It looks as if the Bush White House repeatedly ignored the warnings of top officials that their torture plans were illegal:

President Bush and his aides repeatedly ignored warnings that their torture plans were illegal from high State Department officials as well as the nation’s top uniformed legal officers, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, a new published report states.

“These warnings of illegality and immorality given by knowledgeable and experienced (government) persons were ignored by the small group of high Executive officers who were determined that America would torture and abuse its prisoners and who had the decision-making power to secretly require this to be done,” said Lawrence Velvel, chairman of the “Steering Committee of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals.” Velvel is a noted reformer in the field of American legal education.

“Far from American officials and lawyers authorizing or engaging in torture because it was lawful, they authorized and engaged in it because they wanted to (and) kept their actions secret from interested officials for as long as they could lest there be strong opposition to the torture and abuse they were perpetrating,” Velvel said. “They deliberately ignored repeated warnings that the torture and abuse were illegal and could lead to prosecutions, and they ignored these warnings even when they came from high level civilian and military officers.”

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  
  1. Peggy Chun says:

    Completely agree with your analysis of this profoundly unfortunate and clearly illegal behavior of these elected citizens. Our nation's laws obviously apply to all Americans, as do any international agreements our nation signs on to. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. Attempts to manipulate this obvious truth are transparent and insulting to us all. Thank you for creating this new site. Very informative and thought provoking.

  2. Mason says:

    Regarding the torture issue, we might ask ourselves if we're not engaging in the same kind of cherry-picking of evidence that some people accuse Bush of doing. Susan J. Crawford says we tortured. Douglass Feith says we didn't. You need to be careful not to simply believe the person who tells you want you want to hear.

    To put it in context, no federal official in the history of this country has faced a war crimes tribunal. And now you want to use Director of Military Commissions Brig. General Johnson's testimony to charge Regional Undersecretary of Intelligence Operations Jones with a crime? Have you thought about the chilling effect to up-the-ranks reporting, intelligence analysis and candid policy decision making? In the USSR they'd call that a purge.

    I thinik I'll pass. The country chose not to impeach the President when they had the chance. There's a new President coming in. I think its time to move on.

    • Metavirus says:

      ok, so take Bush out of the equation for a second. what should be done with the people that tortured/immediately ordered the torture? what were your thoughts on lynndie england? she wasn't convicted of war crimes. she was convicted of the relatively banal crimes of inflicting sexual, physical and psychological abuse on Iraqi prisoners of war (conspiracy to maltreat prisoners and assault consummated by battery).

  3. Mason says:

    Lynndie England was an improperly trained, poorly supervised and tragically disturbed individual who malabused the prisoners she was charged with guarding. She faced a court martial and was, in my view, was properly convicted based on the photographic and eyewitness evidence.

    I understand there are some human rights activists and legal scholards who want to conflate Abu Ghraib with Gitmo bay, the ramped-up policy of extradition (legal, started by the Clinton administration), the circumvention of FISA courts (see today's FISA ruling) and the use of waterboarding. As a point of law, though, these are separate items, no grand conspiracy. Contrast Count 1 of the Nuremburg indictment.

    • Metavirus says:

      Ok, so Lynndie England was a bad actor because she abused prisoners and was found by a court martial to have committed the bad acts. What should happen to the people that tortured al-Qahtani if it is found that they did in fact torture him? What should happen to the people that ordered the torture?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors