As reported by Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post last week, the release of the full text of the so-called "Torture Memo" written by UC Berkeley Law professor -- and at the time, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, has fired up even conservative commentators such as Andrew Sullivan. On the Chris Matthews show Sunday he declared that it was a sure bet that at some point point Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo would be indicted for war crimes.
For anyone who's traveled unembedded through Iraq since the U.S. invasion and occupation began five years ago, Sullivan's warning brings a sad smile of recognition, and a hope that his words will prove prophetic.
Even if all three men were indicted it would only be the tip of the iceberg in addressing the issue of war crimes in Iraq. In fact, the continued controversy over the torture memo and its justification of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation techniques that have been performed on at most a dozen or so detainees obscures the far more systematic war crimes that have constituted the every day reality of the occupation.
Indeed, from the first day of the invasion, war crimes have been the currency of U.S. military activities across Iraq. When I was in the country one year into the invasion I counted dozens of violations just in my travels and discussions with Iraqi doctors, activists and government personnel, which together made the occupation one giant war crime.
All were a direct a violation of the obligation of the United States and other members of the coalition under UN Security Council Resolution 1483 of May 22, 2003 to "promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective administration of the territory, including in particular working towards the restoration of conditions of security and stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future."
More broadly, the resolution also called upon the coalition to "comply fully with their obligations under international law." That is, U.S. troops were obligated to assure humane treatment for the civilian population (Article 27 of the 4th Geneva Convention) and more broadly permit life in Iraq to continue without being affected by its presence; and to ensure the public order, safety and welfare of the population, from providing for basic food and clothing needs to health care as well that are, according to Articles 68 and 69 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions (which is accepted as customary international law by the U.S. even though it hasn't signed the Protocol) "essential to the survival of the civilian population."
As an April 2004 report by Amnesty International on the human rights situation in Iraq made clear, "Under international humanitarian law, as occupying powers it was their duty to maintain and restore public order, and provide food, medical care and relief assistance. They failed in this duty, with the result that millions of Iraqis faced grave threats to their health and safety." With each death due to the decrepit health care system that could have been fixed with modest inputs of money, supplies and effort, the purposeful shooting of ambulances or the prevention or delay in the receiving of medical care as happened during the fighting in Fallujah and numerous other occasions, the U.S. crosses the line between "merely" violating international humanitarian law (specifically articles 17 through 19 of the 4th Geneva Conventions) and the commission of actual war crimes, defined as grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention as described in article 147 as including the "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... 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."
In sum, whether it's been the killing of tens of thousands of civilians (if not more)) by U.S. forces to the torture of a relatively few in prisons such as Abu Ghraib, the issue has never been on of soldiers exceeding their authority. It's an issue of the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, along with his top commanders and officials, being responsible for a military system that, once unleashed, cannot but commit systematic violations of humanitarian law.
Indeed, only weeks after the occupation began a group of Belgian doctors who'd spent the previous year in Baghdad explained that whatever crimes might be committed by Iraqis, as the internationally recognized belligerent occupiers "the current humanitarian catastrophe is entirely and solely the responsibility of the U.S. and British authorities." Even that early into the occupation they documented violations of at least a dozen articles of the 4th Geneva Convention by Coalition forces (including articles 10, 12, 15, 21, 35, 36, 41, 45, 47, 48, 51 & 55).
What's most surprising is that given the clear evidence of such systematic war crimes and the direct line of responsibility directly up to the president for these crimes, is that the peace movement has been almost completely silent on the issue of bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice in a court of law. Indeed, aside from Code Pink, which has always been at the vanguard of protesting the Iraq war (in good measure because unlike most other mainstream peace groups, its leaders have actually visited Iraq since the occupation), no member of the anti-war coalition dedicated even a modicum of time or energy to pushing an agenda of indictment -- rather than the politically unimaginable impeachment -- of the president and his senior aides for the crimes committed in Iraq, or Afghanistan as well.
