Reply #34: The whole "classified evidence" bit is a big fat red herring. . . [View All]

[pat_k]

. . .For decoades, courts-martial have been dealing with the balance between protecting classified material, protecting the rights of defendents, and seeking to find truth in the service of justice.

The ONLY purpose of Bush's War Criminals Protection Act is to protect the War Criminals in the Executive Branch from the punishment that their actions demand in any civilized society.

Any claim to any other purpose doesn't pass the smell test.

The bill itself is evidence of consciousness of guilt and malice aforethought. As they look for cover in their fascist fantasies, their words and actions make it crystal clear that they do not expect those fantasies to hold. In his memo, Alberto Mora (outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy) provides an excellent factual summary of the timeline and players in the Bush regime's War Crimes. Over and over their actions demonstrate a conspiracy to knowingly commit, and escape consequences of, crimes (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=503566&mesg_id=503566">summary of memo).

Like the felonious five did in Bush v. Gore (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call it Treason), these people, "left their incriminating fingerprints everywhere, showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt on their part."

From http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060227fa_fact">the Memo

Just a few months ago, Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity. . .

. . One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s "flexibility." It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal. . .

In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that "it’s a statute. It exists—we’re not free to disregard it. We’re bound by it. It's been adopted by the Congress. And we’re not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.". . .

----------
malice aforethought
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.