A Ticket to The Hague for Dick Cheney?
Scape @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:50 pm
$1:
By Scott Horton
Gene Burns is one of the nation’s most popular talk radio hosts. For years he has dismissed accounts of torture; America, he has said, does not torture. But last night, after watching Torturing Democracy and realizing that he had not understood how important and serious an issue torture had become, Burns abruptly changed his tune. Here’s a transcript of his remarks.
I now believe that some international human rights organization ought to open an investigation of the Bush Administration, I think focused on Vice President Dick Cheney, and attempt to bring charges against Cheney in the international court of justice at The Hague, for war crimes. Based on the manner in which we have treated prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and the manner in which we have engaged in illegal rendition–that is, surreptitiously kidnapping prisoners and flying them to foreign countries where they could be tortured by foreign agents who do not follow the same civilized standards to which we subscribe.
I’ve always said that I’ve thought that even at Guantánamo Bay the United States was careful to stay on this side of torture. In fact, you may recall that on a couple of occasions we got into a spirited debate on this program about waterboarding, and whether waterboarding was torture. And I took the position that it was not torture, that it was simulated drowning, and that if that produced information which preserved our national security, I thought it was permissible.
And then I saw Torturing Democracy.
And I’m afraid, now that I have seen what I have seen, that I was wrong about that. It looks to me, based on this documentary, as if in fact we have engaged in behavior and practices at Guantánamo Bay, and in these illegal renditions, that are violations of the international human rights code.
And I believe that Dick Cheney is responsible. I believe that he was the agent of the United States government charged with developing the methodology used at Guantánamo Bay, supervising it for the administration, and indulging in practices which are in fact violations of human rights.
A large part of the population still credits the Bush Administration’s absurd claim that it never embraced or applied torture to detainees as a matter of policy. Two recent documentaries, Alex Gibney’s Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side (for which I was both a consultant and interviewee) and Sherry Jones’s PBS feature Torturing Democracy investigate the administration’s policies and conduct. Both draw from decision-makers inside the administration and soldiers on the frontline.
The administration did its best to spike both films. Taxi was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, but with Discovery Communications then in the process of going public and facing sensitive SEC clearances, executives apparently decided not to risk provoking the anger of the White House. As I reported elsewhere, PBS also found that it had no network space for Torturing Democracy until January 20, 2009—the day the Bush Administration decamps from Washington.
Why was the administration so concerned about these two films? The conversion of Gene Burns supplies the answer. No one who sits through these films, I believe, will be able afterwards to accept the official version of events. George Bush has good reason to be afraid of too many Americans watching these documentaries.
Gene Burns is one of the nation’s most popular talk radio hosts. For years he has dismissed accounts of torture; America, he has said, does not torture. But last night, after watching Torturing Democracy and realizing that he had not understood how important and serious an issue torture had become, Burns abruptly changed his tune. Here’s a transcript of his remarks.
I now believe that some international human rights organization ought to open an investigation of the Bush Administration, I think focused on Vice President Dick Cheney, and attempt to bring charges against Cheney in the international court of justice at The Hague, for war crimes. Based on the manner in which we have treated prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and the manner in which we have engaged in illegal rendition–that is, surreptitiously kidnapping prisoners and flying them to foreign countries where they could be tortured by foreign agents who do not follow the same civilized standards to which we subscribe.
I’ve always said that I’ve thought that even at Guantánamo Bay the United States was careful to stay on this side of torture. In fact, you may recall that on a couple of occasions we got into a spirited debate on this program about waterboarding, and whether waterboarding was torture. And I took the position that it was not torture, that it was simulated drowning, and that if that produced information which preserved our national security, I thought it was permissible.
And then I saw Torturing Democracy.
And I’m afraid, now that I have seen what I have seen, that I was wrong about that. It looks to me, based on this documentary, as if in fact we have engaged in behavior and practices at Guantánamo Bay, and in these illegal renditions, that are violations of the international human rights code.
And I believe that Dick Cheney is responsible. I believe that he was the agent of the United States government charged with developing the methodology used at Guantánamo Bay, supervising it for the administration, and indulging in practices which are in fact violations of human rights.
