Alan Keyes' site sez * war criminal: Bush's War of Terror, WMD's (Part 11)

Bush's War of Terror, WMD's (Part 11)


Deanna Spingola

Deanna Spingola
November 11, 2005


War crimes and their perpetrators are as ancient as war itself. War criminals have typically received punishment because responsible moral people have responded appropriately to the reprehensible actions of a few. Not all tribunals, official or otherwise, receive press attention, especially in a media controlled environment. Tribunals are convened against individuals who violate International Laws which encompass the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter, the Nuremburg Charter and the Hague Convention of 1907. The United States signed each of these treaties and are morally bound by them. Then there is our own War Crimes Act of 1996 which prohibits Americans, including officials, from committing war crimes known as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. <1>

Considering our own War Crimes Act of 1996 and the International Treaties how can we justify our questionable invasion and alleged occupation actions? In an internal White House memo dated 25 January 2002 Alberto R. Gonzales, currently our Attorney General, warned Bush that members of his administration could possibly be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of the innovative techniques used in the war on terror. The Bush administration was also warned by a group of attorneys before the Iraqi invasion. <2> Therefore, given that the punishments for violations of the Geneva Conventions could include the death penalty, Gonzales urged Bush to "declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention."

Gonzales stated that it would be difficult to determine how future Department of Justice prosecutors would apply the War Crimes Act of 1996. He also reminded the president that he, Bush, had already assumed the Constitutional authority to "make the determination you made on 18 January 2002 that the GPW (Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War) does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban." "Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." Gonzales wrote. <3> He further stated in his memo: "As I discussed with you, the grounds for such a determination may include: A determination that Afghanistan was a failed state because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations. A determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government, but a militant, terrorist-like group." <4>

I don't recall any expressions in the Constitution that give the executive branch of government the authority to arbitrarily determine the status of foreign leaders or the internal affairs of another country based on some self-serving agenda. Nor does it promote exemption from benevolent moral behavior. This is powerful commentary on presidential presumption of power which places every citizen, not just foreigners, in jeopardy. Anyone may easily, for expediency, be labeled as enemy combatants, terrorists, communists, liberals, leftists, useless eaters, insurgents, fetuses or unresponsive brain damaged defenseless people. And the penalty ascribed is open to the interpretation of a trained conditioned practitioner, foreign or native born, and there are no injunctions against torture or worse and total disregard for humanitarian treatment. Unfortunately, because of presidential privilege, though immoral, precedents have been established! Special operations are in place and regularly followed but denied if questioned by congress (like Dick Durbin), the alternative press or others. <5>


snip


http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/051111

developed a brain or something?

:)

repukes brought in to challenge obama (keyes lives in maryland)

as a minority myself, I tend to make fun of other minorities who become crazy Republicans, either out of pure craziness or because it makes them a novelty. :)

An article calling Dubya a war criminal, right next to the Fwee Wepubwik ad?

I know my head's exploding, but in a good way.

Batshit crazy, mind you. But not a dumbass like Chimpy and some of his likely Republican replacement candidates (George Allen, for example)

You got that right.

Maybe this is one of the reasons Tom Clancy calls himself "An Alan Keyes Republican".


Tom Clancy

not-so-thoughtful articles.

Deanna Spingola

which lets her tell the truth about foreign policy at that website.

That is my guess, though I don't know.

He called up the Randi Rhodes show and tried to debate her, supporting the position that the Executive Branch has almost unlimited powers , powers that superceded the Judiciary and Congressional branches. Of course, Randi spoke facts and made him look like the fool that he is, and he eventually hung up...so this seems like quite the turnaround.

The article had some cool stuff on election fraud, domestic and foreign, which is an interest of mine. As a result, I put it in the election fraud news wire I contribute to DU 3 days a week.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x400291#400297

After I'd readied the post, I clicked on the main page and realized it was a Keyes site. I re-read the article and thought :wtf: , it says what I thought.

Maybe Keyes is becoming a Libertarian or something.

I'm glad there is a confluence between right and left on some issues (paleo right, not neocon).

:freak:

Is this the same Alan Keyes that disowned his daughter because she is gay? Alan Keyes may have a few brain cells but as far as I'm concerned he is a piece of crap. Looks like he is jumping ship and I predict, before this is all over, there will be plenty more following his lead. Alan Keyes isn't posting anything on his website that most people here on DU already know. I want to know what took Alan Keyes so long to figure out the obvious? Did god knock him in the head and tell him to wake the hell up already? Geesh his website almost made me puke with all his minuteman, fox news, freewepublic, crap. I'm sure his freeper buddies will be sending him some nice hate mail for his sudden "awakening"

It seems she's taken stances quite similar to the majority of DUers, judging from a very brief review of her other articles. The exception seems to be that she's a social conservative opposed to "choice."

Try this one, for example ...

The American empire and big business
Deanna Spingola
November 1, 2005

The sham war against terror was built on lies and deception initiated by the Bush administration and perpetuated by the complicit media, particularly the numerous "conservative" talk show hosts. Angry talk radio hosts batter their "call in listeners" in a win/lose relationship. Either you believe what they say or you lose. They control with spoiled brat anger instead of sound respectful reasoning. Administration critics are demonized with angry name calling. No one dare question any government actions in this "free" society. Rather than real investigative reporting so called newscasters employ antagonism to protect their republican pundit positions. But that, after all, is the whole purpose. If one of them should honestly question such issues as the war they would undoubtedly end up collecting unemployment. The war is #3 in an economic strategy.

<snip>

I'll have to look for her writings.

in the debate against Shrub 2000.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Shrub of course said his was Christ.

miracles.

*shakes her head*

I am assuming that more and more folks in the Republican party are finally thinking for themselves and *gasp* embracing the rule of law.

Shit!!! I can't bring myself to condemn this piece when it's the freakin' truth!!! I suppose I am left to embrace those who are opening their eyes and minds and calling out the BushCo/neoconster regime for what they are: war criminals.

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Alan Keyes, RenewAmerica, or its affiliates.