a kooky lefty and you are all calm and reasonable men perfectly content to argue about how many corpses makes you are really, really bad man.
I’m basically with Kevin.
Pinochet : Bush :: Bonds : Palmeiro
Raffy for the HOF, I guess…
Well, the Iraqi war has resulted in less deaths than happened under Hussein so maybe we should ask the Iraqi people. Maybe we should ask the Iraqi people who are getting fed up with foreign terrorists killing their own and now starting to support US troops and even act as informants for them.
As I said, I do not dispute that Bush and his cohorts deserve to be dealt with appropriately. Any war crimes unveiled should result in appropriate punishment. Period. But to compare Bush and his apparent incompetence (a word heavily used by those on the left) with Stalin or Pinochet and their expert, detailed elimination of any and all possible opposition is simply ludicrous.
It would be similar to me saying that Clinton’s dithering in the Rwanda genocide cost the lives of 250,000 people so he is just as bad as all the world leaders that let Hitler go on his rampage before they stepped in. I could even say I guess he didn’t step in because there were no American interests to protect. Those comparisons and comments would be just as foolish as your comparisons between Bush, Stalin and Pinochet.
Big U
First, cut the GOP propaganda. The insurgency is almost entirely home grown and Bush’s war has killed almost as many people if not more than Hussein did.Okay, thats off topic and getting mean spirited. I’ll just say that none of the contentions in that paragraph are well sourced.Second, we aren’t talking about incompetance : these actions were deliberate and they were systematic. they systematically lied about the war. they systematically added torture to the interrogation methods. they systematically came up with the notion that they could lock a person away forever on the president’s say so. those weren’t mistakes — they were deliberate actions. Were those deliberate actions as bad as Pinochet’s in total? nope. But they certainly crossed the threshold of bad enough.
And you will ifnd no defense of Clinton over Rwanda form me. if you wish to compare his actions to those of Chamberlain or Bush and Darfur (or, heck, the EU and Darfur), you won’t get any argument here.
Kevin> Here is one place where your comparison fails in my eyes based solely on things I have read on both this blog and other left-wing or anti-Bush blogs:
For years now, all I have heard, especially from those on the left, yourself included, has been talk about how much of an idiot Bush is. How stupid he is. How he is so completely incompetent. But now that his term in office is coming to a close, those same people are saying how brilliant he was and how intelligent, systematic and detail-oriented he was to mastermind this whole circumvention of international law and the US constitution.
You see, you can’t have it both ways. It is impossible for him to be so incredibly brilliant and scheming while at the same time being a total buffoon. But for some reason everyone on the left has missed that fact.
I could understand people saying Bush is an idiot and he got misled by his advisors. I could understand people saying he was stupid in who he surrounded himself with. But it defies intelligent thought to put Bush in the same class as Pinochet and Stalin who, while they were psychotic were actually incredibly smart, and then in the next breath say how stupid he was.
BigU
First, let me introduce you to the definition of hyperbole
Second, Bush has smart people working for him
Third, they didn’t keep it secret, did they? the only reason they have got away with it is becasue our press refuses to treat it as seriously as a blow job and our political opposition has refused to take the necessary steps to hold these people accountable.
Fourth: torturing people is stupid. It doesn’t work, it has never worked, and it has always created backlashes.
Five: I have actually read a bit about how neither Stalin or Pinochet were all that smart — just ruthless and backed by the biggest stick on the block.
Big U,
I agree in spirit – and the crux of your post is something I’ve been preaching for a long time! Don’t call these people idiots!
The reluctance to see things for what they are is a manifestation of a cognitive dissonance, and a tribute to the power of the jingoistic and self-righteous bullshit we’ve been fed - because the substance belies the histories of our domestic and international policy histories. The inclination to call Bush and idiot, or to call the War on Drugs a failure, for example, comes from the inability to consider alternative motives or priorities. It’s like watching White Sox play the 1919 World Series – these guys fucking suck - unless of course, you knew what their priorities were.
Sure, I’ll make Bush is dumb jokes, and I’ll stand by that to a certain extent. He’s not watching I Heart Huckabees and laughing at the Existentialist allegories. But, just because he’s not an intellectual doesn’t mean he can’t be pragmatic about his myopic self and class interest in a global setting. To that extent, the argument of is it Bush himself or the nefarious but intelligent advisors is a false dichotomy. Call it “the Administration.”
I’ll keep this short, because I really have more to say here than may be relevant, but to simply dismiss these people as morons does them a great service, and us none, practically speaking.