This has been a strategic disaster. Unless Americans are forced to confront just how systematic have been the abuses committed by our troops (for more evidence of this, see the powerful documentary The Ground Truth by Patricia Foulkrod they will continue to imagination that the main problem in Iraq is one of incompetence or bad management, when the reality is that the main problem has been that Iraq has gone more or less exactly as the Bush Administration has hoped it would: the United States, after illegally invading a UN-member state -- an act which itself was a Crime Against Humanity" as it violated the paramount law of the United Nations against "breaches of the peace and acts of aggression" -- has in good imperialist fashion, managed to turn the occupied population against each other and generate enough chaos and violence to insure that Iraq's leadership cannot ask it to leave.
Need proof of how well this strategy has worked? Recall President Bush's blithe 2005 statement that the U.S. was ready to leave "If the Iraqi government asks us to." Of course, the point is they can't ask us to leave. And we're not leaving any time soon, no matter who is the next American president, as the recent leak of the "secret plan" to ensure a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq reported in the Guardian makes clear. Of course, this plan was never a secret; the miles-long construction convoys making their way across Iraq even in the first year building the new bases told anyone who wanted to listen what the long-term U.S. plan was for Iraq.
Viewed from this perspective, the hullaballoo over the official release of the infamous "torture memo," whose main points have long been known publicly, will do nothing to change the fundamental political dynamics surrounding the unending US occupation of Iraq. They might even help perpetuate by shifting focus away from the even more damning evidence of systematic and large scale war crimes and crimes against humanity at the core of the US occupation, for which all Americans, having reelecting President Bush after ample evidence of these crimes was available for them to consider, are complicit.
It is certainly responsible for the fact that despite the ongoing disaster, recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans consider John McCain, one of the biggest boosters -- and most ill-informed commentators on -- the occupation, better equipped to handle Iraq and the larger war on terror than either of his Democratic challengers. That might seem astonishing; but if the issue is framed as one of better management or prosecution of the occupation rather than the immorality and illegality of the war and occupation itself, there is a logic to Americans assuming that a war hero can do a better job than opponents who have never been in battle.
All hope is not lost, however. If Barack Obama can make a speech about Iraq that has the same level of honesty and power as did his recent speech about race, there is a chance that he can change the perception of Democrats as being unable to manage the country through a quagmire most Americans seem instinctively to assume is not going to end any time soon. Perhaps he might even get the hundreds of thousands of people regularly into the streets to bring the troops home, in the absence of which the occupation might well continue, as McCain seems to hope, for "100 years."
In the meantime, would it be too much to ask for UC Berkeley to fire John Yoo for encouraging the commission of war crimes and gross ethical and intellectual incompetence?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mark, just read your bio. Gosh...
But I will say this--Ozomotli totally rocks! My sons turned me on to them.
Immunity, given by congress to the torturers means the World Court can bring charges. The fact that no charges will be brought here in the US is one of the reasons it can be in The Hague. They thought they were so smart.
well, even a sitting president can be indicted. it's getting too late for that now. but yes, any number of courts could claim jurisdiction, as had happened in spain and, if i remember correctly, belgium or another european country, before their governments caved into pressure from the US. but if americans don't care enough about what their leaders do in their name, i doubt anyone else will.
Mark, when we reclaimed both houses in 2006 the word was that we'd impeach Cheney, and the blogosphere, especially HuffPo, was ablaze with the notion. Then--nothing. Even if President Obama demanded trials, would Pelosi and Reid move to make them happen?
well, if there was a Democratic white house, maybe. i think if--A BIG IF!--obama won AND there was a large groundswell of support for bringing them to justice, it COULD force Democratic leaders to begin some sort of proceedings. but the republicans have been brilliant in making the dems complicit in the war. i doubt once s/he is president, either dem contender will actually bring most of the troops home any time soon. the republicans have played their cards too well and the democrats are too much part of the war system, to suddenly bring it crashing down. sadly, until americans by the millions are willing to take to the streets and otherwise protest vigorously against the war and against the criminal actions of the current administration, little will change. but hey, did you see that performance by david cook on american idol last night, so who cares?
