For those of you who don't read Spanish, here is a link to the summary in the Post..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500307_pf.html

...and I wondered why Greg was pointing out Addington's presence in Saudi Arabia -- as Cheney's Chief of Staff, you'd kinda expect him to be there...

until I did a little research, and realized that Addington is among those who are part of the "war crimes complaint" filed in Germany... And I also found out something else I didn't know, from the wikipedia piece on Addington...

"The legal precedent for the prosecution of Mr. Addington and his co-defendant lawyers is the American prosecution of German jurists whose legal work was complicit in Nazi atrocities. See United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et. al., 6 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 1 (1947)(U.S.M.T. Nuremberg), commonly referred to as the Judges' Trial or the Justice Trial. In 1947, the American military tribunal at Nuremberg convicted a group of lawyers for complicity in international crimes for their role in enacting and enforcing laws and decrees that permitted crimes against humanity, including torture. None of the defendants in the Judges’ Trial were charged with a crime against a particular person. They were charged with complicity in an organized system of cruelty, which they had fostered in their role as lawyers. “The dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist. "

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 27, 2006 02:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

and this prosecution will contribute to the defeat of the enemy, who implacably seeks the utter destuction of America and the West, exactly how?

Posted by: neill at November 27, 2006 05:44 AM | Permalink to this comment

and this prosecution will contribute to the defeat of the enemy, who implacably seeks the utter destuction of America and the West, exactly how?

by showing the world that we are better than "the enemy"... in case you haven't noticed, most of the world views the USA with a combination of disgust and contempt, and this is especially true in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The Bush regime has accomplished what the "enemy" never could have done on their own --- sown the seeds of the "utter destruction" of the US. It has severely damaged our economic security by mortgaging our future to China, it has signficantly compromised our military security with the war in Iraq, but most critically, it has utterly destroyed our moral authority to lead the world.

If we are going to "defeat" the enemy, we need to reclaim that moral authority -- and the first step in doing that is acknowledging that our current leaders are war criminals.....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, was that a serious question?

Moral authority is an important part of the strategic picture, because we're trying to get uncommitted (or lightly committed) people in the ME to throw in with us and not with the other guys. Everyone recognizes this, and it is, imo, a big part of why supporters of the Admin harp endlessly on the barbarity of the other side. 'We're more moral than they are (and the bar is damn low), so join us.' I'd never say that this isn't true, but the problem is, it isn't enough. We need to be seen as living up to our own standards, not merely exceeding the standards of the foe. Because if even we won't act like we believe in democratic constitutionalism, in the rule of law, why should anyone else buy into it?

In terms of the transformation agenda, I think an Addington sentencing is worth way more than a Hussein sentencing.

The Admin understands the value of moral authority, inasmuch as they think that our superior moral position has genuine value (hence, greeted as liberators). What they don't understand, it seems, is that the position did not derive from some kind of divine mandate, but rather decades, centuries, of more-often-than-not adherence to the rule of law. Our Revolution was, in very substantial part, fought over exactly this ground.

(Sure we've done plenty of bad things over the years, but we've known when we were sinning against our faith, and have repented.)

This is why the government's position wrt Guantanamo is so frustrating. Instead of arguing over ways limit the legal rights of these men, we should be demonstrating what makes our system worthy of emulation. It's not the ability to create or find loopholes, but to put justice and the rule of law over individual ambition of the leaders. For this reason, Addington, Yoo, and Cheney have done more damage to the war effort than Muqtada al Sadr or Zarqawi could ever have done.

You may well think it's about raw power. You're wrong: there aren't enough gun in all the world, much less people to hold them, if we're going to win this war with guns alone.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 01:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, 'pwned' by Paul, as the kids say.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 01:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, can't you see that your credibility is utterly shot?

Your failure to understand the simplest facts of the situation is no longer amusing.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 27, 2006 03:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

All that said, the performance of Prof. Yoo and Mr. Addington et al is not completely without value. No one who has defended in slightest measure their readings of either the Commander-in-Chief Clause or the AUMF need ever be heard to disparage 'emanations from penumbras' or such.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 03:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Old news, people. Philippe Sands had this blanketed last year when he recounted a meeting with John Yoo:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/13/INGUPFLGKJ1.DTL&type=printable

Money quote:

"It seems he [Yoo] may not have turned his mind to the possibility that a legal adviser associated with a policy that permits torture contrary to international legal obligations could be subject to international investigation."

Also:

"The possibility cannot be excluded that the Pinochet precedent will come back to haunt Addington, Yoo and others in the Bush administration. International law is not just for other people in other countries. Ignoring it will not be cost-free, including worries about foreign travel..."

The question is not whether the Bushies get a collective shafting on account of their torture fetish, it is whether the lawyers wait till, like Rummy, they've left office before pursuing the individuals. But they're all in the cross-hairs, every single one of them. And there's ample precedent to support a case against them.

