Bush's 'war crimes' & misdemeanors

09/06/2008
AlJazeera Magazine Online Edition

The evidence is now overwhelming that Bush knew of – and approved of – violations of the rules of war.

By Robert Parry

Facing a tough reelection fight in 2004, George W. Bush expressed outrage over leaked photos showing U.S. military police at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison abusing detainees, who were paraded naked before female guards, threatened by attack dogs, chained in “stress positions” and forced to wear ladies underpants on their heads.

President Bush assured the American people that he “shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated.” Other administration officials pinned the blame on a “few bad apples” and dismissed the prison guards’ claim that they were told to “soften up” the detainees for interrogation.

Now, a report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General reveals that months before those abuses at Abu Ghraib, nearly identical tactics were used against “war on terror” detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at CIA prisons – and that FBI complaints about the tactics went up the chain of command back to Washington.

FBI agents at Guantanamo even opened a file that they labeled “war crimes” to document the systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions and laws against torture that they witnessed – before being told by superiors to close the file.

According to the Inspector General’s report, the FBI protests reached the White House but went unheeded. Instead, the prisoner abuses spread to Iraq where the Abu Ghraib prison was “Gitmo-ized” with the same harsh and bizarre tactics applied to Iraqi detainees.

So, the new Inspector General’s report adds to the growing body of evidence that – in the months before Election 2004 – Bush only feigned shock about what was being done to detainees in American custody.

The evidence is now overwhelming that Bush knew of – and approved of – those violations of the rules of war and basic human decency, that the “war crimes” catalogued by the FBI agents could be traced to him.

In April 2008, ABC News reported, citing unnamed sources, that during the early days of the “war on terror,” senior Bush aides met in what was called the Principals Committee to calibrate the level of harsh techniques that would be used against detainees.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

“The high-level discussions about these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed – down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic,” ABC News reported, adding:

“These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al-Qaeda suspects – whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC News.”

Asked about his subordinates setting these interrogation rules, Bush told ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz that “yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." [ABC News, April 11, 2008]

Moral leader?
Yet, in 2004, by dismissing the grotesque scenes at Abu Ghraib as an aberration, Bush portrayed himself as a moral leader who was furious that some low-level American soldiers would misbehave in such a fashion.

After the photos became public, Army Sgt. Sam Provance was the only uniformed military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib to support the guards’ claim that the prisoner abuse was part of the “alternative interrogation techniques” that had made their way from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib.

Provance, however, was punished for his candor and pushed out of the U.S. military. The Bush administration then went ahead and pinned the blame on the MPs.

Eventually, 11 enlisted soldiers were convicted in courts martial. Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. received the harshest sentence – 10 years in prison – while Lynndie England, a 22-year-old single mother who was photographed holding an Iraqi on a leash, was sentenced to three years in prison.

Protected from the scandal’s fallout, Bush was rewarded with a second term in the White House. Later, he began to treat the Abu Ghraib case like some freak accident that the media had blown out of proportion.

At a press conference on May 25, 2006, Bush complained, “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time.”

However, it’s now clear the President didn’t pay much of a personal price at all. The more complete record now available indicates that Bush was a knowledgeable participant in the sadistic treatment of detainees, not an innocent bystander.

Indeed, on Feb. 7, 2002, Bush signed the key memo that cleared the way for the abuses, asserting that the Geneva Conventions’ prohibitions against the degrading treatment of prisoners did not apply to “unlawful combatants,” including al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Many casual readers missed the import of Bush’s phrasing, which stressed that captives would be treated “humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”

The operative phrase in the memo turned out to be “to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity.” In the Bush administration’s view, that was a loophole you could drive a truck full of abusive tactics through.

Fresh evidence
The Inspector General’s report, released May 20, 2008, also provides fresh evidence that senior Bush aides signed off on the harsh treatment of detainees.

In spring 2002, when FBI agents objected to the treatment of badly wounded al-Qaeda captive Abu Zubaydah – what one agent called “borderline torture” – they were assured by CIA personnel “that the procedures being used on Zubaydah had been approved ‘at the highest levels,’” the Inspector General’s report said.

