Tweet
Partners in Crime, and in the Times
(by twolf1)
John Yoo and John Bolton, two recently coverted and now stalwart defenders of the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, kidnap and torture the NYT op-ed page to urge the Obama Administration to restore that principle with respect to treaty ratification after its long abuse by . . . Bill Clinton. Why would they do this?
Well, it seems both are worried that Obama’s penchant for negotiations might actually result in an agreement with other nations to control global climate change or perhaps some agreement to, God forbid, limit nuclear proliferation. (Surely Mitch McConnell ought to have the right to obstruct such mischief.)
Even worse, according to these scholars, would be for the US to sanction an international judicial system that would hold nations and/or their officials publically accountable for committing war crimes.
Now why would a man who sanctioned aggressive war against a country that did not attack or threaten us, and who helped misrepresent the case for war, and a man who sanctioned the use of torture and found it to be consistent with US law, be concerned about international justice?
After all, these scholars are Very Serious People, and attention must be paid (or op-ed pages made available). John Yoo was an essential DoJ official, a lackey in the Addington cabal of Bush/Cheney attorneys who believed their job was to sanction whatever an unbridled executive asked for (h/t Greenwald), the law, hundreds of years of democratic tradition and just ordinary human decency notwithstanding.
It’s touching, therefore, that these defilers of the Constitution would now be so solicitous of Congressional prerogatives, having sprung from that group of legal thugs who, when opining on the limits of Presidential power in the face of statutory limits, couldn’t seem to find Youngstown relevant in their oh-so-selective search of applicable law.
In tomorrow’s fair and balanced NYT op-ed page: A confessed mass murderer argues for leniency on the grounds that fewer people means more food for the rest of us.
God Bless America, but god [help] the op-editors of the New York Times. Amen.
41 Comments
very very excellently put, Scarecrow.
Thank you for the heads up, SC! I can hardly wait, this is sure to be a prime example of some truly contorted CYOA reasoning. Did I mention that these two individuals maintain places of extreme dishonor on my list of war criminals?
Two more who should be frog-marched to the Hague.
Turns out that Bolton got some WaPo0 Op-ed real estate today as well.
But after all, it’s only bad when a Democratic administration does things like negotiate settlements and treaties. It’s always OK for Republicans to do whatever they want since we know that only Republicans love the US and everything they do is really only in our best interest if we’d only listen to the Boltons and Yoos of the world.
fewer people means more food for the rest of us.
“Soylent Green: It’s what’s for dinner!”
Are the armchair word-warriors starting to catch the scent of ‘accountability’ drifting in their direction?
Vomiting — it’s not just for alcoholics any more!
I don’t believe that Americans want ANY court higher than the US Supreme Court–especially an international body which can reach into sovereign domestic affairs.
’cause we’re so pure and good, no rule of law for us!
We would violate our own Constitution if we allowed it. There is no sovereign authority higher than the Supreme Court. We have not signed to the ICC and there is no legal right to do so…
Those Nuremburg prosecutors just didn’t know their Constitutional Law, I done guess.
Robert Taft had the right idea. Nuremburg was “victor’s justice” and should not have been conducted.
Nuremberg is something to live up to, not something to live down.
Taft also opposed the New Deal. Such a brilliant, compassionate mind.
Not correct. There is no higher authority than the people, and below that, there is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, by it’s own terms, the people allow the Executive and Congress to enter into international agreements and treaties, which become part of the law of the land. Under that Constitutional framework, we have dozens of international agreements that submit US citizens and corporations to the jurisdiction of international tribunals wrt to trade issues. So it’s not true that the Constitution would not allow us to submit to an International Court, if we chose to do so. We are a sovereign people, and we can decide, through and consistent with our Constitution, what powers we want to allocate.
“There is no higher authority than the people, and below that, there is the Constitution…”
Ahh, how quaint.
I love your posts, Scarecrow. Thanks.
Yes. I’m sure Alberto would not approve.
Trade issues are not criminal issues. They cannot hold you in a foreign jail. Since the US never ratified the ICC therefore it could not become the Supreme law of the land. The highest authority to hold an individual is the Supreme Court. Hugh is correct, in fact. The President CAN use his plenary power to pardon to prevent any citizen from being subject to jurisdiction of a foreign power, as long as that power does not have them in their custody, but I’m talking normal course of business.