Mark and Rule, I too remember that excitement when it felt that we were going to actually do something to stop the carnage and restore the Constitution! Then Bush and Cheney pull another incredible rabbit out of their hat--and yes, I'm as suspicious as anyone here about the uses to which his spying have been put, and who he has what on! Complicit--and then some!
Every time Tom Hayden posts I see folks asking him, "What would it take, Tom--you were there once?" He has yet to answer, but you have come closest to what I think would work. Millions in the streets of every major city, all in red, white or blue shirts, carrying banners that say, "WE support the Constitution. We support the rule of law. We support The American People." Walking peacefully and with purpose; United as we have not been since 1968. And committed to change!
And just to make sure that the world knew of what we were doing, a massive PR and info sharing campaign that would break through the stranglehold of the MSM, forcing them to report the truth for once, even though their Corporate owners have done their best to bury it. We could do this, Mark.
Unless I'm missing your point, he already made Iraq-specific addresses:
On Iraq and National Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYBaiXQoI5Q
The Cost of War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztgD1d4fL8
I thought these speeches were quite powerful. From the looks of it, most people didn't get to see them thanks to our friendly neighborhood MSM.
i think obama talks the talk, but i doubt he or anyone else as president can walk the walk. too many vested interested with hundreds of billions--trillions--of dollars at stake in keeping this gravy train going. things would have to go really bad, with US casualties reaching vietnam-era weekly numbers, to build up enough pressure to end the occupation.
Thanx for that. Everyone here should watch it. They"re long speeches, but well worth it. Any one here who still thinks you don"t know what Obama is for, well, it"s because you are unwilling to sit and listen to what he has to say and wont vote for him anyway.
GWW
I have already sent my protests to the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and the UCB Chancellor. I join Mark in urging others to do the same.
`
it's all about the OIL
wind farms, plug-in vehicles & solar panels on every roof would solve the problem
but then,
what would Cheney & Bush do in retirement
w/o their beloved oil companies ??
and what would Sen. LIEbermann do
without our primary need for Israel
to be our forward base in the oil region??
.
While I applaud your article for the most part, Mr. Levine - an article which raises very important points - there are a few points on which I respectfully disagree with you.
1. considering the enormous secrecy apparatus of this administration, the literally thousands of "detainees," and the hiding of said detainees from the Red Cross, I think it a bit premature to assume that torture has been practiced on "only" a few dozen people. Of course, the torture of even one detainee is war crime enough.
2. I hardly think it fair to accuse ALL Americans of being complicit due solely to Bush's reelection. MANY people did NOT vote for him (myself included); plus there is evidence that the 2004 election may have been stolen. Complicit in other ways, perhaps.
3. RE Yoo, while I find his actions morally indefensible, after considering the matter carefully I cannot agree that Berkeley ought to fire him immediately. After a conviction, absolutely. This man ought never be permitted to teach. However, to fire him without a criminal CONVICTION under due process of law creates a precedent for the removal of academics due to their views, destroying a fundamental protection of academic freedom. It is precisely in the case of ciminals who we're most convinced are guilty that it's necessary to rely upon the principles of law. Otherwise their well-deserved punishment becomes unjust in form. It is extremely disturbing to me that Yoo should be teaching; however, the alternative creates an extremely dangerous
CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS RESPONSE:
BUT, i think that yoo should be fired, because his legal reasoning was so specious and ill-informed that it demonstrates that he is patently unqualified to be a law professor (or perhaps, even a lawyer). his idea that the president can declare war, for example, is just flat out wrong. any grade schooler will tell you that the congress has the power to declare war as state in article 1.8 of the constitution. and even colleagues at the DoJ have labeled his legal reasoning as subpar and sloppy. so there is good evidence that he is unqualified to teach. beyond that, given his clear participation in the enabling of war crimes, he should at least be suspended pending a review by the university of his actions. having someone who does not even know the constitution, and advocates for the commission of criminal acts, teaching the next generation of lawyers is, i would argue, unethical.