A large part of the population still credits the Bush Administration’s absurd claim that it never embraced or applied torture to detainees as a matter of policy. Two recent documentaries, Alex Gibney’s Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side (for which I was both a consultant and interviewee) and Sherry Jones’s PBS feature Torturing Democracy investigate the administration’s policies and conduct. Both draw from decision-makers inside the administration and soldiers on the frontline.
The administration did its best to spike both films. Taxi was to be aired on the Discovery Channel, but with Discovery Communications then in the process of going public and facing sensitive SEC clearances, executives apparently decided not to risk provoking the anger of the White House. As I reported elsewhere, PBS also found that it had no network space for Torturing Democracy until January 20, 2009—the day the Bush Administration decamps from Washington.
Why was the administration so concerned about these two films? The conversion of Gene Burns supplies the answer. No one who sits through these films, I believe, will be able afterwards to accept the official version of events. George Bush has good reason to be afraid of too many Americans watching these documentaries.
http://torturingdemocracy.org/
Pseudonym @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:47 pm
Fat chance. I foresee them retiring and living far away from all the troubles and concerns that arose during their administration.
StuntmanMike @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:54 pm
I'm sorry, but that article's really just nothing more than agenda driven crap.
First off, Gene Burns is hardly "one of America's most popular talk radio hosts." The guy's a little known night time Talk Radio host in America's most liberal city, and a class "B" market at that.
Give me a break. While there may be legitimate arguments against Guantanamo Bay, please don't try to invoke the conversions of insignificant media figures as supporting evidence for your cause. When Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity comes out against Gitmo, then you've got a story. But this tripe you've posted is just that-tripe.
Scape @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:26 pm
Murder is murder. The idea that you sleep at night knowing that people are willing to do harm on your behalf may be true but there is a real difference between fighting the enemy and being an enemy if the only way to define an enemy is by their actions.
StuntmanMike @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:48 pm
Scape Scape:
Murder is murder. The idea that you sleep at night knowing that people are willing to do harm on your behalf may be true but there is a real difference between fighting the enemy and being an enemy if the only way to define an enemy is by their actions.
Murder is murder? Not quite. Murder is a very subjective term. I've heard black activists in Toronto and native activists in other parts of the country deride police as "murderers" fairly regularly over the last few years. But it's exceedingly rare to see a police officer actually convicted of "murder" by a court.
I've heard the Taliban described as "murderers" by some Canadian media for their attacks on Canadian troops, but I don't think that's really an accurate term for them. They may be alot of things, but killing soldiers in battle hardly constitutes "murder."
And I'm not sure I know what you mean by your comment about "fighting the enemy and being the enemy." Are you saying that because we put people in Gitmo, we're no better than the terrorists? I think that assertion is fairly easy to refute, so I won't insult either your or my intelligence by doing so.
Scape @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:15 am
When lawlessness chaos becomes law and order then murder is still murder. When you abduct someone without trial and they die in captivity by the acts of interrogation then their is blood on the hands of the interrogators and the leaders who ordered them. Since people were put in Abu Ghraib and subsequently killed then what other result could there be but terror?
We put a whistle blower in jail for two years less a day and disbanded the airborne regiment because we killed one Somali teenager and yet now there has been whole villages rounded up and imprisoned without trial or treatment. If Justice is to be more than a word it has to be upheld with more than simple slogans and with us or against us is not going to hold up in court and testimony procured by torture is notoriously unreliable.
Secret trial and torture has all but guaranteed that the people who we should be after will get away with the sloppy execution of this policy while innocents by the thousands join the ranks of our enemies and when our troops are captured they face near certain death and dismemberment.
This is not a crime it's a high crime meaning there were orders and direction by an administration. I won't insult your intelligence if you don't desecrate the integrity of the dead and the innocent by appeasing high crimes. Please do not attempt to insult their intelligence by protesting this as some simple crime by some low ranks blowing off steam.
We live in a world of Realpolitik and as such certain realities need to be observed but in defiance of that the light of freedom burns. In the name of the state was the reason used to sacrifice freedom but in so doing these actions have undermined the the founding reason and safety of the state.
Evil is as evil does. Black sites, waterboarding and sleep deprivation are the new exports. Remember, just like murder there's no statute of limitations on war crimes.
martin14 @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:45 am
its not gonna happen Scape, so stop worrying about it.
