Torture? What About the Crime of Waging Aggressive War?
Right after the climactic finish of World War Two, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, while picking through the aftermath of the world's biggest bloodbath to date, famously called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing." "[T]o initiate war of aggression," the tribunal concluded, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
That conclusion was certainly true of World War Two. Only in the context of military occupation and war, where millions of people were uprooted and displaced and forced into the war in one way or another, could Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime pull off what they did by way of ethnic cleansing and genocide. All of the subsequent crimes of the Nazis, the Nuremberg tribunal concluded, emanated from the German military's initial decision to wage aggressive war to conquer nations and topple sovereign governments.
George W. Bush, as the Downing Street memos show conclusively, had made up his mind long before the WMD scare, to invade Iraq and overthrow the government in Baghdad. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action," the July 23, 2002 memo famously states, "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The minutes of the July 2002 Downing Street meetings between high-level U.S. and U.K. officials record evidence that is distinctly at odds with everything the Bush Administration was telling the American people and the world throughout that summer and fall. Bush repeatedly insisted he wanted "peace" and wished to "avoid war," but Saddam's stockpiles of WMD had become simply too big of a threat. Bush forged a thin "bipartisan" consensus for invading Iraq (with 133 members of the House of Representatives and 22 Senators voting against going to war).
Spokespeople for the Bush administration deceitfully juxtaposed concerns about Iraq's alleged WMDs with Al Qaeda's attacks of September 11, 2001. In other words, Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove and others, along with a small army of "message force multipliers" the Pentagon dispatched to use the public airwaves to push for war, are clearly guilty of committing what the Nuremberg tribunal called the "supreme international crime" - aggressive war.
In addition to torture, we should be investigating the events, actions, and lies from our own government, either through a special commission or a special counsel, which brought this country into the Iraq catastrophe.
What's more, the two war crimes (aggressive war and torture) appear to have been intimately linked. Information has surfaced recently from sources inside the military and CIA that indicates that at least some of the torture was conducted in an effort to establish ties, no matter how tenuous, between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and 9-11. These "harsh interrogation techniques" were carried out to provide a pretext for invading Iraq.
According to Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, as well as other Bush administration insiders who have subsequently defected, Bush wanted to launch aggressive military action against Iraq from the moment he took power. That's why he filled his national security staff with veterans from the "Project for a New American Century," which had been openly calling for just such an invasion since the mid-1990s.
So, you see, in addition to investigating torture as a war crime it is imperative that we also examine the lies and deceit that led the United States to defy Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and use its awesome military power against international law to try to remake the politics of the Middle East.
Today, on the sixth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op on board the USS Abraham Lincoln on that sunny San Diego day, we should be calling for a thorough investigation of Bush's warmongering, "the accumulated evil of the whole," when he "fixed" the "intelligence and facts around the policy."
Loading comments…
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
Neither of the three branches of the U.S. Government is going to treat any war we enter into as a "war crime." Not a chance. The Courts, for example, will treat the matter as a political one entrusted to the other branches. Almost every major or minor bout of hostilities we have engaged in has resulted in somebody suing on the theory that it was illegal. They don't win. As long as the Congress goes along, the President can invade any nation any time.
This being the case, who exactly do you expect to investigate this, and to what purpose?
Off thread: Bush 1 may have violated the US Constitution by using false pretexts for invading Kuwait(sp?), driving out the Iraqi troops, bombing Iraq, etc. Enforcing a UN order may save Bush 1's neck as a reason to use US troops against Iraq. Bush 2,aka W, wasn't enforcing a UN order & used false pretexts for the invasion & occupation of Iraq. W violated the US Constitution & commited treason by sending US troops to Iraq on false pretexts. Even W is protected by the US Constitution. As I understand it, W, et al must 1st be arrested, indicted, given a speedy & fair trial before being found guilty of treason. If W, et al are found guilty of treason, W et al may be sentenced to death.
Professor, your arguments are interesting & valid, in nearly all cases. But US Federal Courts have juristdiction(sp?) in these matters. W, et al, have committed treason. W, et al, regardless of their offenses, must be protected by the US Constitution.