HuffPost's Pick
I think I covered this in another reply to a comment here, but that was still in moderation when you replied. I agree with you that Yoo should be fired, and most of your reasons why. What didn't fit into my initial comment is that I think he should only be fired after the appropriate procedures have been initiated - i.e. disbarment, conviction, something. These should happen ASAP. But as a tenured professor protected by certain codes of conduct on the University's part, to fire Yoo BEFORE any FORMAL standard has officially been recognized as met, sets the dangerous precedent I meant. I am ONLY arguing that he should fired with due respect to the APPROPRIATE procedures. I am arguing that the standards of due process should be rigorously upheld. I'm sure he is not only immoral but actually both criminal and incompetent; I just think this should be formally be recognized by the appropriate bodies before he is JUSTLY fired.
Yes! When our enemy refuses to follow the law, it is all the more important for us to do so.
thanks for your comments. 1. you're probably right re the number of torture victims, but it would still pale aside the number of dead... 2. by complicit i didn't just mean bc we voted for him, but as a country we do need to take collective responsibility for that act. even if 04 was stolen as well, roughly half the country still supported him, which is quite telling. but even for those who opposed bush then and now, far too few of them have actually taken to the streets, and otherwise made ending the war a personal priority. as long as the opposition remains passive, the war will go on regardless of the poll numbers.. 3. i feel very strongly about academic freedom, especially as someone who's been regularly attacked because of my political views by the likes of horowitz and campus watch. MORE BELOW...
Sorry to pop your bubble but as a citizen of the United States you are accountable and responsible for what your country does. I know it is uncomfortable but it is the truth. Try to spin it away, try to convince yourself that you alone out of 300 million of us is not guilty because you didnt vote for Bush.
I hardly think a criminal trial is needed to fire someone.
I tried to reply to this before, but apparently the comment got eaten by a glitch. I take it that you are replying to my first comment though Mr. Levine has also replied to you.
My point about Yoo, covered in another reply here, is that there are specific rules governing tenure and what the university can and cannot do in respect to tenured profs. Unfortunate as it is, Yoo can't legally be fired until certain requirements have been met - proven professional misconduct, disbarment, and/or a criminal conviction. I'm just arguing against firing him in a manner not in accordance with these rules. He should be fired as soon as it is technically POSSIBLE.
Regarding your first comment: you seem to have missed the phrase "complicit in other ways, perhaps." I by no means assert that I am pure and innocent, only that characterizing complicity only on the basis of having VOTED for Bush is unfair to those who did not do so, and ignores the possibility of stolen elections. There are certainly other ways in which we are all responsible for our gov't, and I doubt I have done as much as I could have. My point was quite specifically about the issue of voting. That's all.
i never said i was not accountable either. i think everyone could have done more. although i would say, without trying to sound holier than thou, that i have been devoting much of my life since 2001 to understanding the dynamics of the war on terror and then iraq, and helping to educate other americans about them. i devoted the entire last chapter of my last book, 'why they don't hate us: lifting the veil on the axis of evil,' to laying out a series of moves towards that end. as for there not being the need for a criminal trial for yoo, condi and the rest of the bush team, if there is clear evidence that they conspired to violate US law--and torture is against US law, then at the very least a criminal investigation should be opened. yoo tried to preempt such a possibility with his argument that, by definition, whatever the President does or says in war time has to be legal, even if it violates the constitutions, because of his power as commander in chief. even if this is a specious argument--which it is--it has the advantage of allowing people who acted under it to argue that even if they broke the law, they were advised by the DoJ that what they were doing was legal, and therefore they can't be held criminally responsible. let's see how a conservative supreme court rules on that one if/when the time comes...
