The War Crimes Act of 1996: Bush, Cheney Could Be Indicted under US Law

February 10th, 2008 - by admin

George Washington – 2008-02-10 22:49:02


The War Crimes Act of 1996:
Bush, Cheney and the Boys
Could Be Indicted under US Law

(October 27, 2005) — The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.

18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time.

The penalty may be life imprisonment or — if a single prisoner dies due to torture — death. Given that there are numerous, documented cases of prisoners being tortured to death by U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan (see for example this report), that means that the death penalty would be appropriate for anyone found guilty of carrying out, ordering, or sanctioning such conduct.

The general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy. This confirms what the Pullitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam previously wrote.

Indeed, an FBI email declassified in December 2004 states that Bush signed an Executive Order authorizing torture (here is the list of documents obtained through a freedom of information act request, and take a close look, for example, at this one, which mentions the “executive order”).

An expert on Constitutional law said that only Bush could have authorized the torture which has occurred.

It has also recently come out that, even after the torture at Abu Ghraib hit the news, torture still continues at that prison and, indeed, the U.S. is still torturing people worldwide. Even to the casual observer, it is obvious that the administration has no plans to stop, but has instead been working tirelessly to make it easier to carry out torture in the future.

Let’s recap. We now know that torture in Iraq was ordered by top officials, and that torture is continuing, notwithstanding the administration’s claims that it was only “a couple of bad apples” that were responsible for Abu Ghraib.

Making a potential prosecutor’s job easier, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo in January 2002 to President Bush saying that America should opt out of the Geneva Convention because top officials have to worry about prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 2441.

By attempting to sidestep the Geneva Convention, Gonzales created a document trail that can be used to prove that top administration officials knowingly created a policy of torturing prisoners, and that such a policy could reasonably have been expected to result in the death of some prisoners.

The U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, but we never opted out of the Geneva Convention for Iraq. Indeed, President Bush has repeatedly stated that Geneva applies in Iraq (although he has since claimed that foreign fighters captured in Iraq are not covered). Thus, there would be very little room for fancy footwork by defense lawyers in a prosecution against top officials concerning torture in Iraq.

And to the extent that claims that the U.S. has sent prisoners to other countries for the express purpose of being tortured are true, violation of the war crimes act by the highest officials of our country would be even clearer. For who else but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other top officials would have the ability to authorize such flights? How could such a program be undertaken without their knowledge? And how could such a program be anything but the intentional “ordering” of torture, or at least “knowing about it” and “failing to take steps to stop it”?

The Abu Ghraib general’s recent statements about torture coming from the top and the existence of the “ghost flights” are important pieces of evidence for convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and a host of other top administration officials for violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996. Upon conviction, they could be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.

Additionally, violation of the war crimes act almost certainly constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor” which would allow impeachment of such officials.

Postscript: Since this essay was written, new information has come out about torture and other potential violations of the Geneva Convention. The former director of the CIA accused Cheney of overseeing torture policies. Colin Powell’s former chief of staff stated that Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes.

Some of the torturers themselves have come forward to confess their actions (see also this article; see also this article, this one, this one, and finally this one). Of course, the U.S. has now admitted waterboarding, and admitted that it is illegal.

It was also revealed that the U.S. is holding prisoners at gulags in Europe.

In addition, before attacking Falluja, the marines allegedly stopped men “of fighting age” from leaving. The marines also levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN’s special rapporteur, used “hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population”.

And the U.S. military’s use of white phosphorus and also napalm as weapons in Iraq has been exposed (see also this essay).

These facts further strengthen the case that high level officials committed war crimes. Indeed, even the lawyers and other people who aided in the effort may be war criminals; see also this article and this one.

In accordance with Title U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Why the Use of White Phosphorus (and Depleted Uranium) IS a War Crime

(November 21, 2005) — Now that the Pentagon has admitted that it used white phosphorous as an offensive weapon in Iraq (and not, as first claimed, solely as a flare), the U.S. is predictably arguing that it did not commit war crimes, since the U.S. did not sign Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”). It is true that the U.S. never ratified Protocol III — which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war.

However, in trying to defend against war crime allegations, the U.S. may have escaped from the frying pan by jumping into the fire.

Specifically, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”. The U.S. has ratified the 1925 Protocol.

The 1925 Protocol is part of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act of 1996, in turn, specifically makes it a crime to commit a “grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party.” See Section (c)(1) of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

Since the cloud is “asphyxiating or poisonous”, then whoever ordered the white phosphorous attacks in Iraq, whether Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 5-star generals, or lower down the chain of command, could conceivably be tried under the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.” Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds.

Depleted Uranium
The U.S. military’s bombardment of Iraq in the current war and in the first Gulf War is also likely a war crime which violates the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s depleted uranium project — a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up — said use of Depleted Uranium (“DU”) was a war crime.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission [on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights], laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Since the use of DU violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, it also likely violates the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The use of white phosphorous as a weapon against civilians and the use of thousands of metric tons of DU could thus probably be prosecuted as war crimes. Such actions — especially when taken together with the numerous war crimes discussed previously — could provide the basis for imposing life sentences or even the death penalty against the high-level U.S. officials who ordered, condoned or covered up such crimes, including those who provided the philosophical framework which allowed such crimes to occur.

posted by George Washington at 9:17 PM

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.