President Obama needs to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to indict **** Cheney, right now, for war crimes.

Just look at the statute, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 2441. It says that someone is guilty of a war crime if he or she commits a "grave breach of common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. And then it defines what a grave breach would be.

One such breach is torture, or the conspiracy to commit torture, which Cheney was clearly in on, as when he repeatedly defended waterboarding and talked about the need to go to the "dark side" Here's the language from the statute: "The act of a person who commits, or conspires to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

Another grave breach is "cruel or inhuman treatment," or the conspiracy to inflict such treatment. Again, Cheney was supervising such treatment in the White House, which would qualify as committing this crime. One time, it got so ghoulish that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the other principals, "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Here's the language on "cruel or inhuman treatment": "The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering . . . including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control."

An additional breach is "mutilation or maiming." Since some detainees say they no longer have the complete functioning of arms or limbs, Cheney may be on the hook here, too. "The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons . . . by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose."

"Intentionally causing serious bodily harm" is yet another grave breach. The statute defines this as: "The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war."

For each of these offenses, Cheney could receive life in prison, according to the statute.

That is where he belongs.

And it's time for Obama to stop *****footing around. He should indict, arrest, and prosecute Cheney.

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," said Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.), in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, "Broken Laws, Broken Lives". "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

That question is now firmly on Obama's desk.

And if he continues to dodge it, he'll make a sick joke of the pious claim that we are a nation of laws, not men.

© 2009 The Progressive
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/25-8

You been in the military?

I seem to remember he said once that he was in in the 90's for a few months. Isn't that right Madman?

Honorable discharge of course. but that isnt the topic of this thread eh? its war crimes and the Nuremburg laws.

Dont you think if they had anyting on him they would have allready done it?

If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

Actually I read an article just the other day that says they are waiting until all military are out of Iraq to do the full investigations and possible prosecutions. I guess that is because if they are found guilty while our men and women are over there it could be bad for them.

Where is that article?

Let me find it, be right back.

I haven't been able to find it again. I will keep looking though.

I couldn't find anything on this but "faux" sources

My mistake, it is Britain that is doing this. They are investigating the wrong intel and all that lead up to the war and the actions after but they want their men out of Iraq before they do anything serious.

I read too many articles sometimes, sorry.

No one in this current administration is planning on doing anything about laws being broken. This is because they are breaking many of the same laws. To bring Bush/Cheney down, would be to bring themselves down as well. This doesnt include they hundreds of congressmen/women that are guilty of crimes... Think about it.

They all seem to think our constitution is null and void so what's the point?

I don't believe this is true at all. There will be investigations but I don't think anything will be done until we are done with Iraq and that will be a little while longer.

OF course you don't. But there is still proof that this administration, as well as many others, do not believe in the constitution.

Nothing will be done about this as they all have the same agenda. Iraq won't be done with at all. Obama himself mentioned he wanted to leave 50,000 troops in country permanently. Also to increase the budget by 40 billion a year in military/civilian involvement in Africa. AND he wants to reinforce Afganistan (we all no Bin laden is nowhere near anymore). They want war. It's a great excuse to spend billions.

this is from a propaganda faux site

couldn't agree more. Glad to see you are one of the few around here that realizes the president does not have absolute power.

I don't think this is true either. Considering Obama's past he is the best to make sure that the constitution is followed as it should be.

March 28, 2008
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

-Joe Miller

Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school "confirms that Obama was a professor." We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school's news release.

Sources
Farrington, Brendan. "Obama: Bush Not Respecting Constitution." The San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March 2007. 27 March 2008.

Sweet, Lynn. "Sweet Column Reprise. Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not." Chicago Sun Times, 8 August 2004. 27 March 2008.

University of Chicago Law School. "Law School Faculty." The University of Chicago Law School Online Catalog, 14 May 2007. 27 March 2008.


In my opinion only sticks in the mud or people with other underlying agendas believe that the constitution is a static document. The constitution and the supporting documents are meant to change with the changes in the population. We do not live in the world that the people who wrote the constitution lived in therefore the constitution has to serve the population of today the best it can, so it must be amended.

As far as I am concerned **** cheney should get a medal for torturing those terrorist.It's too bad they didn't do more.