I graduated from the University of California in June, 1969, with an A.B. degree in history. In December, 1976, I graduated from Florida State University College of Law and have been an appellate public defender ever since. I believe that you are absolutely right, America's bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq were all criminal acts. The Bush administration is engaged in ongoing war crimes and must be brought to justice.
I read Dean Elney's 4/10/08 press release justifying the continued employment of John Yoo at the UC Berkeley School ol Law on the basis of tenure and academic freedom for the first time today. I was outraged, to say the least. I have e-mailed both the dean and the chancellor of UC to express my disgust. John Yoo is an internationally known war criminal. His legal memo seeking to justify the use of torture by the Bush Administration is more than sufficient evidence to establish that he is an accomplice in the war crimes of the Bush administration.
Dean Edley said no action can be taken against Yoo as a tenured professor because he has not been convicted in a court of law. However, the UC School of Law can and should be publicly reprimanded for its failure to recognize a duty to the human race not to employ known criminals in the teaching of law. I urge everyone to contact the University to protest the ongoing employment of John Yoo.
I am a Berkeley alum. I am ashamed.
As long as the primary business of the United States is war, nothing will be done to stop it. After all, we're the good guys so anyone we kill has to, by definition, be one of the bad guys. Not until the Republican party is relegated to where the Nazi party went, will there ever be a time that the U.S. is not waging war against someone for their oil. Period. This nation deserves to be bombed into submission and then broken apart and nuetered of it's military.
And smack-dab in the middle of your article is yet another mark of shame on the nation: "the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, possibly more". Of course, the actual number, or a reasonable estimate, is missing. Why? Because that's how it is: We overthrow the government of a sovereign nation, we destroy its infrastructure, firing off high explosives in all directions, we torture private citizens in secret prisons, and however many people we kill in the process we don't even care enough to mention, much less calculate with any intention of accuracy, because who cares? Nobody in the media, nobody running for president, nobody running for much of anything throughout the country.
And now it turns out that torture and its applications were discussed at length in the White House, and approved. The same place it was decided that domestic wiretapping and information gathering without warrant or court consent was a necessary practice in the new age of terror. And who really cares? Do either of the democratic candidates call for impeachment ?
The republic is gone. Those who imagine themselves to be basking in the glow of particapatory democracy are only warming their hands around the crackling fire made out of our shredded constitution.
"And now it turns out that torture and its applications were discussed at length in the White House... Do either of the democratic candidates call for impeachment ?"
Wellllll.... you are not going to get any movement on Clinton's part. Why?
There has been little or no focus on the inception of US covert torture. By the time CheneyOilCo got their meaty little hands around "extraordinary rendition", escalated and expanded the practice, the CIA had been practicing torture by proxy for 5 years. Presidential directive "PDD 39" was devised and signed by Bill Clinton in 1995... allowing circumvention of the US ratified United Nations Convention Against Torture.
As Senator Hillary Clinton so vocally and "convincingly" assures the American electorate that those same years are the basis of her vast and superior "experience", I would have to assume that she was also involved with the decision. It might behoove an enterprising reporter/blogger to ask the Clinton Campaign about her current position on snatch and torture flights... rendition to foreign countries (or US bases on foreign soil) for "interrogation" and elimination of any semblance of due process... and ask if she supported the decision in 1995.
Yes! Bring war criminals to trial... but also look at the fundamentals and who devised them.
Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992
bitter in Seattle
this is getting a bit angry, but as far as Rendition, it was a policy put into place by Clinton in 1995.
That, along with NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall which led directly to the financial meltdown of today, makes Bill, and Hillary by extension, Republicans. They talk the progressive talk, but all they do is talk. As Mark has pointed out, there are so many kiretsu style alliances and Corporate interbreeding, especially at the Federal Level, that getting any president to move on this would be next to impossible. At least Obama is not (yet) a DNC pawn.
