www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Crimes Against Humanity

There is some talk in some circles of charging Mr. Bush with "Crimes against humanity". It's a free country so I suppose people can talk about almost anything they wish...even if such talk seems rather nonsensical.

It reminds me of some talk against FDR's abuses of power during the depression and WWII. FDR did assume much authority not spelled out in the Constitution. Some of the things he did were understandable in cases of emergency. Some were harmful in the long run.

One of the harmful things was the interment of many Japanese Americans. He had opposition but no one accused him, as far as I know, with "Crimes against humanity".

"On February 7, 1942 Biddle met with Roosevelt and set out the Justice Department's objections to the proposal. Roosevelt then ordered that a plan be drawn up to evacuate the Japanese-Americans from California in the event of a landing or air attacks on the West Coast by Japan, but not otherwise. But on February 11 he met with Secretary of War Stimson, who persuaded him to approve an immediate evacuation. There was evidence of espionage on behalf of Japan in the U.S. before and after Pearl Harbor; code-breakers decrypted messages to Japan from agents in North America and Hawaii. These MAGIC cables were kept secret from all but those with the highest clearance, such as Roosevelt, lest the Japanese discover the decryption and change their code."

CDL

There are two articles that a must read for those who oppose fighting the islamists (including the efforts in the Afghani and Iraqi theaters of operation). Both are from the January 2006 edition of "The New Criterion":

After the suicide of the West [newcriterion.com] by Roger Kimball

and

It�s the demography, stupid [newcriterion.com] by Mark Steyn

I don't agree with every word (the one article is especially pessimistic) but both articles provide much food for thought. There are several other interesting articles in this issue.

Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader and islamist: �We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.�

The technical term, "crime against humanity", has been defined in international law by the Rome Statute of the Intenational Criminal Court [un.org] adopted in 1998. The term has its roots in the 1907 Hague Convention. In post World War I, the Allies established a commission to investigate war crimes which relied upon the Hague Convention as applicable law. In addition to war crimes attributed to the German government, the commission found Turkish officials had committed crimes against humanity for killing Armenians during World War I. The US and Japan objected to the criminalization of the Turkish acts based on the legal theory that the Turkish acts were violations of moral, not positive, law.

After World War II, the Allies established the International Military Tribunal to investigate war crimes. The IMT restricted its focus to the actions of the Axis powers. The Charter [yale.edu] developed by the Allies at Nuremberg would be relied upon as applicable law. This is the first instance that "crimes against humanity" were established in positive international law. Since the IMT was restricted to investigate the actions of the Axis powers, FDR, already dead, would not have come under investigation for the internment of Japanese-Americans.

Hi All,
I don't have time to read the articles right now. However, I will make a quick comment.
Why did the meeting with the former Secretaries of Defense & State end so abruptly with Bush the other day? Bush comes across as the Sun King of our time - like Louis XIV of France - the man who said, "I am the State". An autocrat simply cannot tolerate any dissenting opinions.
Good Luck Daniel. I'm tired of these discussions.
-Wolfgang

I think it's silly to put Bush or ANY president of the U.S. into the category of "tyrant" or "dictator".

No matter how much you may disagree with their policies, they were elected, and they can be thrown out of office.

Plus, even if they ARE doing bad things, they'll only be doing them for 8 years, tops. Not quite in the same category as a Hussein or a Castro.

While I agree with much that the articles say about the West's death wish, to speak of the Islamist threat without any historical background is to remain in the dark.
Colonial Britain supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a bulwark against Arab nationalism. When the CIA got involved in the Middle East after WWII, they supported both the Saudis, promoters of Wahhabist militancy around the world, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandaddy of Islamic terror, as an ally against Marxism.
Don't forget the the Reagan administration helped train Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan.
Our policies, however well-meaning, have come back to bite us.
And of course Roosevelt was a war criminal; he oversaw the carpet bombing of cities during WWII. Estimates say the 650,000 German civilians died in that campaign, and probably more Japanese.
As for the Bush administration, they are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Constitution of the United States:
The torture and mistreatment of prisoners.
The illegal arrest and confinement of American citizens, without charges filed or legal counsel.
The false logic that human rights adhere to citizenship, not to humanity.
The lies and/or distortion of intelligence to lead our nation into war.
Illegally eavesdropping on American citizens.
Openly plotting an American global corporate empire.

Okay, let me have it.
-Daniel

Okay Daniel here is...

You said:

"Colonial Britain supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a bulwark against Arab nationalism. When the CIA got involved in the Middle East after WWII, they supported both the Saudis, promoters of Wahhabist militancy around the world, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandaddy of Islamic terror, as an ally against Marxism.

Don't forget the the Reagan administration helped train Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan.
Our policies, however well-meaning, have come back to bite us."

I say:

So what would you have had us do? Let's face it, the Soviets are gone.

You said:

"And of course Roosevelt was a war criminal; he oversaw the carpet bombing of cities during WWII. Estimates say the 650,000 German civilians died in that campaign, and probably more Japanese."

I say:

In that I agree. Amazing how callous people were at one time. Do you know that the only building standing in Nurenburg was the one holding the trials. Underneath the rubble were 45,000 dead people. Now that was just Nurenburg. What about all the other large cities in Germany?

The people were starving for two years. There were no men left...but that's Germany for you. Always using it's talents to self destruct. I once read that only about 16,000 people were left after their religious wars.

I recall hearing when I was young, that our troops forbade the children in Germany to play with toy guns. I guess it takes a lot to change a culture.

You said:

"As for the Bush administration, they are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Constitution of the United States:
The torture and mistreatment of prisoners.
The illegal arrest and confinement of American citizens, without charges filed or legal counsel.
The false logic that human rights adhere to citizenship, not to humanity.
The lies and/or distortion of intelligence to lead our nation into war.
Illegally eavesdropping on American citizens.
Openly plotting an American global corporate empire."