To be vindictive: International Tribunals, etc, can't use the death penalty. US Courts may & do use the death penalty. Treason against the USA is a death penalty offense. When & if W & Co are convicted of treason, the USA can & will execute W, et al. That settles the matter for me. Even if W, et al aren't found guilty or aren't executed, your arguments may be used at moot questions proceedings. If W, et al, are dead-you can't hurt
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
larry, yes, you hit the nail on the head here with the differences between Persian Gulf War I and II.
So, Joe, just where, anywhere, is waterboarding legally defined as torture?
What a load of leftist pap!
Uh, larry, do you have any idea what treason means? It is defined in the Constitution, and interpreted very narrowly by the Courts. If W did use false pretexts for invading Iraq, that, in itself, would not even be a crime (how it was done, such as by lying under oath, could be criminal, but the President is actually legally entitled to mislead the country. It may be a political offense for which there is heck to pay at the ballot box, but it is not a crime).
And even if it was a crime, it would not constitute treason. W was attacking what he considered to be our enemies. The fact that it went badly, and may ultimately have worked to the advantage of other of our enemies, is not going to make it "giving aid and comfort to our enemies" for purposes of a treason prosecution.
Great article, Professor!
Most agree that Bush2 came into office with war on his mind. Whether it was to avenge his daddy's death threat by Saddam, or whether it was simply a money-making scheme for his buddies in the military-industrial complex, it really matters not. The end result is 4,200 American troops killed for a LIE, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocents caught up in this illegal, immoral war!
September 11th only gave him the perfect excuse to commit his crime. (And some people wonder why there are so many conspiracy theories out there about 9/11 being an "inside job"!)
And now we are left with the aftermath of Bush. How can this country ever regain the moral high ground if we are unable or unwilling to prosecute those who have lied, cheated, stolen, tortured, and killed in our names?
We must keep up the pressure. Write your representatives, the White House, and the Justice Department to demand that these criminals stand trial!
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
It's really pathetic and sad to see Condi Rice defending torture to children and college students -- what a heckuva role model she is!
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Great Comments! People need to understand that the entire basis of George Herbert Walker Bush's war on Iraq in 1991 was the charge that Saddam had committed "aggressive war" against Kuwait. But of course Bush I also did the same thing to Panama -- ho hum.
I remember the dread I felt when we prosecuted the First Gulf War, in August of '90. But at least there was a UN mandate and a shared effort.
Fast forward to the "Monkey Boy Sh*t Fling" in March of '03, and the dread in the pit of my stomach was almost stifling. I don't consider myself to be any remarkable brain trust, but even I knew something was wrong. When I saw Bush amassing troops in the region in advance of any true declaration of intentions, I KNEW the dye had been cast. From then on the information out of the White House was massaged and fitted to, ultimately, what the intent was.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again; If prosecutions are to ever come about, it will be up to us, the American people, to see to it, that it comes to fruition. Obama's chess move here is predicated on the fact that if he, himself, injects his thoughts and beliefs to the argument, the Rethuglican screed machine, will go into high gear and make it seem to be a purely political move. With Eric holder taking the lead, with the help of Constitutionalists and the American people, we can get done what NEEDS to be done; i.e. the prosecution and incarcerations of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, et al.
What a day of celebration that will be. A "Day of Reclamation".
Excellent post! I completely agree with you.
I, too, felt that same dread as Colin Powell went before the UN with "proof" of WMD before the invasion. When I was growing up in a small town, I was taught that my government was honorable, and that if they told us something, it was truthful. How sad that GWB and his cabal took that trust and trampled it into the dirt. What a pity that they used Colin Powell to do their dirty work, putting a stain on his otherwise spotless reputation.
George W. Bush and his gang need to be brought up on war crimes and war profiteering charges.
The torture information that has been released is only the tip of the iceberg. People have been killed in our prisons as a result of torture, and many have "gone missing". We need to have all the information out there.....and we need to have justice!
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/021109.html
Bush never wanted peace with Iraq, that was why he was in such a hurry to kick the weapons inspectors out of Iraq he was afraid they would continue to find nothing. We never have really had a thorough investigation to all the lies behind Bush's aggressive war. Also, we have to look at the politicalization of the AG's office and firing of the assistant Attorney Generals for not bringing phony voter fraud charges against Democrats. Also, we must look at the imprisonment on trumped on charges of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman and the role Karl Rove had in it. Let's also investigate the Office of Special Plans where Doug Feith came up with all sorts of nonsense linking Saddam with al-Qaida. Then we must not forget to investigate the torture memos and where they lead. It will be a busy season for good prosecutors, but the nation needs a thorough healing after the eight years of Bush ripping apart the constitution.