But--and here's the kicker--When millions of angry, bitter, betrayed, and aroused citizens march, Presidents (from LBJ who retired rather than fight it, to Nixon, who was forced to the peace table) must listen, and act. The voters, Diebold aside, still have the power to remove any of them and that massive movement of moms and dads and schoolkids and grammas a grandpas and white and blue collar people, scares the living crap out of them.
I am not sure what amazes me more - that a Middle East apologist like Mark Levine is allowed to masquerade around as a credible journalist, or that he has followers who exceed his narrow-minded idiocy.
A few points of consideration for Mr. Levine and his like-minded (mindless?) automatons:
- Please, do not confuse liberal extremism with intellectualism.
- This libel you publish is actually counterproductive to your cause, which makes one wonder: Is the cause therefore based on falsehood or are its fanatics (yes, that is the most accurate word) just inarticulate?
- Please keep this in mind: While you may want nothing to do with the United States, it wants even less affiliation with people such as yourselves. What does one call a person who reaps the benefits of a country like the U.S. while simultaneously condemning it as pure evil? A coward? A hypocrite? A villain?
In closing, it is at least comforting to know that such idiotic opinions are for the most part kept in the impotent world of "Comments" and will be given about as much consideration by the world as the imbecilic authors initially gave their vacuous rants. Unfortunately, I happened to stumble upon them and couldn't pass without comments of my own.
can't really determine if this petty reply was directed at me... but in case it was... try doing a bit of fact checking with your favorite search engine... try "extraordinary rendition" as your search key words. Think you might just be surprised to find that it was your buddy Bubba that got the ball rolling... and I'm certain that Hillary does not want the spotlight on that fact... perhaps because she supported/supports the practice... we won't know until someone asks.
Now to address your assumption that you have special ownership privileges relating to this country and the direction it should be heading... give me some proof. Until then, I'll continue to exercise my prerogatives. I don't know about you, but I've earned them and don't take kindly to you or anyone else of your ilk suggesting otherwise.
Fight any dirty little wars for this country? It has opened my eyes and painted my world... and if I care to share my perspective... that's exactly what I'll do, contrary to any right that you believe you have to prevent me from doing so.
We're taking this country back. Those who can't understand that reality and don't understand that there will be war crime consequences for those who have perpetrated those acts against humanity... well, the election isn't all that you will lose. Sit down.
bitter in Seattle
thanks for such a supportive post. but can you explain what a 'middle east apologist' is? who am i apologizing for?? the whole region? just the muslims? jews? maronites? leaders? peasants? perhaps you can be a bit more specific. second, i'm not a liberal... the first piece i ever wrote, for tikkun magazine in 1995, was 'what is liberalism and how do we get rid of it?"... third,. if you say i'm writing libel--prove it. what part of iraq did you travel through exactly? every crime i described i witnessed, and have corroborating evidence from numerous sources. so who's libeling whom? perhaps you should visit iraq and see for yourself. i'm happy to organize a trip for you. finally, i never said i want nothing to do with the US. that's your wish, not mine. i would like the US to live up to the ideals i grew up learning as the core of american identity. perhaps you don't care about them. if true, i suggest you move to venezuela or china, where you'll feel right at home. other than that, i suggest you get some therapy for all that misdirected rage and anger you're exhibiting.
Burnt correctly notes that Hillary Clinton has not advocated that the Bush administration be impeached for their high Crimes and Misdemeanors but yet inexplicably fails to mention that Obama, that alleged agent of hope and change, has also not supported Kucinich's plan to impeach Bush and Cheney. He or she could also have mentioned that both Clinton and Obama have consistently voted to allow the funds to be sent to Iraq despite Kucinich having pointed out, apparently to no avail, that there are already enough funds in the pipeline to provide for the welfare of the troops in Iraq.
Apparently the last thing these two wish to do is to dare rock the boat before the election takes place in 2008. Support the troops. Bring them home-alive and in one piece-now.
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
***UPDATED BELOW*** During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as...
Loading comments…
Posted April 15, 2008 | 01:23 PM (EST)