Posted by: Eddie-George at November 27, 2006 06:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's going to be so great when our public servants and military are more afraid of taking steps to protect us than to defend us (which would be now, or certainly when the Democrats take control next January). I hope the smoke from the first nuclear weapon detonated in the United States spells out "moral authority" or something similar.

On the chance it's my family and I turned to radioactive ash by those mindless murderers, please accept this pre-emptive "thank you" for all of your relentless psuedo-pious and self-righteous platitudes that are making us incapable of confronting this new type of war.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 06:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dennis,

If you're so eager to live in a country that compromises civil rights, without a moral compass beyond "the master government will protect you" and "kill em all first", I suggest that many such countries exist today.
Perhaps you could move there, so the rest of us can restore the integrity of, and live in, the country we know, love and respect as the USA.

Posted by: editor at November 27, 2006 06:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

Editor ~ if you are so eager to surrender our civil rights to those who despise us and want us dead, to turn our authority to defend ourselves over to the UN and the ICC and make it a crime to acknowledge we are fighting a different type of war that requires a modification of our methods to defend us (not your hyperbolic stereotype that you and the cowards on this thread use to describe what are otherwise necessary and measured steps) then you deserve to live under the Sharia Law the terrorists have planned for you.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 06:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dennis,

You successfully packed a whole lot of BS into a few short sentences.

First, what exactly is different about this war?

Second, do they want us dead or living under Sharia law?

Third, the cowards are the ones who rush willingly to give up their civil rights in the name of security.

Posted by: editor at November 27, 2006 07:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

I do not want to give up any civil rights, however I do want the terrorists in our country rounded up and brought to justice. I am not certain how tapping the phones of those in communication with terrorists abroad abridges my civil rights. Not certain how modifying our ability to question those who wish to target the most innocent among us jeopardizes my civil rights. Not certain how recognizing that we are fighting a completely different kind of enemy than we have faced before removes a single one of my civil rights.

The terrorists want you either dead or living under Sharia law, I would do whatever it takes to prevent the latter. It appears you and your cronies on this thread are doing whatever it takes to make either as easy as possible for them.

The difference between this war and others is that we aren’t fighting a country or army, just a bunch of murderers. They hide under cribs and skirts and target the defenseless. If they had WMD they would use it without a second thought.

I agree that if the stakes were smaller that we could afford to be less insistent at winning, but the outgoing Congress agreed with the President that we needed to win. You will have your opportunity when the alternative Congress begins in January. As Dr. Phil would say, we’ll all get to see how that works for us.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 08:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

I agree that if the stakes were smaller that we could afford to be less insistent at winning

How exactly could we be less insistent at winning Dennis?

I mean seriously, as you explain we are all on the verge of living under Sharia law (in way out nutso world only but still...) and yet we as a nation of 300 million citizens can't muster up more than a force of 150,000 to save us from this impending doom!!!

Just curious, do you feel like a total sucker yet or is it still setting in?

Posted by: Davebo at November 27, 2006 08:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, see how much more response you get when you post with a new name? The Neill name is used up. The Dennis Castle name ought to last a month or more if you aren't too excessive.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 27, 2006 08:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

This dialogue brings two important quotes to mind:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom."
~Dwight Eisenhower

Food for thought...

Posted by: Ben at November 27, 2006 08:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

I am not certain how tapping the phones of those in communication with terrorists abroad abridges my civil rights.

it doesn't. FISA courts are perfectly happy to issue warrants to listen in to all calls made to known terrorists.

But that isn't what Bushco is doing. They are tapping our conversations without any evidence that either party to the call represents a threat to the United States. That's why they avoided the FISA courts in the first place (and Bush flat out lied about it).

Not certain how modifying our ability to question those who wish to target the most innocent among us jeopardizes my civil rights.

Nothwithstanding the fact that torture is an ineffective means of gathering meaningful intelligence in a timely fashion (except, of course, for those who live in the fictional universe populated by Jack Bauer)....

if they can simply disembowel the Bill of Rights of its prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the case of "suspected terrorists", its just a tiny step to the point where they can torture just about anyone for anything -- once you decide that the torture is acceptable in some cases, its easy to expand it to other cases.

More importantly -- lets say that I fake some evidence that convinces "the authoritities" that YOU, in fact, are connected to terrorism. You're gonna be disappeared -- and tortured -- and your rights to even EXAMINE the phony evidence that I've created to make you look like a terrorist won't exist anymore. You're screwed, in other words---just like hundreds if not thousands of innocent people have already been screwed.