But one of the FBI agents, called “Thomas” in the report, still passed on his concerns to his superior, FBI Counterterrorism Assistant Director Pasquale D'Amuro, who soon pulled the FBI agents out of the interrogation.

D’Amuro, in turn, took the issue of Zubaydah’s interrogation to FBI Director Robert Mueller; Michael Chertoff, then Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; and other senior department officials, the report said.

During a meeting with his superiors in summer 2002, D’Amuro said he learned that the CIA had obtained a legal opinion from the Justice Department opening the door for the harsh interrogations.

That was an apparent reference to memos written by John Yoo of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, claiming that the President’s commander-in-chief authority gave Bush the right to ignore laws if he deemed that necessary to protect the nation.

“After his meeting at Chertoff's office, [D’Amuro] met with Director Mueller and recommended that the FBI not get involved in interviews in which aggressive interrogation techniques were being used,” the Inspector General’s report said.

“He stated that his exact words to Mueller were ‘we don't do that,’ and that someday the FBI would be called to testify and he wanted to be able to say that the FBI did not participate in this type of activity.

“D'Amuro said that the Director agreed with his recommendation that the FBI should not participate in interviews in which these techniques were used.”

D’Amuro said he objected to the harsh techniques because they were less effective in gleaning reliable information; complicated later prosecutions; violated moral standards; and “helped al-Qaeda in spreading negative views of the United States.”

Up the ladder
These FBI concerns made there way up the ladder to Bush’s National Security Council.

Mueller’s chief of staff Daniel Levin said he attended a meeting at the NSC at which CIA techniques were discussed and an attorney from the Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] defended their legality.

“Levin stated that in connection with this meeting, or immediately after it, FBI Director Mueller decided that FBI agents would not participate in interrogations involving techniques the FBI did not normally use in the United States, even though OLC had determined such techniques were legal,” the Inspector General’s report said.

FBI agents also crossed swords with Pentagon interrogators over similar abusive techniques instituted at Guantanamo, especially the harsh questioning of suspected 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani between Nov. 23, 2002, and Jan. 15, 2003.

During this period, military interrogators tied al-Qahtani to a dog leash and made him perform dog tricks; repeatedly poured water over his head; put him in painful stress positions; questioned him for periods of 20 hours straight; stripped him naked in front of a woman; held him down while a female interrogator straddled him; called his mother and sister whores; accused him of homosexual tendencies; made him dance with a male interrogator; ordered him to pray to an idol shrine; and subjected him to extreme temperatures.

At one point in December 2002, al-Qahtani was taken to a hospital suffering from low blood pressure and low body core temperature, what one FBI agent termed hypothermia.

The FBI’s objections to al-Qahtani’s interrogation also were brought to the attention of senior officials in Washington, according to the Inspector General’s report.

David Nahmias, a counsel in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, told the IG that he was “fairly confident” that department officials raised the al-Qahtani issue at a meeting of the Principals Committee.

Nahmias also said he believed Attorney General Ashcroft spoke with someone at the NSC, mostly likely NSC adviser Rice, about the FBI concerns regarding al-Qahtani.

“When asked if anything ever happened as a result of these meetings, Nahmias said that DOJ officials were continually frustrated by their inability to get any changes or make progress with regard to the al-Qahtani matter,” the report said.

Ashcroft, who resigned in November 2004 shortly after Bush won a second term, declined to be interviewed by the Inspector General.

Lack of action
But the reason for a lack of action on the FBI complaints is now more obvious.

The FBI’s evidence of “war crimes” went up the chain of command, all the way to the White House, the NSC and the Principals Committee – precisely where the abusive policies had been developed in the first place.

Before senior FBI officials grasped this high-level support for the mistreatment of detainees, some FBI agents were instructed to compile the evidence for a “war crimes” file at Guantanamo.

