War Crimes

Here's a September 25 letter to The Wall Street Journal from General P.X. Kelley, Commandant of the Marine Corps during the Reagan administration, praising a wingnutty Wall Street Journal op-ed as "a superb counterpoint to those 'nay-sayers' who have failed to understand how our commitment [to South Vietnam] did, in fact, stem the tide of Communism in the region." And here he is in the November 25 Washington Post titled "Don't Give Terrorists A Timetable." He's not, in short, much of a liberal.

In today's Washington Post he teams up with Robert F. Turner, a Reagan administration lawyer, to point out that George W. Bush is committing war crimes. I can't imagine Bush or Cheney actually ever being made to stand trial at the Hague but, at a minimum, I look forward to there being some list of countries neither man can visit lest he face an arrest warrant.

Comments

That's something to look forward to.

On a more ambitious note, I'm hoping that they become so hated in the U.S. that they decide, for their own personal safety and convenience, to live in exile in someplace like Uruguay.

Posted by Jim W | July 27, 2007 11:01 AM

Bush Derangement Syndrome! Bush Derangement Syndrome!

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 11:05 AM

I'm just hoping that the next, hopefully Dem, administration, has the balls to prosecute them for their many crimes. It won't happen, I know, but it's more likely than the Hague, and I love the thought of the two of them spending the rest of their lives in jail cells.

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2007 11:13 AM

Looks like it should be September 2005 and November 2005 in your first paragraph.

Posted by JBJ | July 27, 2007 11:16 AM

And I know that Bill is joking, but my current viewpoint is thus:

(1) It is true that, on a few specific factual issues, some opponents of the administratiopn have gone off the deep end. But, aside from credibility problems that engenders, it doesn't really matter. Even if one is careful to limit oneself to the most easily verifiable and, indeed, non-contested list of administration actions, the ONLY rationale reaction of people of good will and good faith is extreme and deep loathing of the Bush administration.

I am, generally speaking, all for giving people with whom I disagree politically the benfit of the doubt. But those people who deserve the benfit of the doubt have come around. The only remaining supporters of the Bush administration are either (1) massively uninformed (I'm charitable enough to believe that this describes the majority), or (2) loathsome evil scum.

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2007 11:48 AM

And you knwo people talk about "healing" the divisions in our country. I don't want healing. Ten years from now, I want all current Bush supporters to either:

(1) Deeply repent, and be afraid to admit that they ever supported the war criminal,

(2) Be horribly marginalized in society, fired from jobs and unable to earn a living,

(3) Flee the country because it has become such an uncongenial place for scum like them.

Of course, I also realize that it isn't just Bush, that many people have turned against him only because we are losing the war. They couldn't care less about dead Iraqis, war crimes, the death of habeas corpus, the destruction of the constitution and other atrocities. What we probably really need is to be defeated as thoroughly as Germany was, and then (as Germany has done over the past half century) acknowledge collective guilt for the horrors perpetrated, and burn that lesson into our children's brains.

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2007 11:56 AM

LarryM, actually, one thing we've forgotten is that "healing" and "forgiveness" only comes with reptentence.

We're still nursing the wounds of those who did not properly repent regarding their support of Nixon and, in some cases, allowed them to be admitted back into government under the rubric of "healing" without the requisite repetence that should have been required of them.

The party that has tried to market itself as the party of evangelical christianity seems awfully big on "letting bygones be bygones" and awfully thin on "confess and repent for past sins."

Posted by Tyro | July 27, 2007 12:01 PM

Deep end?

Suspension of habeas corpus. Seizure of assets. Suspension of trial by jury. Advocacy of torture. Ignoring laws. Pardoning witnesses to their crimes. Lying us into an interminable war.

