May 14, 2012
14 MAY 2012
The five-panel Tribunal has unanimously delivered a guilty verdict against all the defendants.
Although the tribunal is regarded as being purely symbolic, it was conducted in accordance with regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts.
Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who is the tribunal’s initiative said “Powerful countries are getting away with murder.”
Part of the prosecution team was Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, College of Law, and also a lawyer. He is well known as being a war crimes expert.
Mr. Boyle had emphasized on the importance of this tribunal and was confident that it would lead to other similar hearings throughout the world.
He indicated that there already had been attempts to take Bush into custody which failed due to the fact that most are not aware of his charges and therefore he is still under protection by many different governments.
“We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, than we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland,” for the annual Bilderberg Group meeting. “The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany.”
Boyle went on to explain that the Nuremberg Charter was used to conduct the tribunal. He said “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan.” He then reminds the sheeple that the U.S. is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter.
President of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin indicated that the prosecution has proved beyond a “reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “War on Terror” and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
President Lamin explained how the Tribunal doesn’t have the authority carry out any sentencing of the guilty but he also reassured everyone on what can do. “As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.
“The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons are entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicized accordingly.
“The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions”.
The crimes committed:
The acts listed above were in violation of the following:
Reasons why the defendants are guilty and why they are liable for the acts committed by others:
note: the following details are from an article that appeared on pravada.ru and was written by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
According to the Torture Convention 1984 of which the US is a party, the prohibition against torture is absolute. Torture by public officials is "without doubt … regarded by customary international law as an international crime" per Lord Hope, Ex-Pinochet. Nobody is immune from its reach – not even heads of states as the Pinochet case decided.
The Torture Convention defines ‘torture’ as ‘the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official’.
Through legal contrivance the accused lawyers, in justifying the use of torture, the US redefined the meaning of torture to ‘actual organ failure and cause long lasting harm’.
This position was advanced in a memorandum by the Attorney General’s office to President George W. Bush, dated August 1 2002 and was given by the Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee.
The Prosecution submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses made it clear that the acts inflicted such as pain and harm could only be described as torture. This means that even if the threshold is raised in the manner suggested by Bush and his legal advisors, the acts were in violation of the Torture Convention.
Under the Geneva Conventions, it promises a minimum of humane treatment in "armed conflict not of an international character" to all civilians and non-combatants. Geneva Convention III protects all persons – whether they are captured or surrendered, whether in uniform or not.
Liability may also arise under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 (ICC). Although the US is not a party (though a signatory), Afghanistan is. It became a party on 10 February 2003. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over any person who is a national of a state party, or who has committed a crime on the territory of a state party: article 12.2.
The manuals (Army Field Manual 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation (1992) referred to colloquially as FM 34-52) of the US FBI and the Army relating to the handling of prisoners during interrogation and confinement incorporate Geneva Convention constraints. From about September 2001, there was a distinct move to seek ways to avoid the obligations under the Torture Convention as well as the Geneva Convention III.
There was a proliferation of legal opinions to the President and the Defense Secretary that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable to the prisoners. These were acted upon Executive orders and other directives issued that were incompatible with the Geneva Convention III and the Torture Convention.
The prosecution submitted that the inevitable conclusion is that the US Executive branch, as represented by the President, the Vice-President and the Defense Secretary, intended by a conscious and willful act not to treat the prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
The prosecution stated that the totality of the evidence established that President Bush issued executive orders to commit war crimes. As Commander-In-Chief of the US military leading the conduct of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, he intended these orders to be acted on. In this capacity, he received reports from the battlefields as well as other sources that pointed clearly to these violations. He did nothing to stop these war crimes from being committed. The fact that his executive orders were based on legal opinions is an issue that does not absolve him. Indeed, it makes those giving advice equally liable for war crimes.
President Bush issued a memorandum on February 7 2002 declaring that al-Qaeda prisoners were outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions as they were ‘enemy combatants’ not prisoners of war. This was a prelude to subjecting them to torture and inhumane acts.
He also detained the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay at the Southern tip of Cuba with the aim of taking them out of the jurisdiction of any legal system – "a legal black hole".
Donald Rumsfeld, the then Defense Secretary, issued a Memorandum for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dated 19 January 2002 approving the ‘advice’ given to him by legal counsel John Yoo and Robert Delabunty by a Memorandum dated 9 January 2002 that the CIA was free to ignore the Geneva Conventions as they did not apply to suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.