“At some point in 2003, however,” the Inspector General’s report said, the FBI agents at Guantanamo “received instructions not to maintain a separate ‘war crimes’ file, … that investigating detainee allegations of abuse was not the FBI's mission.”

When the ugly reality of how the United States was treating detainees finally surfaced in spring 2004 with the Abu Ghraib photos, Bush and his top aides pretended that they were innocent parties as shocked as everyone else.

By laying the blame off on a “few bad apples,” Bush managed to get through the November 2004 election relatively unscathed.

And now that the truth is finally coming to the surface, it appears to be too late for him to be held accountable for “war crimes” and other abuses of his presidential powers.

Some members of the Democratic-controlled Congress have expressed outrage over the latest disclosures and want hearings.

But – if recent history suggests anything – it is that the Bush administration will brush aside congressional inquiries, and the Democrats, who long ago took impeachment off the table, will surrender once again.

-- Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

ConsortiumNews





-- Middle East Online

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM:

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in an American flag. -Sinclair Lewis-

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM:
-Powerful and continuing nationalism
-Disdain for human rights
-Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
-Supremacy of the military
-Rampant sexism
-Controlled mass media
-Obsession with national security
-Religion and government intertwined
-Corporate power protected
-Labor power suppressed
-Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
-Obsession with crime and punishment
-Rampant cronyism and corruption
-Fraudulent elections

Sound familiar?

*A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER*

Subject: A Clear and Present Danger


I received the following from an extremely well informed person. This explains the situation the Federal Reserve and its member banks are in at this exact time...
It explains how we got here and what needs to be done to free ourselves of the bankers who have illegally run our money system for most of the last century.
This is the most important article you will read. I ask that you send it to everyone you know. It explains everything clearly and simply. You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand what happened, how it happened, and what we the citizens of the united states MUST do to insure that the bankruptcy of CORPORATE UNITED STATES does NOT fall on us!! Please read this carefully.



*April 24, 2008*


*A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER* - Part One


If events proceed as I hope, the Federal Reserve also will be dissolved as insolvent, and its Notes we have used as currency for 75 years will become valueless after some period where legally earned notes may be exchanged for new and legal United States money. *There will be volumes written in the future about how the United States of America, and particularly the control of our Treasury were quietly placed in private hands and secretly, from the general population, held and used there for 75 years. Those hands were for the most part,European, and had little, if any, interest in the welfare of the Citizens of this nation. Some of the "hands" were US, and they were even more ruthless. *

*But the situation has dramatically changed during the past five years, and particularly since November of 2007.*

*This narrative will necessarily begin with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria at Mukden. That is a well known historical fact. What is not as well known and understood is the "Mukden Incident" which occurred on September 18, 1931 was, in essence, a subterfuge undertaken by a few junior officers of the Japanese army when they secretly dynamited the South Manchurian Railway (owned by Japan) to provide the motive for the Japanese military conquest of Manchuria which continued until the Japanese victory on February 18, 1932 .*

*The most available explanation for the Japanese Manchurian invasion was that Japan coveted resource-rich Manchuria as a source of cheap raw materials for their burgeoning industrial complex. That explanation's basis is true, especially given an increasing shortage of favorably priced raw materials which Japan had to otherwise purchase and import from other sources.*

*But there was another, and largely hidden, reason. In 1931, the Manchuria-China border was only a few miles from Beijing where the Chinese Emperor, Pu-yi resided. The Manchu emperors kept much of their gold and other treasury items in northern Manchuria just a few miles from border, and therefore only a short distance from their Chinese capital.*

*Very shortly after the Japanese invasion commenced in southern Manchuria, a delegation sent by the United States Federal Reserve Bank to Beijing entered into negotiation with the Emperor. The Federal Reserve's offer was to quickly remove the Royal Treasury from its Manchurian location, and thereafter lease the contents of the Treasury for seventy years. In return, the Emperor received valid United States Federal Reserve bonds, maturing in seventy years, and in sufficient quantity to guarantee the debt as well as enough to pay the to-be accrued- seventy-year-interest. *