Not certain how recognizing that we are fighting a completely different kind of enemy than we have faced before removes a single one of my civil rights.

there is nothing "different" about this enemy. You think that Hitler was some sort of respecter of basic human rights? You think that the North Vietnamese didn't use torture and terrorism? Hell, you think that the USA didn't commit genocide against Native Americans--including using "germ warfare" to kill them? You think that the United States of America didn't murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nakasaki, or that the US itself did not sponsor death squads and torture in Central America in our lifetimes?

No, there is NOTHING different about this enemy --- indeed, if they needed instructions on how to act in a completely uncivilized fashion, all they needed to do was study American history.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 27, 2006 08:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Davebo ~ the terrorists cannot win unless we surrender/withdraw. That's what you and the 2007 Congress seek to accommodate. I understand that Iraq is an unbelievable mess, but that has more to do with the Iraqi’s than us. I am not convinced leaving the Iraqi army in place would have mattered, or that adding an extra million soldiers would have helped. Perhaps the Iraqi people have to come to the realization themselves, but how were we to know that? I think it is noble to believe that providing a group of people with freedom will not lead them to massacring each other. My point is that what we did was right and noble, that our enemy is evil to the core, that regardless of the mess in Iraq that we should NEVER allow the terrorists to claim a single victory (even if that means going through the depths of whatever is happening in Iraq until we see daylight at the other side).

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 08:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

P. Lukasiak ~ I explained carefully the difference between the terrorists and the national armies we fought against in our previous wars, including their methods, targets and ultimate goals. Your response disregarded those points along with basic school yard argument of "O huh" toward wire tapping international calls with terrorists and the classic "America is evil" illustration toward our westward expansion. Did you take the Ward Churchill class on reason and debate?

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 08:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dennis, you are changing the subject because it's clear that your prior assertions were wrong. You claim to be in favor of bringing terrorists to justice, so why then would you support a government that refuses to bring them to trial? You must understand that the issue about wiretapping isn't monitoring conversations where there is sufficient basis to get a FISA warrant (as the conversations you mention would be), but rather those conversations where you can't get a warrant.

It doesn't matter that the enemy are bad people -- the question is whether we're going to do what it takes to win -- which is to avoid alienating potential allies by acting like ignorant barbarians.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 08:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

CharleyCarp ~ hey, I stepped into this bastion of hate-America and have been hit on all sides here, don’t throw a cheap shot by saying I’m changing the subject when I’m trying to respond to all of them. The FISA courts are not going to provide the type of warrant that allows for trolling conversations using the terrorists idioms de jour. That’s what I’m talking about when I say it is a new type of enemy and new type of war. And exactly what I mean by saying that tool will be removed.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 08:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

If our enemy are soldiers than we should give them Geneva Rights, if they are murderers than we should put them on trial. But they are both, which is why this is a different kind of war and a different kind of enemy.

They should be given the harshest treatment of both: no trial because that allows them rights that can be used by their associates to slaughter Americans and remain in prison until this war is over.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 09:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

Davebo ~ the terrorists cannot win unless we surrender/withdraw.

Neill, the terrorists cannot win. Period. People use terrorism when they're too weak to do anything else. They do terrorism to persuade their enemy they can't be completely ignored. They can't hope to win, what they can hope is that their enemy will make such a mistaken botch of chasing them that more people turn against that enemy.

Which we have done. We have made an utter botch of chasing the terrorists, to the point that we've made a lot of enemies who weren't enemies until we botched it. And now you want to say the terrorists can't win unless we stop messing up.

Give it up. You've lost.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 27, 2006 09:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas ~ if you are insisting I am whoever Neill is then he must be one brilliant fellow. I take it he's the only one who has broken up your hate-America "circle jerk" here at belgraviadispatch.com. Don't lose hope, there are more like us who believe that our country is good and worth fighting for. I will not give it up, I have not lost. What does that even mean?

Anyway, terrorism is what the Middle East lives with every day and would prefer not to have it here. We need to make sure we do everything possible to prevent them for succeeding. You aren't helping.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 09:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dennis, what is we capture someone who's not a murderer and not a soldier? Hold them until the 'war' is 'over' as well?

Dennis, I don't think you should apply the words 'hate America' to our host, and I know they can't be applied to me. It seems to me that you are the one who is showing contempt for what makes this country great.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Surely, though, Dennis, we can agree that you shouldn't use the phrase 'bring to justice' while simultaneously claiming that people captured should not be tried.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 27, 2006 10:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

You are correct; in war it is hardly fair to assume the worst attributes of our enemy toward every soldier. However it is also impossible to assume otherwise. What to do? Perhaps keep them safe somewhere until the war is over and then hopefully have their home country assimilate them. These are bad people; they want to kill innocents for no reason at all using the most cowardly means. Bringing them to justice would be killing them, so waiting till the war is over and allowing their home country to decide what to do with them is certainly merciful. "Hate America" is a term describing those who want our nation to fail in its fight against terrorism or who advocate removing the necessary tools to attain that end. At the very least it describes those who want to remove those tools without the charity of proscribing effective ones to take their place.

