Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

For those who seem to oppose an investigation into war crimes, here is a Youtube presentation of what Vincent Bugliosi said to Congress recently. He famously is the attorney who put Charlse Manson behind bars and has won every one of the twenty-two murder prosecutions in his career.

We have the evidence.

Although one of the reasons why an investigation will not happen is that it will expose other foreign governments which had an important role in complicity. And despite the enticing appeal of Obama's promise of "hope" and "restoration of global respect for America," I can guarantee none of that is possible without accountability. Why should the rest of the world trust America ever again if it sweeps its invidious crimes under the rug of history? I know Europeans, and they are much more informed than our dumbed-down sheeple. We will become persona non grata and the pariah of the world. We are already half way there.What an ignominious downfall!

Stanley Hersh

New York, NY

Jul 28 2008 - 11:05am

Web Letter

Just trash from the left wing/commie wack set.

I hope that Antonio Taguba comes to a book signing in Ann Arbor or Detroit. I would like nothing better than the opportunity to put one of these down.

The divisiveness that has been spread through this country by the likes of the leftist/socialist scum will only be healed by a revolution in which the cancer of liberalism is ripped from the body politic and destroyed with no mercy. Only after the cleansing will we be able to restore a semblance of our true democracy.

Robert F. Tulloch

Munith, MI

Jul 27 2008 - 10:02pm

Web Letter

Regardless of political affiliation, most Americans want three things with respect to torture and war crimes:
a) a fair, thorough investigation.
b) accountablity
c) an end to all war crimes and torture.

It does not matter how high the trail leads. We already suspect or know that the President, the Vice President and Don Rumsfeld have blood on their hands. It must be done, and we must extract this rotting tooth. If we fail to apply the rule of law to criminal actions, what good is the rule of law?

The Democrats are poised to win a historic victory in November. Seventy-four percent of Americans believe our nation is heading in the wrong direction. Yet if the Democratic leadership fails to act properly and decides to sit on its hands on the issue of torture and war crimes, it risks losing the natural support that it currently has. The lack of spine present in the Democratic leadership is both astounding and scary. We face a historic moment, one that can prove, once and for all, that America is a successful experiment in democracy, and that we rationally, honestly, and morally deal with our own failings. Should they fail to do so, in the name of temporary political expediency, Reid, Pelosi, and even Obama surely deserve all the scorn that will be sure to follow.

Robert A. Kezelis

Chicago, IL

Jul 24 2008 - 3:23am

Web Letter

I'm not sure when it came into "vogue" that our elected representatives could exercise "professional discretion" when it came to enforcing the Articles of the US Constitution. Did not each and every one of them enter into a public contract when they swore the Oath of Office and accepted the responsibilities and benefits of that public contract?

I read of all the specious "reasons" why impeachment should be "off the table," but do they legally have that discretionary authority?

The standard for impeachment is merely the presence of "probable cause" that a "crime" has been committed, whereas impeachment is merely the official accusation of such crime based on such probable cause.

Being quite similar to an "indictment," articles of impeachment represent a legal challenge based on probable cause that individual(s) or entities violated the law, with the required next step of a trial in the Senate to determine precise guilt or innocence of such crime(s).

I believe that either our representatives adhere to the rule of law and required due processes as set forth in the Constitution, or they are exposing themselves to the possibility of an organized "no confidence" vote by their constituents and/or their replacement per the regular election process.

Perhaps therein lies the real question. If the elected representatives fail to uphold their constitutional duties, will the public exercise its own? Isn't it a requirement that each citizen exercise his/her duties to ensure responsible governance by their elected representatives?

Gary Long

Hillsborough, NC

Jul 21 2008 - 4:36pm

Web Letter

A war crimes trial of the Bush Administration may sound good in the heat of campaigning, but this idea exposes the USA to potentially huge amounts in reparations and damages. Based on the Lockerby standard of US$10 million per life taken and 500.000 dead Iraqis, that will be $5 trillion, with a "t."

Anatoly Panov

Moscow, Russia

Jul 21 2008 - 11:22am

Web Letter

An excellent article by these two gentlemen, including the first few philosophical points made in their "nine reasons" for not letting Bush off the hook. The "precedent" issue is extremely important.

However, after that the article degenerates into a Republican-bashing session. "They" destroyed Clinton and Carter, as long as "they" are in office... etc. etc.

Could these gentlemen be so naïve as to think only Republicans could engage in damanable "imperialism"?

Good points made in spite of themselves, since their partisanship slipped through in the end. This crisis is not just the Republicans' doing, as any serious, objective analysis of the period would show.

William Harry

Timonium, MD

Jul 21 2008 - 8:25am

Web Letter

I wrote a song on the subject of the US committing war crimes in Iraq. It's called "It Don't Mean A Thing (If Only Nazis Swing)" and you can hear it on myspace.