Rumsfeld denied knowledge of the abuses. Rumsfeld knew or should have known of the abuses and torture at Iraq and Afghanistan. He and his department were repeatedly warned of the abuse of detainees.
Rumsfeld established the ‘aggressive’ torture techniques program and authorized these techniques, created an environment that promoted torture and inhumane acts by sending an unequivocal signal demanding ‘more actionable’ intelligence, and failed to prevent or punish acts of torture and other violations.
The Prosecution further submitted that Dick Cheney was the Vice President of the US at all material times when the complainants were subjected to violations of the Torture Convention and Geneva Convention III. It is logical to infer that he was privy to the policies and the orders issued by the president and Rumsfeld.
Cheney, for example, played a key role in opposing the amendment proposed by Senator John McCain to pass an amendment to the 2006 National Defense Authorization Bill to prohibit "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees in US military custody.
Cheney had knowledge of what was going on and in particular that the orders issued by Bush and Rumsfeld were issued and acted upon. He was part of the policy makers in this regard. He plainly knew that there were violations of the Torture Convention and/or the Geneva Convention III and failed to intervene to prevent such activity.
During the afternoon session, the prosecution submitted on the liability of Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes, Dick Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The prosecution stated that these lawyers gave advice that the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention did not apply; and that certain interrogation techniques were permissible.
The accused (lawyers) have suggested that there is no connect between the interrogation techniques employed and the legal opinion justifying these techniques, as the latter were merely to explore the "outer limits of the legal landscape".
Prosecution submitted that the lawyers knew that their advice was being sought to be acted upon; and in fact was acted upon. And further that the advice paved the way for the violations of international law and the Conventions. The President and the Defense Secretary are clear that they would – and did – rely upon, and act, in accordance with advice of the lawyers.
Bush nails the lie that there was no connect between the techniques employed and the legal opinion justifying these techniques. He states categorically, in his memoirs:
‘Years later … many lawmakers became fierce critics. They charged that Americans had committed unlawful torture. That was not true. I had asked the most senior legal officers in the US government to review the interrogation methods and they had assured me that they did not constitute torture. To suggest that our intelligence personnel violated the law by following the legal guidance they received is insulting and wrong.’
Others who relied on these legal opinions were former CIA Director, Tenet, in his memoirs recounts that the CIA had to wait until legal opinion before they could embark on aggressive interrogation techniques.
Diane Beaver was in charge of Guantanamo acknowledges that there was never any question in her mind that Washington was closely involved as the lawyers for Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and the CIA visited Guantanamo before the list of the techniques was compiled. The lawyers had said they should do "whatever (was) needed to be done",
The techniques in Guantanamo ‘migrated’ to Iraq, as the testimonies of the several complainants in this case bears out so lucidly. The report by the former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger attests to this fact.
The Nuremberg trial in the Altstotter case (Altstotter was Chief of the Civil Law and Procedure Division of the Ministry of Justice) pronounced that:
"… legal advisers who prepare legal advice that is so erroneous as to give rise to an international crime are themselves subject to the rules of international criminality".
The Nuremberg Tribunal highlighted the fact that as a lawyer he knew of the crimes that were being committed and found him guilty of giving his name as "a jurist of note and so helped to cloak the shameful deeds…" "The cloak of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist".
The prosecution further submitted that the cumulative evidence establishes a joint enterprise to carry out acts that are war crimes.
The decision-makers at the highest levels – President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Rumsfeld wanted more aggressive techniques, the lawyers advised on how this could be accomplished and provided legal arguments to circumvent the law, Bush approved, and the techniques were transmitted and applied right down the chain of command. The torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm.
The prosecution concluded their submission by stating that they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons were instrumental in inflicting torture and cruel inhumane and degrading treatment that violated the Torture Convention and Geneva Convention III. These are war crimes. The lawyers advising the administration played a decisive role in subverting the system of international rules that should have protected all the detainees, a system that the US did so much to put in place after the Nazi atrocities in World War II.
The charge against the accused here is very similar to the charge for which the Nazi war criminals were convicted at the Nuremberg trials: "the charge of conscious participation in a nation-wide governmentally organized system of cruelty and injustice, in violation of the laws of war and humanity, and perpetrated in the name of law by … authority": Alstotter case.
This is because after 9/11, all the pronouncements from the top made a conscious decision to set aside international rules constraining such treatment. A combination of factors account for this: fear, ideology and almost visceral disdain for international rules and norms. There are others who have also committed war crimes but those that have been charged are the key players. Against them there is overwhelming evidence and they bear direct responsibility for war crimes.