*The terms of the lease required the Emperor's estate, at the end of seventy years, to exchange the bonds with interest coupons attached, to the Federal Reserve in exchange for the return of all the Emperor's gold and other treasure, plus the accrued interest (to be paid in gold), to his estate's custody. *

*The contents of the Emperor's Manchurian Treasury were taken overland through China, and then by sea to Manila, Philippines, where the US quickly built and operated the largest gold refinery, at that time, in the world. After the gold was refined, some of it was sent to Switzerland where it was stored in extensive underground vaults under Zurich, while the greatest part was sent to the Federal Reserve vaults in New York.*

*Of course, much happened between 1931 and 2001, not the least of which was World War II and the Chinese Communist capture of all China except the island which was then called Formosa (now Taiwan). Pu-yi (the Emperor) remained a communist prisoner for many years and died as a gardener.*

*It apparently appeared to certain US and European financial interests who were interested parties in the leased Chinese Treasury, and it was probably their plan, that the Chinese imperial line died out, or at least was so impoverished that it had no means or power to recover any of their leased Treasury materials and articles. * *So seventy years passed.*

*In fact, the leasing parties grossly miscalculated. The Emperor, Pu-yi, had additional gold and other assets stored in protected places other than Manchuria-assets which escaped the attentions and discoveries of both the Japanese and Communist Chinese. Within the past two decades, much of that wealth has been returned to his grandson, a certain "Mr. Yi" who resides in Taiwan.*

*The ownership and control of the bonds which were exchanged for the Chinese Treasury were placed a number of years ago in the hands of certain surviving members of the Chinese royal family, and recently Mr. Yi. *

*So when 2001 came, Mr. Yi, The Emperor's grandson, by now a very wealthy and powerful individual, formally negotiated the return of the Chinese Royal Family's leased legal estate and the accumulated interest thereof from the United States Federal Reserve Bank (the lessor), in exchange for the Federal Reserve bonds and attached interest coupons. The returned amount of the Emperor's Treasury and interest was a very small part of what was owed.*

*A major part of the problem was that the United States Federal Reserve Bank, although owned by the United States Citizens by way of their Constitutional government, was operated from the beginning as a private organization whose assets were also privately owned, held and used (that included the entire amount collected from the Citizens/citizens as taxes). *

*The Chinese Treasury was divided for years among a number of wealthy and powerful European and North American interests, many of whom never expected the Chinese royal line to survive. Consequently, they never expected to repay either the principal or the interest due on the Chinese royal assets they held and used. *

*In fact, many of them firmly resisted Mr. Yi's legal demand that whatever Chinese royal assets they held were required to be immediately returned with all due interest. *

*After some resistance, some of the Europeans holding Chinese Treasury assets
returned some of the Emperor's Treasury, but that amount also fell far-far short of what was actually owed. *

*Mr. Yi has since used legal and financial resources available to him, especially the assistance of a little known but very powerful World Monetary Authority, to force the return of assets which are properly his.*

*That brings us the present. But before we can further address our subject, we need to explore more history-United States history. * *On April 6, 1933, President Roosevelt, with Congressional approval, declared a "national bank holiday" which lasted through April 9. There is a plethora of information about that period and the reasons causing such, but there is practically nothing said about one major event which occurred during the same time. A corporation was formed at the President's order called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION. That was done without Congressional action of any sort, so that organization is, and always has been, a privately owned, not public, corporation. At the same time, our legal system shifted from Public and English Common Law, to Private International Law.*

*THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION then usurped all the identity, power, legal standing, laws and mandates, and assets of the Constitutional United States-virtually seamlessly and with hardly anyone even suspecting what had happened-for 75 years. * *Let me restate that in less complicated terms-for 75 years a private corporation, not our Constitutional government, has performed the role of our government for the exclusive benefit of that organization's shareholders and their friends. *

*The CORPORATION, through Congress, immediately passed into "law" such things as the law establishing the FEDERAL REGISTER ACT, which effectively allows the President to declare and establish "law" by publishing his declaration in the FEDERAL REGISTER, that without consulting or informing Congress, let alone requiring their debate and passage of any effective law. *