Jeff Coleman

Seattle, WA

Jul 20 2008 - 2:01pm

Web Letter

This article purports to give nine reasons to investigate war crimes, but there are none of the specifics of "who, what, why and where." There is no logical progression of facts and supported conclusions. The article is a badly written diatribe that would not meet the standards of a high school debate team.

The first paragraph that makes a supposition--"Reasons to investigate war crimes"--then gives a preconceived and unsupported conclusion: "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes." If it is a forgone conclusion war crimes were committed, why do we need to read further and what do we need to investigate?

There is no list of specific "horrors of war" or crimes that anyone in the Bush Administration are alleged to have committed. All that is presented is a collection of unrelated articles written by political enemies pushing an agenda. No information is provided that supports the claim that President Bush did anything that Bill Clinton, or any other President for that matter, has not also done.

This article does not even support the laws of the US Constitution, where one is innocent until proven guilty. Without any facts, or and actual trial, guilt has already been determined. Therefore, the only purpose of an actual investigation would be to eliminate any potential political challengers to Democratic authority and to serve as a warning that we are under big-government Communist rule. It is nothing but a demand for a Stalinist-style show trial.

If you are familiar with "The Twenty Five Rules of Disinformation, you will be able to decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. It is apparent that the writers of this triad are well-versed in these rules of disinformation, and use many of them.

One rule of disinformation is known as the "hit and run piece," that associate charges with old news. For example, the writers bring up Abu Ghraib and the alleged torture that was committed there; this has already been investigated and the perpetrators punished. There were no indications that anyone higher than the general of the prison was involved. Even then, the reported torture did not even rise above what could be found during a fraternity hazing week. No lives were lost, no limbs were damaged.

When the writers finally come to the purported purpose of the article, the nine reasons to investigate war crimes, we are again disappointed, for they state nine ideologies, not reasons.

The first platitude, "world peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability," is socialist ideology without supported facts. Wars are prevented by strength and keeping the enemy afraid of you. We were attacked on 9/11 because we were perceived as being weak due to the lack of personal fortitude of Bill Clinton. Osama bin Laden thought we were a paper tiger because Bill Clinton pulled out the troops after a minor skirmish in Somalia, and we left in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of our soldiers. (See Terrorist Watch http://terroristwatch.tripod.com/words_of_usama_bin_laden.htm.) As Ronald Reagan said "'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the US was too strong."

These despicable writers then insult the American people (who re-elected Bush), our military (who are fighting the war) and Congress (that funds the war and has oversight) by comparing President Bush to a terrorist and renowned Marxist, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. To compare President Bush to al-Bashir (who is accused of political genocide of three ethnic groups by murder, rape, starvation and fear) is similar to comparing the Pope to Hitler, because the Pope wants to stop abortions. It is incredible what passes for journalism today.

The President's decision to invade Iraq was not an easy one, and he gave his reasons in both a speech to the UN (President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly ) and to the American people (President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours). He was supported by the American people, and by Congress, which had access to the same information that he had. At most he is guilty of making a decision based on false information, during a crisis period. This hardly meets the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors," let alone the much higher standard of war crimes.

How can it now be said five years later, on the verge of success, that the war was illegal or unjustifiable?

Would not the real arbiters of the war be the Iraq people, not political pundits? No matter what standard you use, the people of Iraq are better off today, then they were five years ago under Saddam Hussein. ("The Other Iraq Surge," "Iraq Making Political, Economic Progress," "Iraq Makes Progress on Economic Front," "World Leaders Say Iraq Making Progress.")

How can one agree or disagree with something that is so poorly thought out and presented? If the writers were honest, a more accurate title for this article should be "Nine Rambling Delusions of Bush-Haters."

Robert Exton

San Francisco , CA

Jul 19 2008 - 5:35pm

Web Letter

I wholeheartedly agree with all points of the article. Here is the problem that I see evolving. Precious few of our brave Congressmen and -women had the courage to vote against our dear courageous executive. Precious few of our brave senators, the same problem. If I remember correctly, we were busy turning the French delegate to the United Nations into a common idiot because he had the courage to disagree with the great and honest speech of our heroic Collin Powell. Who can forget our greatest moment in history--when we stopped eating French toast and French fries ?

The majority of our great representatives, Republican and Democrat, are also guilty of the crime of standing by and watching the crime take place. They are, in fact, guilty of complicity. The idiots drove the getaway bus, while we all stood by and let the media create this great moral outrage against innocent citizens. We all watched with great amazement at the shock and awe, while we destroyed a city and displaced 4 million people. How many did we kill?

When does this video game end?

I hate to say this, but Pete Stark was right.

James Pinette

Caribou, ME

Jul 18 2008 - 7:28pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.