Mr. Palermo,
The "Father of the Constitution", 4th President, author of "The Bill of Rights", Congressman, Cabinet Member, and author of 30% of the Federalist Papers, agrees with you:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-is-americas-greatest-enemy.html
Great post! Madison said concerning war...
"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it."
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Hey, thanks for the link, interesting.
I totally agree that this should be investigated thoroughly. I wish that I had spoken out in the beginning more than I did. I knew about this area of the middle east because I had friends that lived in the area, with families that still lived in the area. I remember talking to them about Hussein when Bush 1 was going in. I'm not going to claim that I knew the exact details when Bush 2 went in BUT I did know that we were being a fed a bunch of lies. The thing that I will never forget is calling it "Shock and Awe" how terribly arrogant and downright disgusting!! And watching the coverage on TV, while crying. Yes this was an "illegal" war! I will be reading the book that yermammy suggested. I would also like to suggest John Dean's book "Worse than Watergate" for insight.
We continue to bring up the post WWII war crimes trials, but we ignore the fact that even they were filled with hypocracy. The Soviets raped thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of women and were never brought up on war crimes. We fired bombed and nuked millions, yet we were never brought up on war crimes. Why? Because we won. It had nothing to do with morality or justice. The fact is these "war crimes" some are so fond of seeking will never work because no one is ever going to prosecute the side that wins. What are a few judges in the Hague against armies of millions of mens with ships, planes, tanks, etc? Don't believe me? Give me an example! We continue to use terms like "just war", "Moral war, "legal war." None of those terms even matter because war is none of those things. War is violence which means morality has no relevence to the outcome. The victor will be the one who will do whatever it takes to win, which usually means the one willing to commit the most violence.
Are you just as opposed to the American Revolutionary War?
Not at all, nor am I opposed to WWII or what we did. What I'm saying is we have too many people in this country (and others) that view war from a legal and moral perspective which it has not and never will be. Why? Because it's two or more factions using violence to further political their respective political interests or to put it bluntly it's groups of people killing one another to get what they want. Moral superiority has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. All war are in effect crimes. All war are in effect immoral. When WWII began FDR asked both sides to pledge not to bomb cities. By the end everyone, including us was doing it and not because of hate or because they thought it was moral, but because it was what it took to win. For our sheltered generation 60+ years later that's extremely hard to wrap our heads around because we've never experienced anything like that...thank god.
Dammit, don't try and make sense! You'll confuse those with minds already firmly fixed.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
That's for sure zep, they took bombing of cities off the war crime list because then the US and UK would be up for trial too -- blood on everyone's hands, just read Vonnegut -- no disagreement here -- but it still doesn't justify aggressive war -- Michael Walzer drove me insane in the lead up to the war because he claimed it was "just" and he and Ignatieff and Hitchens and Dennis Miller and the rest should be on trial too!
Dennis Miller is just an unfunny comedian, but it is odd how Christopher Hitchens fell in love with Bush. I guess the very erudite Hitchens admired the swaggering, unthinking Bush for his Texas roughneck charm. Hitchens seemed to love the whole Bush agenda- torture, Gitmo, all of it. He even defended the Bush record on Hurricane Katrina during a debate. What a shame!
Put Fox News on trial. They beat the war drums for years and defined dissent as disloyalty.
There weren't very many of us protesting against going to war. Wasn't it about 70% of Americans that wanted to go over and get some vengeance. I had read that there weren't any WMDs before the war started. Others knew it too, but the American people wanted to kick some butt to heck with the facts.
You become what you hate.
Wow...never thought I'd ever hear honesty about this subject. Those who were against the war from the beginning seem to forget that (or deny it.) Most people weren't fooled.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Actually, with 133 House members and 22 Senators voting against it, and huge demonstrations in New York SF LA etc. the consensus was never anything near 70 percent -- it depends on how the question is framed -- Al Qaeda, everyone wanted blood -- except Barbara Lee!
