Tuli Can't Stop Talking

These are just my thoughts on contemporary issues and an attempt to open up a dialogue.

My Photo
Location: New York City

A citizen who cares deeply about the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

What is Good for the Goose. . .

An old friend of mine sent me this essay. I thought that I would share it. Let me know what you think.

Rendition for Libby: Let’s Torture Scooter!

(The Applicability of Torture under the “War on Terror & the Patriot Act)

“In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity”.

– Statement by Dick Cheney following the indictment and resignation of I. Lewis Libby http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-4.html

US criminal law and international law (Geneva conventions) forbid the use of torture and cruel treatment of the accused and prisoners

In days gone by the United States once prided itself on the above tenet of law, affording constitutional protections to those accused of a crime. However, these guarantees no longer apply across the post 9/11 American spectrum, especially where the accused could conceivably be involved in terrorism.

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Unfortunately for Mr. Libby, his public involvement as one of the neo-con architects of the current debacle in Iraq, the first stop in the War against terror, has left him open to charges as a war criminal and a terrorist, and as such could easily be perceived to be subject to the vagaries of the “Patriot Act”. As a consequence of this behavior, he should be stripped of any constitutional protections, deported for rendition and tortured as a means to prevent further terror from occurring in the form of illegal invasions of foreign states which would inevitably lead to the loss of life of American troops as well as the obligatory “collateral damage” the adventures cause..

Some might lift an eyebrow or bristle at this suggestion [no small feat these day, given our societal addiction to Laci and Michael and…] that a prominent and as of yet still un-convicted recent member of our government should be subject to such unthinkable and horrendous treatment, and surely not the sort of thing an American would expect from their government.

However it appears that Mr. Libby would have an uphill battle should he be held as a war criminal. Were he subjected to the same standards (“We’re a nation of Laws” - GW Bush) as the Nazi’s at Nuremburg, it is doubtful Scooter would have much of a chance at acquittal, given the lack of WMD’s or links between Osama and Saddam, and the ever changing reasons for being in Iraq then and now.

U.S. Justice Robert Jackson made it clear to those who would be a part of any pre-emptive war in his opening statement to the tribunal on Nov. 21, 1945:

Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive war illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave the war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.

As it is slowly becoming painfully obvious to most Americans, there never was a valid reason to attack Iraq and because self-defense is the only instance accepted by the Geneva and UN conventions, those responsible for these acts of war could and should be prosecuted in the same fashion as their counterparts at Nuremberg. Instead, these architects of our current debacle in Iraq are still in Washington and elsewhere scurrying about attempting to further obfuscate their original intentions while at the same time laying the groundwork for yet more pre-emptive strikes, most notably in Iran and Syria. If the premise that torture is an acceptable method to be used to prevent further carnage, then the recent indictment of I. Lewis Libby could serve as an example of just when torture is indeed justifiable.

Even the bumbling Inspector Clousseau would find Libby’s failed attempts to rebuke Ambassador Wilson’s claims regarding the bogus yellowcake from Niger by disseminating the employer of his wife an act that would render him a prime suspect, connecting him in the plotting and commission of acts of terror throughout the world. The 2.000 plus dead American soldiers, 15,000 plus wounded and maimed, and a minimal accounting of 35,000 dead Iraqi civilians certainly constitutes an act of terror by use “of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies . That this resulted in the terrorizing of people could be readily confirmed by conversing with any of the deceased’s families, while the wanton destruction of property (in Iraq as well as here in the US in the form of increased taxation, MY personal property[emphasis added]) continues unabated at this very moment.

While most Americans are not willing to admit it, the carnage that has been fomented on other nations (most notably Iraq) in response to the attack of 9/11 has now eclipsed that event in terms of death of innocents and destruction of private property. Thus torture could be seen here as a prophylactic measure to prevent additional loss of life.

The premise of the use of extra-legal means in this the age of terror is pro-actively removing an act of terror prior to its inception. As such Scooter is a prime suspect, and given the recent rumblings by Mr. Libby’s cohorts of the need to use force in other Sovereign nations such as Syria and Iran, time is of the essence. And when time is of the essence, it has been pretty much agreed that the use of torture is necessary, albeit unfortunate.

None other than the “great legal mind” of our time Alan Dershowitz points out that should a suspect hold information that might save thousands of lives, it is imperative that we use any means necessary to find out what plots are afoot, and quash them before they reach fruition!

Given Mr. Libby’s close proximity to Mr.’s Cheney, Feith, Perle and their ilk, notorious for advocating the next illegal act of aggression soon in the “axis of evil” (Iran, Syria & North Korea), he would be the prime person to be deported abroad for rendition [1], and far more likely to provide immediate results than say, the “dirty bomber” from Chicago. And an expedited course of extra legal treatment might allow this country to avoid yet another embarrassing international debacle.

Some might find this suggestion cruel, but we know that according to the Washington Post, our very own CIA has an archipelago of “black sites” where we could send Mr. Libby, and judging by the mount of detainees (30 +70) it is possible that it may just be working. We also wouldn’t feel as if we were leaving him in solitary or anything as unpleasant as say, Guantanamo.

Once there, it might be beneficial for the CIA to probe into who was responsible for outing one of their own. While we all know Mr. Fitzgerald did an admirable job in trying to attain this info the old fashioned way, a more forthright admission might be just around the corner, which amongst other things, could save a whole lot on court costs and clogging the court calendar, a subject which has long been a mainstay of the Republican Party. In addition we wouldn’t be bombarded with the usual parade of elected Republicans complaining about the high costs of the Special Prosecutor, yielding only minor infractions.

It would also leave Court TV & CNN’s Law page more time to ponder the big issues around the corner. In fact, I think Robert Blake may be in line for a civil verdict any moment now.

[1] “extraordinary rendition.” This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in America—including torture.

From The New Yorker


The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.


Issue of 2005-02-14

Thought provoking, no?


Blogger Andros said...

Very interesting article. I'm not for torture, but perhaps some people deserve a dose of their own medicine to understand...

As for the legality of a war, I think they'd argue that there are circumstances when stricking first isn't necessarily an offensive war--as long as there is credible evidence that the enemy is ready and capable of attacking you.

This, of course, wasn't the case with the war in Iraq, and how we got there. Willfully misinterpreting the evidence & misleading the public to undertake such a costly endeavor is an impeachable offense. I'm not talking about criminalizing political decisions by our elected reps, but this wasn't an error in judgment, but a deception, a cover-up, and a criminal misuse of our precious national resources.

However, that's why we need engaged and informed citizens, so we can detect B.S. and stop foolish acts before they harm the nation.
To have such a rapid reversal of public opinion in less than a year after the general election shows that the voters didn't put the necessary effort in examing the situation and evaluating the facts readily avaialble before the election.

Anyway, I like the idea that the Patriot Act should be used against the leakers and all those enablers of terroritst! ha! that would be the day...

On the other hand, I don't see why the CIA can't perform a rendition on Libby for outing one of their own!...

Seriously though, I think that there is a consrpiracy here. Libby took one for the team. He's a lawyer, an intelligent person, so he understands the procedure. He knew that he was lying and that his notes would contradict his statements to the FBI. But, in the summer of 2004, there wasn't a time to shed light and more attention to the case with a tight election coming up. So he delayed, misled the investigators, and bought crucial time for Bush.

Care to bet that Bush will pardon him?

8:22 PM  
Blogger Tuli said...

The Pardon is in the mail.

4:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home