I say:

Now you're just being rediculous. Just thank Pres. Bush that you're still alive. Don't forget we haven't had an attack since 911.

As for crimes against humanity, the greatest one's probably were the crimes committed by the French, English and German generals during WW I...against their own troops, mind you. Do you realize that each and everyday 20,000 men were being sent out to be killed, yet they couldn't advance even one inch in two years.

Zenovia

I, for one, am quite confident in our legal system to sort this out. By the grace of God, we live in a country where the finder of fact determines a person's guilt (not innocence), not the dictates of one person.

That we haven't had an attack since 9/11 either means that Bush and Co have done a great job or that the threat of Al Queda was exaggerated, that it was the pretext for an invasion of Iraq [and Bush always intended to attack Iraq, well before 9/11; see How to Attack Iraq (1998) [newamericancentury.org] .]
And if Al Queda is the big threat why haven't we- the most powerful and technologically sophisticated nation on earth- found Osama bin Laden?
Maybe "we" don't want to find him?
Maybe we don't want our former protegees [like Noriega or Saddam] to talk?
Just wondering...
-D

And maybe the sky is falling. I'm with Wolfgang. These charges are stupid.

Dan L

I am pretty confident that Libby & Rove, Frist, DeLay, Cunningham, and Ney & everyone else bribed by Abramoff will get what's coming to them from the legal system.

For Bush, however, the redress for law-breaking is impeachment and removal from office. I think the Congress should, but is unlikely, to hold formal impeachment hearings on the eavsdropping matter. The FISA law is clear - DoJustice wouldn't sign off on the warrantless intercepts. The White House didn't comply with the law and didn't go to Congress to change it.

Will the Congress take any action? Probably not. But if not, then we have to admit that there is a problem with asserting that the legal system will give justice on such matters.

I agree with Father Deacon John that the legal system will sort this out.

The whole thing is certainly complex. But it is not new or unique. Those who think that President Bush is expanding presidential powers are simply ignorant of history, even the history of the Clinton administration. One of the members of the Clinton administration had an opinion piece over the weekend in which he argued that Clinton did the exact same thing as Bush is doing now (after the 1995 Oklahoma bombing Clinton said that wiretapping without warrants was necessary because it was an issue of national security). At the beginning of WWII FDR started the process of intercepting copies of all international telegrams (no warrant, they were just given to the government). That process continued right up until the demise of telegrams. The fact that no one really cared during previous administrations but care deeply now suggests a mostly partisan reaction to the whole thing.

What bothers me is that no one seems interested in investigating and prosecuting those who leaked classified information. All of this should have been handled as is appropriate to classified information. Those who cry for prosecutions in the case of the outing of Plame (if indeed a violation has occurred there) should be consistent and demand prosecution of those who revealed classified information to out this wiretapping program. The fact that Congress was in on this and that both Republicans and Democrats were briefed suggests that there was no malicious intent and that Congress did indeed have oversight.

My guess is that there will be no legal action taken here. If there is, I suspect it would be upheld by the courts (they have upheld other similar things based upon the president�s constitutional role in providing for the national defense). In the end I think that those who believe that presidents don�t have the right to do these things in the interest of national security will need to amend the Constitution.

The Abramoff scandal will be dealt with. Already we see people on both sides of the aisle giving donations they have received from him to charity. Those who have broken the law should be prosecuted, regardless of party affiliation. Sadly, though, it seems to me that members of both parties are addicted to this type of money. It also seems that for the most part what we are seeing is probably morally wrong yet not illegal.

These scandals are certainly an example of the corrupting potential of money. When the Dems controlled Congress they were awash with money scandals (think the House Bank scandal, among many others). Now the Republicans are in charge they are on the same path. Given the anger coming from the Republican base I am hoping that there can be a real reform (one that ends things like �earmarks�). I know that I will certainly be contacting my Congressional reps and telling them to do a full fledged reform rather then just some lobbying rule changing.

I see you are bringing your usual well-reasoned and articulate approach to this conversation. :rolleyes:
And Wolfgang said no such thing; I believe he is sympathetic to what I have said, but too weary for the sort of "discussion" that such posts devolve into...
I hope those who think Bush's expansion of presidential powers, and the assumption that he is above the law and the constitution, realize that this is precedent for the next president too. I don't want to hear you whining when President Hilary Rodham Clinton excercises the imperial powers Bush pioneered [while claiming to be a conservative]!
-Daniel

The January 9, 2006 edition of Newsweek devotes its cover to the issue of the Imperial Presidency. In the article entitled "Full Speed Ahead", the authors Evan Thomas and Daniel Klaidman point out that throughout our history presidents have often breached individual rights during times of great crises.

When the French threatened US sovereignty on the open seas, President John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts,which strengthened the Federal government, and effectively silenced free speech and political opposition to the Federalists(the Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson). The Sedition Act made punishable by fine and imprisonment any treasonable activity, including the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing." Among those charged and arrested was Benjamin Franklin Bache, the editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora and grandson of Benjamin Franklin. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR interred Japanese-Americans, Nixon authorized wiretaps. We all know now that J. Edgar had free rein (or was it reign?) to carry out his investigations of so-called domestic enemies during various presidential administrations.

The debate over national security and personal civil liberties is as old as the Republic itself...

Reflecting upon the Abramoff scandal, I recall the words of a poltical science instructor while I was an undergrad at USC:

In reference to lobbyists:

These quotes are from the late, great Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, one time Speaker of the Assembly and former Treasurer for the State Of California.