Posted by: Dennis Castle at November 27, 2006 10:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

We need the help of foreign governments if we are going to "fight them over there, before we have to fight them over here." As the people of Europe and the Middle East come to detest the US and what we are doing, it becomes more and more difficult for their leaders to offer us assistance. "Moral authority" sure helps when you're asking members of NATO to contribute more soldiers, to die alongside our own. Politicians, whether they're British, Turkish, Spanish, or Pakistani, can only defy their own voters/subjects/militias for so long. By engaging in deception, torture, secret prisons and "extraordinary renditions," we've given our allies no choice but to walk away from us.

Second: When we invaded Iraq, both in 1991 and in 2003, large numbers of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to coalition forces without firing a shot. They probably figured that they were safer as prisoners of war under U.S. protection than they were as Iraqi soldiers, under Baathist "protection." How many American soldiers' lives were saved by this fact? How much bloodier would the invasions been if the Iraqi army had chosen to fight to the death, fearing that capture by the Americans might be a fate worse than death?

Just because this war was unnecessary and dishonest doesn't mean that we won't be forced to invade another country soon to protect ourselves. We need to be seen as "the good guys." Otherwise, the next war will be far bloodier than this, and we will fight it alone. This is George Bush's greatest crime.

Posted by: Fursnake at November 28, 2006 01:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas ~ if you are insisting I am whoever Neill is then he must be one brilliant fellow.

Neill, never let it be said that you underestimate yourself.

Anyway, if there's something new about the current threat it can only be the remote possibility that terrorists will get nukes.

Even in WWII we had german spies trying to do sabotage inside the USA, and we put a whole lot of US citizens of japanese descent in concentration camps (not death camps, just shacks in the desert with 110 degree days and scorpions and such) just in case they might do sabotage.

I suppose you could count the difference that these particular terrorists don't have a government behind them, so they tend to lack the money and training and superbly-forged passports and spy-satellite photos etc that a government could provide, plus they don't have armies backing them up, no attack submarines or ICBMs or cruise missiles or embassies.... But that's a difference that tends to make them insignificant.

The only new thing that makes them important is the vague possibility that somehow they might get nukes. There has been no indication that could happen except in some people's imagination, the thought that it would be *so* *terrible* that we have to do whatever it takes to keep it from happening.

And yet, it would be even worse if the terrorists get UFOs to help them, and we aren't doing anything at all to stop that.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 28, 2006 02:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

JT-

Your cavalier attitude re terrorism may give you some chuckles as you wax outre isolationism on your porcelain potty, but it won't do you much good when the siht hits the fan.

And hit it it will, brother.

The mad doctor al-Zawahiri and his puppetmaster bin Laden have no more qualms about nuking your butt than did their eschatological guru and mentor Qutb. Sooner or latre they'll find some deep-pocket cretin (just as they found a dozen-plus from the less-wealthy shadows for a one-way trip to Manhatten) who will bequeath or finance fissile material.

Then the light you see on that warm winter day won't be a UFO, either. It will be the fatal illumination of things that you gleefully ignored.

-resh

Posted by: reshuffle at November 29, 2006 03:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Neill, give it up. There are ten thousand private groups I wouldn't trust with nukes, and al qaeda is one of them.

Meanwhile, nonproliferation is dead, and Bush had a lot to do with killing it. There are about 250+ nations I wouldn't trust with nukes, and the USA under Bush is one of them.

Your priorities are utterly misplaced. Your only hope here is to mislead other people enough to get them to misplace their priorities too. Just give it up.

Under Bush's watch north korea got nukes. Japan is starting the process. Brazil and argentina probably. Maybe iran. Maybe others. Nonproliferation was shaky before, and Bush pushed it over and stomped on it.

Countries with nukes in *this hemisphere*? And Bush is ignoring it completely! In favor of fantasies about al qaeda.

Just give it up. You can't fool all the people all the time. Your time is past.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 29, 2006 09:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

greg, I'm starting to miss the 'no comments' policy. I realize you are allowing in everyone who isn't out and out rude, but could you at least implement a no idiots policy? This endless masturbatory fear fantasy about how all al-Qaeda and Tehran and everybody are all united in a vast plan to get the nuke and use it to force America to wear burkas (after all, political unity is one of the most well known historical strengths of Islam) is sucking all the energy out of your reasonable commenters, who are so outraged by the ignorance, racism and egregious drooling imbecility (hat tip to L) of this wankerati that they get sucked in time and time again into totally pointless arguments with them.
Alternatively, to the rest of us: DO. NOT. FEED. THE. TROLLS.

Posted by: Antiquated Tory at November 30, 2006 05:38 PM | Permalink to this comment