Scape @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:09 am
I wouldn't be so sure this time. To what allegiance does the people who have to clean up this mess owe to Bush and company? It would be no great sacrifice to them to have the whole lot trotted in front of a tribunal. Besides there will have to be some review done at some point not matter what happens be it in the senate over the cost, the courts over law or the administrative branch over breach of regulations. Signing statements are not blank checks on the law without end and a sitting president will have more political reasons to pursue this then a former president will be able to defend from. Then there will be people who will refuse to take the fall for bosses who had no compunction to put their lives at risk. When they turn by the droves the fingers will all be pointing in one direction and all at once.Who better a scape goat to throw to the wolves then?
A positive aspect of the Bush legacy
$1:
Nicolas Sarkozy saved the President of Georgia from being hanged “by the balls” — a threat made last summer by Vladimir Putin, according to an account that emerged yesterday from the Élysée Palace. . . .
The Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.
Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked.
“Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”
Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?”
Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah -- you have scored a point there.”
martin14 @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:17 am
Because the only administration that would have any chance of
indicting/charging/investigating .. anything.. against Bush, Cheney
and co. is the US herself.
And that would open the door for the next administrations to face similar problems
in the future.. ergo, they will not do it. Its not like Bush started WWIII
or dropped nukes on France or started ethnic cleansing in the States or something.
Many many leaders have done worse, and faced no retaliation for it,
and will not in the future.
Mugabe
Chavez
Castro
whoever is in charge of Sudan
so beleive me, not gonna happen. The Europeans can barely get Milosovic,
Karadic and still looking for Mladic. Still only small potatoes.
and they will NEVER go after Bush.
They (the ones in power) would be signing their own death warrants.
(thats a figure of speech)
Toro @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:47 am
Can't see it happening.
hwacker @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:02 am
Won't happen, as much as the dialy kooks would like it too.
Scape @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:47 pm
martin14 martin14:
Many many leaders have done worse, and faced no retaliation for it,
and will not in the future.
Mugabe
Chavez
Castro
whoever is in charge of Sudan
so beleive me, not gonna happen. The Europeans can barely get Milosovic,
Karadic and still looking for Mladic. Still only small potatoes.
and they will NEVER go after Bush.
and will not in the future.
Mugabe
Chavez
Castro
whoever is in charge of Sudan
so beleive me, not gonna happen. The Europeans can barely get Milosovic,
Karadic and still looking for Mladic. Still only small potatoes.
and they will NEVER go after Bush.
Every one of the leaders mentioned are despots still in power with the exception of Milosovic which like Goering, died in their cells. Radovan Karadžić even evaded capture from the IWC until he made a fool of the US.
In order for the Bush administration to get away with that it has done will require the current administration to carry water for them, the same one that accused Obama of being a Muslim terrorist so how much favor do you think they will curry? It will be far more politically expedient to have Bush made an example of in the name of reform then to defend an administration that will only bring down anyone who accommodates and associates themselves with it.
martin14 @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:17 pm
I hear you, but it dont work like that 
Powers that be will never do unto others for fear that it will
be done unto themselves.
Consider also Communism in Eastern Europe.
How many leaders/ senior Party members / middle level secretaries
have been prosecuted for what they did from 1945-90 ?
very few.. certainly not the thousands of people involved in maintaining
that system.
Its isnt a question of carrying water, its a question of THEM
being next on the list.. you see many on the right have the knives out for
Obama, and he hasnt even started yet.. no wonder after all the knives
after Bush.
Understanding the "i wont do it, cause the next guy does it to me"
is important to understanding why this is a no-go.
Scape @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:48 pm
So Obama is going to start 2 more wars, trigger a world wide financial meltdown and make FEMA a joke as well? There is far too much to atone for. The calls for his head will be a choirs not just in the name of vengeance but in the name of righting the ship of state. The bush legacy is a load stone that is far to heavy for Obama to bear.
martin14 @ Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:01 pm
come on Scape, take the blinders off please
2 wars, killing 5000 Americans.. and no one cares about the other side.
Kennedy,Johnson and Nixon did a much better job in Vietnam, and... nothing.
wwfmeltdown was not caused by Bush.
started by Carter
improved by Clinton
Bush.. sleeping at the wheel, sure, but thats it.
was Hoover prosecuted ? no
FEMA has been a joke for a long long time. but tell that to the countries
that dont have one, they would love to have something as bad as FEMA.
you keep bringing stuff up, i keep shooting it down
there nothing worth going to the Hague for, sorry..