Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

BREAKING: Nigeria indicts Cheney; White House blocks Spanish indictments.

By

For now this is going to be a quick hit and I’m not an expert on the legal issues.  Nigeria has apparently indicted Dick Cheney for Halliburton related activities and have requested an arrest warrant via Interpol.

Meanwhile we’re learning that the Obama administration not only doesn’t like to investigate his predecessor, the WH apparently pressured Spain to drop indictments against Bush officials.

I’m writing this as I’m watching the story on TV, so I don’t have links and I’m missing some of the details.  Feel free to fill in the gaps in the comments.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • I’m trying to maintain my support (if not enthusiasm) for President Obama. As challenging as all this is, surely “President McCain and Vice President Palin” is worse.

      <

      p>Still, this is truly disappointing.

      <

      p>I fear we are watching the end of the American Experiment.

      • I hope the we’ll lose power in a graceful entrepot sort of way as France did, rather than through war and ruin, as did ancient Greece.

        <

        p>But really, an indictment from a country where women are occasionally sentenced to death by stoning for adultery doesn’t carry a huge amount of moral weight.

        • regions in the north because they are mostly Moslem.  The other two major groups are the Ibo and Yoruba in the south and central parts of the country, predominantly christian/animist.  There are many other smaller groups of peoples in the country, too, and all of them follow the tradition of “dash” (bribery). There have probably been very few business deals consummated there without bribery being involved.  I would say that they even have the Russians beat in this regard. Of course, none of that excuses Haliburton or Cheney. Hate to sound cynical but it sounds like Haliburton didn’t bribe the right people, or they are looking for more dash to drop the case.

        • I encourage all of us to read it.

          <

          p>The Spanish do not sentence women to death by stoning for adultery.

          <

          p>Instead, a Spanish prosecutor finds the evidence that Richard Cheney ordered torture persuasive, and a Spanish court seems to agree. It seems that the Obama administration worked hard and diligently to block this investigation/prosecution.

          <

          p>From the link:

          In the spring of 2009, Spanish Judge Balthasar Garzon launched an inquiry into six Bush officials linked to the torture policy. They were then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Cheney adviser David Addington; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes; Pentagon official Douglas Feith; and Jay Bybee and John Yoo from the Office of Legal Counsel.

          According to Mother Jones’ David Corn, US officials began to put pressure on Spain almost as soon as the probe was announced.

          <

          p>I’m not sure that a nation who secretly intervenes to protect former leaders who ordered torture is in a particularly strong position to chastise the moral lapses of other governments.

          <

          p>I supported Barrack Obama in part in order to bring these war criminals to justice. Instead, his administration is protecting them. Now, that same government agitates to harass the source that published the embarrassing material exposing this duplicity.

          <

          p>This is not a good sign, folks.

          • Given how fast-and-loose the Spanish judiciary has played by the rules over the past coupla years, I’m not crazy about granted them the right to issue arrest warrants for any official anywhere in the world.

            • That’s why the war criminals should be investigated and prosecuted in the US by the US government.

              <

              p>If we don’t do it, somebody else will.

                • I fear you have forgotten that it was America who led the world rejecting such atrocities in the Nuremburg proceedings against German and Japanese war criminals.

                  <

                  p>I remind you of the Universal Jurisdiction doctrine used by the Spanish to arrest Augusto Pinochet:

                  <

                  p>

                  The Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture place a legally binding obligation on states that have ratified them to exercise universal jurisdiction over persons accused of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and torture or to extradite them to a country that will. The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, requires Organization of American States members who have ratified the Convention to exercise universal jurisdiction over persons suspected of the crime of “disappearances” or to extradite them. Although there are no treaties requiring states to exercise universal jurisdiction over genocide,
                  crimes against humanity and extrajudicial executions, taking into account the serious nature of the crimes, which along with “disappearances”, war crimes and torture, are the gravest crimes under international law, Amnesty International
                  believes that states should exercise universal jurisdiction over these crimes as well.

                  <

                  p>I also note the following paragraph:

                  Since the end of the Second World War more than a dozen states have conducted investigations, commenced prosecutions and completed trials based on universal jurisdiction or arrested people with a view to extraditing the persons to a state seeking to prosecute them. These states include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Senegal, Spain,
                  Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States

                  <

                  p>Your cynicism about prosecution of war crimes demeans you.