*That should explain a great deal about why our "government" consistently behaves outside our Constitution and other laws. Our Constitutional government is bound (limited) by the Constitution. The CORPORATION, however, is bound only by the tenets of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, both Private International Law, which, inthis country, may only be tried and enforced by and in Admiralty, not civil or equity courts. Equity courts were done away with by our"government" soon after our form of law was changed.*

*A large book could be (and probably should be) written on the subject of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, however that is definitely outside the scope of this document. We will work only with the relationship of Mr. Yi and his efforts to enforce his contract with the Federal Reserve Bank. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, since it is in mortal financial default, was forced by the Monetary Authority to negotiate, for the past several months in Switzerland, their bankruptcy. Two Mondays ago the initial bankruptcy filings of that CORPORATION were placed in the United States Supreme Court. That bankruptcy was forced by Chinese and "other" interests.*

*I posit that the Citizens/citizens (yes, there is a difference), as well as those Citizens who are also Native Americans, also have a substantial legal interest in that matter, but as yet not legally entered in the case. It is absolutely essential that the CORPORATION assets placed in the legal proceeding be only theirs, and not the assets of the Constitutional United States, their Citizens/citizens assets and persons, and anything which is the property of our Native Americans. *

*I further posit that CORPORATION owes a great debt to the Constitutional United States of America and its Citizens/citizens. Our rights will be protected only if we act-it is in no one else's interest to so do. We need several very skilled Constitutional attorneys licensed and able to practice and argue in and before the US Supreme Court. If anyone fitting that description reads this document and would agree to assist, we need to hear from you immediately.

--- end of part one ---


So here is the rest of the story:

All of the business done by the Federal Reserve Bank of America since its inception in 1913 skirted the US Constitution by calling the currency they issued as "UNITED STATES NOTES" because it was specifically unconstitutional for the word "money" to appear anywhere on any note. Had the word "money" appeared, the Fed would have been guilty of counterfeiting. Furthermore, only the US government had the authority to produce and promulgate "money." The evidence of this is to be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I posit that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a private organization continuously with shareholders, officers and directors since inception, has illegally been, with the collusion of the Federal Reserve Bank (another corporation, public but operated until this last year as a private organization), in complete control of the financial life of this you know, the CORPORATION is now in bankruptcy.

As a private corporation, whatever debts they have incurred as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which by the way is virtually all the debt attributed to this nation, is actually theirs and not the Constitutional United States' and/or its Citizens/citizens. That can and will be proved in due time in a court of law, probably the US Supreme Court.

On the other hand, I believe the United States (Constitutional), its assets, its Citizens and their assets and can be proven to be not owned by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and therefore outside the bankruptcy. I believe the hyperinflation depression information (The writer's first email was posted as part of this article) sent you earlier today can be avoided if we act quickly and wisely. I can expand on that subject later.

If events proceed as I hope, the Federal Reserve also will be dissolved as insolvent, and its Notes we have used as currency for 75 years will become valueless after some period where legally earned notes may be exchanged for new and legal United States money.

I wish to see the United States to return to a precious metal basis for its money and I know how that can happen. But we have some rough water ahead, and unless we wish to experience hyperinflation depression or any part of it, we must act immediately to have something in place to replace the Fed notes we now use as currency.

I can expand on the above, but you have probably enough to think about now so I will call it a day.

Wyoming sheriffs put feds in their place

February 18, 2007

Here’s one the mainstream media isn’t going to tell you: County sheriffs in Wyoming are demanding that federal agents actually abide by the Constitution, or face arrest. Even better, a U.S. District Court agreed according to the Keene Free Press:

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis comments:

“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

“I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law.”

The implications are huge:

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,” the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that “political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States.”

It appears to me that one office where the Libertarian Party should focus it’s limited resources is County Sheriff. The change that could be made is nothing to laugh at. Meanwhile, there are still a bunch of nuts wasting valuable resources supporting those that seek offices that will never be won.