[eDebate] republican house war crimes---confidential talking points memo

Jake Stromboli infracaninophile
Fri Jun 16 22:51:25 CDT 2006

?stop the resolution: dabait is being denigrated by the nazicons and being 
destroyed by corporate advertising models.   it is not diffiicult to produce 
a history of the bush administrations erosion of dabait in the congress, in 
the media and everywhere else.   from "with us or against us".   the lot.  
to the tactics deployed this week in the house.    get with it and relate 
your dabait learning with what is happening.  the resolution doesn't matter 
anymore.  public policy has been extricated from influence by dabait.  
minority opinion rules.  all of your assumptions are false....


House Republican War Crimes
????By William Rivers Pitt
????t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 15 June 2006

There is going to be a debate today on the floor of the House of 
Representatives regarding Iraq. Is it within the realm of possibility to 
categorize a debate on the floor of the House as a war crime? Is that too 
much of a stretch? Leveling a war crime accusation is deadly serious 
business after all, and not to be bandied about like some meager political 
football. Given what is expected to take place today in Washington, 
unfortunately, such a categorization is worth considering.

????What is a war crime anyway? Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention 
defines war crimes as, "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, 
including willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or 
health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a 
protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a 
hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of 
fair and regular trial, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and 
appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried 
out unlawfully and wantonly."

????How many of these definitions have been met by the United States during 
our ill-fated adventure in Iraq and during this so-called "War on Terror" as 
a whole?

????Willful killing? Check: see Fallujah, Haditha, etc.

????Torture or inhuman treatment, including willfully causing great 
suffering or serious injury to body or health? Check: see Abu Ghraib.

????Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected 
person? Check: see Guantanamo and the secret "rendition" of prisoners for 
interrogation to nations that practice torture as a matter of daily 

????Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular 
trial? Check: see Guantanamo again.

????Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by 
military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly? Check: see much 
of Iraq, specifically its former petroleum industry.

????But all this happened during the invasion and occupation, and many of 
these despicable activities have been papered over by dubious legal findings 
generated by Attorney General Gonzales. How does a debate on the floor of 
the House of Representatives rise to the level of a war crime?

????Simple. Awareness that war crimes are being committed, combined with a 
lack of action to stop those war crimes by an individual or entity holding a 
position of leadership, is as bad as the crime itself.

????Major Darwyn O. Banks of the US Air Force, whose April 2001 research 
paper on information warfare titled, "Mitnick Meets Milosevic," notes the 
following: "While there are no claims Milosevic personally committed any 
such crimes, he is culpable under the principles of command responsibility 
and direct responsibility. The former alleges Milosevic's foreknowledge of 
such crimes without acting either to prevent the commission thereof or to 
punish the perpetrators. The latter form of responsibility implies that he 
authorized, planned, instigated and/or ordered the unlawful acts. These 
indictments against the former Yugoslav president, then, highlight the 
primary categories of the law of armed conflict."

????Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution endowed Congress 
with the power to make war. To be sure, that power has been slowly but 
surely usurped by a series of presidents, but the basic principle remains. 
At a minimum, if the legislative branch is going to surrender its 
constitutional responsibilities regarding our formidable war powers to the 
executive branch, they should at least attempt to exert a degree of 
oversight once the bullets start to fly.

????This Republican congress has not done this to any degree whatsoever. 
They rolled the whole process down the hill to 1600 Pennsylvania, provided 
political and legal cover for the White House every time something went 
wrong, wrapped themselves in as many American flags as they could find, and 
stapled themselves to this president who, by his own words, goes to work 
every day with war on his mind. Thus it has been for the last three years 
and 87 days.

????Today, however, there is going to be a debate on Iraq in the House of 
Representatives. Republican Majority Leader John Boehner (OH) has stated 
publicly that he hopes this debate will "match the serious, dignified tone 
of deliberation that preceded the Gulf war, in 1991." One can hope, I 
suppose, but it bears mentioning that the last time the House debated Iraq 
in the open, a decorated Marine Corps veteran named John Murtha got called a 
coward for suggesting that it was time to consider a withdrawal from the 
seemingly endless conflict.

????And then there's the confidential strategy memo, generated by Boehner's 
office and distributed to every House Republican, outlining where the 
majority leader would like to see the majority guide the debate. The 
serious, dignified tone he requested in public is hardly evident in the game 
plan he has provided to his fellow House Republicans.

????Boiled down, Rep. Boehner would like his fellow Republicans to bring up 
September 11 as many times as possible - this short memo mentions 9/11 no 
less than seven times - while denouncing House Democrats as weak and 
vacillating. "Democrats," reads one portion of the memo, "are prone to waver 
endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. During this 
debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats' weak approach is 
and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term 
and long-term national security interests of the United States."

????Nowhere in this confidential strategy memo does Boehner suggest that the 
House attempt to regain control of the process that has led us to this 
dreary and deadly situation. Nowhere does he note that waving the bloody 
shirt of 9/11, especially in situations that have nothing to do with that 
day, is an irresponsible perversion of the facts on record. Nowhere does he 
note that every credible human being on the planet has flatly declared that 
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nowhere does he mention the weapons of 
mass destruction that were not there.

????Nowhere does he note that the invasion and occupation has made this 
country, and this world, far less safe. Nowhere does he mention the 2,497 
American soldiers who have died in Iraq. To be sure and certain, nowhere 
does he mention the fact that crafting any solution to the Iraq mess is 
going to require the bipartisan effort of the entire Congress.

????Instead, Rep. Boehner would like the House debate to stomp across the 
same worn and discredited ground that has been endlessly covered throughout 
this whole affair. He would like the debate to be umbilically attached to 
9/11, and he would likewise appreciate it if Democrats are attacked and 
denounced at every opportunity. It is, after all, an election year.

????It is possible that the House debate today will break new ground, that 
sober minds will be able to elbow the snarling partisans into the periphery, 
that hard facts and real solutions will be presented, that a crack of dawn 
sunlight may be found in this long, terrible night, and that a step towards 
ending all the death and destruction and sorrow and woe may actually be 

????Don't count on it, though. Thanks to the Republican majority and its 
leader, this debate will be yet another dog-and-pony show designed to do 
little more than frighten and divide the populace. In the process, this 
debate will ensure that the war goes on, and will further ensure that George 
W. Bush and his people are insulated from accountability, culpability and 
the basic need to chart a new course.

????The Republicans in the House know what is happening, and know how bad 
things are. By framing this important debate in such simplistic, venal 
terms, they are absolutely guaranteeing more of the same. And that, friends, 
is a war crime, and you can watch it happen today on television.

????William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling 
author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know 
and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

More information about the Mailman mailing list