                • So what’s the point of your comment, Edgar?

                  <

                  p>Do you object to anyone prosecuting these individuals?

                  <

                  p>The facts — including their own statements — certainly rise to the level of certainty that merits an indictment and trial.

                  <

                  p>Do you think these crimes against humanity should be ignored?

                  <

                  p>If not, then who should prosecute them?

                • committed by Germany and Japan during WWII.  But let’s look at some countries which have committed such crimes since the end of the war: Russia, North Korea, Cuba, the former parts of Yugoslavia, England (torture of Irish in prison), Syria, Iran, etc., etc. In many cases, countries have tortured and murdered their own citizens. And one big difference: we were in the process of defending ourselves from terrorist attack, though you undoubtedly disagree with this.  The point I am making is that most members of the world community have their own sordid histories to worry about. I suggest that you talk to some members of the Basque community to hear about Spanish torture in the not too distant past.  Most countries are more concerned about covering up their own actions, which they know they would have to do if such a prosecution were to take place.
                  Sorry, my friend, that’s just the way I see it–even if it “demeans” me.:)

                • We executed Japanese for waterboarding US prisoners. We prosecuted, convicted, and punished the Japanese leaders who ordered it.

                  <

                  p>We know that the prior administration ordered the waterboarding of “detainees” — from the Oval Office, no less.

                  <

                  p>I’m familiar with the abuses that you mention. In my view, those in no way excuse or justify the formal orders to torture given from the Oval Office.

                  <

                  p>America does not torture.

                • So we agree that in a perfect world, Mr. Cheney et al would be prosecuted for ordering torture.

                  <

                  p>In this imperfect world, the Spanish were doing just that (since the US government was not). The WikiLeaks disclosures show that the US intervened to derail that prosecution.

                  <

                  p>Since you agree with me that in a perfect world, the prosecution would take place, do you then also agree with me that this interference with the Spanish process was wrong?

                  <

                  p>I want to add that I would have supported blocking the Spanish process if the argument was that it would interfere with an on-going US prosecution.

                • and tortured somewhere, I wouldn’t give a good goddamn whether America is fundamentally better or worse than Nazi Germany or the WWII Japanese.  

                • Nuremberg was a legal rationalization of the typical victor’s spoils in war of killing the other side’s leaders.  I don’t think anybody was truly attempting to mark precedent for future civilian, peacetime structures.

                  <

                  p>You’re right that universal jurisdiction led to Pinochet’s arrest.  But it could easily lead to many other arrests.  Imagine the Sudan adopts it and issues warrants for Ban Ki-Moon and Bill Clinton — is it still a good idea then?  There was flirting with the idea of setting a warrant for Ariel Sharon, then Binyamin Netanyahu, which to me would be a dangerous precedent in world affairs.

                • If there is going to be universal jurisdiction there needs to be some consensus on universal law.  Nuremberg may have been victors justice to some extent, but it actually tried the case of people who committed heinous acts.  Certainly we can get to a point where we can agree that certain crimes against humanity are beyond the pale and not just one country going after another country’s leader because they do not like them.

                • I do not agree that most, even some, governments are in a position to impartially prosecute those who carried them out.  Imagine the reverse outcome in WWII: Soviets tried for the Katyn massacre, Brits for the treatment of Rudolph Hess, Americans for internment.  

                • the internment of Japanese-Americans? If there ever was a case of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the modern age, the systematic murder of millions of civilians was surely it.

                • And what happened in Rwanda is far more severe than what happened in Serbia, yet people in both countries have been indicted.  We’re talking about entrusted the freedom of movement of government officials in all countries to every single kangaroo court in the world.

                • I still believe that America has the best court system in the world. Imperfect, yes, but still better than all the others.

                  <

                  p>Because I believe that these crimes against humanity must be stopped, I therefore believe that America has unique obligation to lead the world in investigating and prosecuting them. When we instead act to obstruct them, we create the very real problems that we both are concerned about. These were American political leaders. They violated American laws. America created this problem, and by rights America should therefore solve this problem.

                  <

                  p>The evidence against these officials from the prior administration is compelling, certainly strong enough to merit an indictment and prosecution. We are derelict in our duty to ourselves when we choose to ignore them.

                  <

                  p>In my view, the risk of prosecution by worldwide “kangaroo courts” is the obvious and predictable consequence of that dereliction of our duty.

Archives