Correct me if I am mistaken but we have treaties of extradition with foreign governments and any American surrendered to the jurisdiction of another country would serve their time on conviction in that country’s jails. How would this be different from the ICC?
Bolton/Yoo argue that US should not approve an agreement/treaty to allow International Court jurisdiction wrt to criminal matters. They’re free to take that position or not. They argue for treating this as a “treaty,” to make sure there is a 2/3 requirement for ratification. Fine. But that is not the same as arguing that under the Constitution, the US does not have the legal power to agree/ratify such a treaty.
As for the wisdom of a treaty to allow criminal laws to be applied by an international tribunal to those who commit war crimes, my view is that if we trust the impartiality/justice of the tribunal, such laws are needed and could serve as useful deterrents, as well as a means for achieving justice after the fact, especially when we’re dealing with rogue regimes — as we’ve had for eight years. It is not a legal view; it’s a moral preference.
The US could, of course, prosecute war crimes in its own tribunals, but the lack of support for that in our own system is, in my view, an argument for why an impartial international justice system is worth having.
My point is that without a common definition of “justice”–heck, no one even has a common definition of “terrorism”, “war crimes” trials have no intrinsic meaning. They are held by those who have the power to hold over those who don’t. Switching the roles does not mean that the dignity of a trial where everyone at least agrees on the standards of the law and the justice can be upheld. That is why the unanimous vote of the US Senate was against the ICC and why the US must maintain exclusive jurisdiction of its own definition of war crimes. ALL SOFA agreements signed by the US exclude our citizens from falling within the purview of foreign definitions of War Crimes. And that is as it should be.
Actually the Art. VI of the Constitution says this:
Would the new Regime actually approve language mandating extradition of accused to duly authorized international courts? This would be a nice end around the US prosecuting those of the current Regime for war crimes and law breaking without alienating the rabid right . Unfortunately, I don’t see anywhere that Obama has the want, will or cajones to allow that to happen.
What else would you expect from Judy Miller’s enablers? The NYT is a terrible newspaper. And when I say terrible I mean it in more ways than you can name.
I thought that in time of war the President’s power is essentially without limit. I guess as pointed out above that only applies to Republican Presidents.
From item 309 of my scandals list on John Bolton:
Hung ‘em. Hang ‘em high.
No, on reflection, I prefer hung, drawn & quartered.
[Mod Note: No suggestions of capital punishment from Braveheart please]
DAWN JOHNSEN for AG !
Fuck these jackals. They should be met with a hail of Doc Marten’s whenever they step foot outside.
-G
Here’s how the Yoo thing REALLY went down – and how the system REALLY works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8TI_HZ_sdk
Chilling!
The Cabal for whom Yoo was a front man is illegal under US Law. The entire Justice System has been usurped. Bolton is part of the same cabal….all of which is tied to the strategy that allows for Israel to seize territory from the Nile to the Euphrates without so much as a peep from the United States.
In the PNAC, and the other strategic documents that preceded it like “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” – all of the co-conspirators identified themselves.
Here’s the Cabal and their agenda – in concert with David Rockefeller and his globalist agenda:
“The CDI’s Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on “the future of Iran’ sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney’s leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster.”
JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled “Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism,” Ledeen declared, “The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.”
JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA’s first executive director and was JINSA’s “Godfather,” according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI’s Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.’s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler……_Next.html
http://english.daralhayat.com/…..story.html
David Wurmser:
What do Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser have in common? We know that they’re in the cabal of neocons, who want to destroy the Middle East in order to benefit Israel. But what they specifically have in common, after the fall of Iraq, is their hostility toward Syria
I’ve mentioned on several occasions in this column a study of the cabal that appeared in 1996, entitled “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” It contains a call for removing the Saddam Hussein regime, followed by attacking Syria and finding an alternative to Yasser Arafat.
This study became the Bush administration’s policy after 11 September 2001. Since the part related to Iraq has been achieved, the cabal is now working to implement the portion concerning Syria.
Iran remains a final goal, but Iran is very strong and the US needs to isolate all of its allies (such as Syria) and disarm them (such as Hezbollah), before taking on the Islamic Republic.