You obviously don't remember the lead up to the war. There were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people protesting the war, not to mention the fact that it wasn't even CLOSE to 100% of the Congress supporting it!
Palermo understanding of history is considerably off center, as is his understanding of national and international law. I would suggest that he go back and work on his undergrad degree again.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Uvymopka you are really not making any sense here -- I suppose an Ivy League Ph.D. is not good enough for you -- unless of course it's Condi Rice, right? -- Specifically, what's your critique? Or do you work in a bowling alley cleaning stinky shoes?
Yes, but Rice got her PhD at the University of Denver and thus she was not Ivy League material. Right-wingers just throw the label of bias around to silence the media. Since their policies are so bad, trying to manipulate the media is the only game they have.
Absolutely true. We must exercise patience, yet determination in bringing justice to the Bush administration. As much as I respect Sec. Colin Powell, I hate to say it, he allowed his credibility to be used for an war of aggression against another country. They are all war criminals. Like it, or not.
The U.S. Congress needs to be recognized. I expect Republicans to act irresponsibly, but but the level of cowardice and collaboration by the Democrats was truly stunning. Why were they so fearful? Anthrax? Corporate Media was (of course) also a major problem, constantly propagandizing on behalf of the White House. Had we more statesmen/women, there would be no need for investigations.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
That's right, the Dems voted to give $100 million to the Contras in 1986! That took the wind out of their sails about how outraged they were when the Iran -Contra scandal broke -- and then the Clinton years were just Republican years -- he is a Center-Right Republican, which is weird they got so upset about him. The always bend over and capitulate to the Republicans -- it's because no matter what happens the Republicans own the flag, the military, apple pie, and mom.
Gee... I'm so stupid I don't even know what "aggressive war" means. Duh.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
It means when you behave like Adolf Hitler and use your military to invade and topple sovereign governments at your whim -- like we condemn other countries of doing, like when Saddam invaded Kuwait -- we didn't say, gee, I guess that's just fine.
Great article Mr Palermo,
I am far more concerned with holding the Bush administration accountable for lying the American people into an unnecessary war where thousands of innocent civilians were killed in the Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad.
Not only is Bush and Cheney responsible for lying about WMD in Iraq and lying to us about an Iraq-911 connection but these lies led to the death of over 4,000 of our young men and women.
This is where the real crimes were committed and this is where our attention should be focused, not on WaterBoarding, where only a few people may have died during this horrendous process, but on the thousands of people who lost their lives in a war, the invasion of a sovereign nation, that was totally unnecessary and largely contributed to bankrupting our economy.
That might be a valid concern, but the TOTALITY of it is where the problem lies. That's why the Nuremberg trials even talked about it, because without the aggressive war that they plunged the world into, none of their other war crimes would have been possible!
"Sovereign nation". How quaint. By your logic, all of the governments we've fought in our past few conflicts (excepting the NLF in Vietnam) led sovereign nations, and thus had some mystical legal shield of invulnerability against the US and other countries from monkeying about in their business. No nations's borders are sancrosant when casus belli exist and the required will to wage war is present.
Um...WRONG. The only time that the sovereignty of a nation matters is if you are attacking them without cause, such as we did against the North Vietnamese and the North Koreans and the Iraqis. By contrast, the Japanese attacked us first, and then the Germans declared war on us.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Actually, USMC you're dead wrong -- the government in Saigon "invited" the United States marines into South Vietnam to "protect" it -- the US did not topple a sovereign government in Vietnam, it propped up a puppet government in Saigon, hence, all the fuss was about trying to keep that "US ally" floating.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Thanks Sequ, we'll see what happens, if punishment is not doled out they'll be back in the Palin-Perry administration in 2016
Thank you , Mr. Palmero.
Absolutely right.
And don't forget Cheney's energy task force.
The Bush administration wanted to go after Iraq, and they weren't about to let anything stop them... Especially not the "reality based community." They were busy inventing their own reality, and we are left to study it.
Whatever they needed to get a war in Iraq, they were going to make part of their new reality. Every time we hear that it is tougher to withdraw from Iraq, Americans should remember the lies that got us there. The forged documents, the outed CIA agents, the information from "Curveball," the influence of Chalabi... And the torture.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
