... Oh, my.
The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.
The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes -- and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves -- is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes -- defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions -- such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners -- was "undefined."....
One by one, the administration's statements and protections seem to be running into difficulties, to put it mildly. Secretary of State Powell has already stated that he and other officials kept the president apprised of the Red Cross allegations of torture and abuse. (The concept that the War Crimes Act -- which was specifically created to constrict the president's actions regarding war -- would not apply to the president is mind-boggling, to say the least, as is the concept that a president who directs abuse and tortuous actions be performed cannot be charged with war crimes. The Justice department position that "U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have 'no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.'" is equally bizarre; how does it remotely make sense that soldiers in the field torturing civilians or fighters could not be charged with war crimes when would directly be committing them?)
Posted by iain at May 19, 2004 01:09 PM