The study called on Israel to ally with Turkey and Iran and strike at Syria through Lebanon, just as Wurmser has written time and time again calling for joint US-Israeli efforts against Syria. Wurmser repeated this call in 2000
Whatever I say about Wurmser isn’t sufficient to describe how dangerous he is for the Palestinians, Syria and every Arab country. He’s absolutely Israeli; he wants the US to wage Israel’s wars in the Middle East. Wurmser’s name has been linked to the Office of Special Plans, which Douglas Feith at the Pentagon created to shape intelligence supporting a war against Iraq when the intelligence organizations failed to provide the necessary lies. Wurmser worked as an advisor to John Bolton at the Pentagon and the two try to outdo each other in peddling lies about Syria and inciting the Bush administration against it. Bolton moved to the United Nations, where Bush appointed him Washington’s ambassador in the face of congressional opposition, and during its summer recess. Wurmser, meanwhile, moved to Dick Cheney’s office and both continued to spread their poison against Arabs and Muslims. Iraq was one step, and Syria was another. The cause is Israel and how it can dominate the region in the face of a huge majority of peoples that the cabal is trying to strip of their independence.
I hope readers appreciate the fact that I’m not exaggerating, because it is difficult to exaggerate the danger posed by an Israeli apologist like Wurmser to Arab interests. The older study called specifically for striking Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, and proposed that the US help Israel. The cabal has changed nothing of this policy; instead it encouraged the bringing down of the Saddam Hussein regime. All of Wurmser, Perle and Feith’s statements since the 1990s until the present have repeated these same positions.
There is no difference between Netanyahu or Wurmser being Cheney’s adviser. If there’s any hope of ridding ourselves of the danger of the vice president and his advisers, it lies in the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name to the media, to exact revenge against her husband, Joseph Wilson, who returned from Niger to say that reports of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium yellow cake were trumped up.
We know that the investigation has gotten rid of Libby and threatens the position of Karl Rove, Bush’s adviser or “brain.” However, I read that the special prosecutor is interested in the role of Wurmser, who has agreed to provide information in order to protect himself. There’s also suspicion that he and Bolton leaked Plame’s name when the former was the latter’s adviser at the Pentagon, and that the leak took place thanks to advice “from above.”
Bwahahaha! Honestly there is nothing more I could add to this:)
Will Israel commence the bombing of Iran before Obama takes the oath of office? I could tell you what the series of false flag circumstances will be that would “justify” it, but it really doesn’t require any imagination on your own part…it’s simple.
The action in Gaza – featuring GBU 39 bombs – is simply target practice for the bigger action featured here:
http://hashmonean.com/2008/09/…..ran-video/
Israel is in fact blackmailing the US Government. Simple.
Waaah!, waaah! Don’t hurt us! We thought Republicans would be in power forever, that’s what Karl Rove told us. This past 8 years has brought us one of the most miserable and morally defunct groups in history. Hang ‘em high indeed.
First give em a fair trial, then hang em.
~~~ModNote: Fantasy violence is not helpful, and is strongly discouraged. Let’s keep it civil, no matter the subject.~~~
When I was a law student many years ago, we had to take a course in Public International Law, i.e. the law between nations, as well as Private International Law, i.e. conlicts as between one nation’s courts decisions on a divorce, for example.
Accordingly, we studied WW II and the aftermath of criminal prosecutions for war crimes. As the U.S.A. set the standard for acceptable behaviour in Nuremburg and other venues, why should not its governmental officials be held to the same standard as the Germans?
Assumpsit
Of course they are expected to cry their eyes. Without consequences there will be more of the same however it’ll be much worse next time.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Israel is committing war crimes. What are US troops doing on Israeli soil? They will also end up killing Palestinians. Does that mean US Forces will be guilty of war crimes? America..your sons and daughters are going to die for Israel.
US troops are helping Egypt prevent “arms smuggling” from tunnels in the Rafah border-crossing, as Israel continues its attacks on Gaza.
NBC anchorwoman and chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said Sunday that US military officers from the Corps of Engineers had been stationed on the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing in order to prevent “arms smuggling from illegal tunnels” by Palestinian fighters
“ And there are US Army Corps of Engineer personnel on the ground right now on the Egypt side looking at the tunnels to see how Egypt could be reassured that there won’t be continued smuggling through on that,” she said on Meet the Press.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.a…..=351020202
How about starting with John Yoo’s disbarment?
“John Yoo and John Bolton: ‘Don’t Try Us for War Crimes!’”
Every time I read their names my jaws tense and my fists clench. To the Hague with both of them!