What's the shallow end?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 27, 2007 12:29 PM

In the op-ed, the authors specifically single out the decision last Friday to exempt the CIA from the Geneva standards the military must now meet because of the McCain ammendment. Part of their argument rests on the proposition that military did not torture the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. Okay, fine. But the CIA did torture the VC in that war in what was called operation phoenix. Now Bush is saying the CIA should be able to torture at the black sites in Europe, which we know they already have. This is not an argument saying yes they should, or no they shouldn't. But keep in mind, the CIA's clandestine service is created in large part to break international law for our national interest. We want them to steal, lie, cheat and murder--at least there was some vague sentiment to that effect re-affirmed after 9-11. But assuming that diplomacy alone will not still our jihadist enemies, we ought to as a republic--on both right and left--start having an honest discussion about exactly what we will tolerate in the shadow side of this war. I fault Bush/Cheney for making these decisions ad hoc and not getting the explicit legal authority, not to mention an expiration date for the extraordinary powers.

Posted by Eli Lake | July 27, 2007 12:36 PM

. . . I look forward to there being some list of countries neither man can visit lest he face an arrest warrant.

As long as that list is headed by the United States, I'm all in favor of this.

Otherwise, I look forward to Bush and Cheney and their accomplices being chained to a rock somewhere and people paying money to pelt them with rotten vegetables. That, my friends, would promote healing.

Posted by jlw | July 27, 2007 12:40 PM

JD,

That's my point. The easily documented stuff is bad enough, without kooky 911 conspiracy theories, or claims that the current situation in Iraq is exactly what Bush and co. wanted (you don't hear that so much anymore) or claims that the war was primarily about helping Bush and Cheney's corporate buddies (not that that isn't a huge factor at SOME level, and that should be exposed, but the more simplistic claims along those lines end up obscuring, rather than bolstering, that argument).

Posted by LarryM | July 27, 2007 12:49 PM

On a more ambitious note, I'm hoping that they become so hated in the U.S. that they decide, for their own personal safety and convenience, to live in exile in someplace like Uruguay.

Albania seems like Bush's best bet. Or they could go to Iraq since, as Cheney sees it, they would be welcomed as liberators... only freedom-hating terrorists would want to harm them, but they've been in their last throes for awhile now.

Posted by ibid | July 27, 2007 12:57 PM

Lucky for the World, Republican ex-Presidents prefer to just hang at home rather than try to create good will throughout the world. Compare what Bush Sr. and Reagan did after they left office with Clinton and Carter. And no, Bush Sr. grabbing on to Clinton's coattails after the 2005(?) tsunami doesn't count.

Posted by Fred F. | July 27, 2007 1:12 PM

"Lucky for the World, Republican ex-Presidents prefer to just hang at home rather than try to create good will throughout the world. Compare what Bush Sr. and Reagan did after they left office with Clinton and Carter. And no, Bush Sr. grabbing on to Clinton's coattails after the 2005(?) tsunami doesn't count.

Posted by Fred F. | July 27, 2007 1:12 PM "

If Reagan had done that after he left office, think of the South Park and Family Guy episodes that would have spawned.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 1:19 PM

After pardoning the people who could roll over on him, Bush Sr. turned into a meet-and-greet stooge for The Carlyle Group. Think of the goodwill: an ex-president of turning into a gun dealer! You can't beat Republicans for turning a blind eye to shame.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 27, 2007 2:46 PM

The problem is that the CIA is the president's private and secret army without any oversight from any other government agency. Under these conditions it is impossible to control CIA activities and so it doesn't really matter what the executive order says.

In other words CIA clandestine activities, which by reports consume the majority of its $48 billion budget, are automatically exempted from any rule of law. No US president is likely to change this.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 27, 2007 5:41 PM

Maybe Bush and Cheney can hire Ramsey Clark to defend them when they leave office.

Posted by robertl | July 27, 2007 8:36 PM

"...start having an honest discussion about exactly what we will tolerate in the shadow side of this war."

Fine, Mr Lake.

I will not tolerate war criminals remaining in office, not will I tolerate people who think officials with a history of criminality should remain in a position to continue or coverup war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

Out now, by whatever means necessary. We should redefine "means possible and acceptable" according to the above particular circumstances.

Also, Mr Lake, fuck you.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 27, 2007 11:09 PM

Maybe Bush and Cheney can hire Ramsey Clark to defend them when they leave office.

The International Committee to Defend Dick Cheney! Don't think it would happen, but I won a bet with some WWP adherents on when the International Committee to Defend Saddam Hussein would come into being.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 27, 2007 11:33 PM