[رينف.كم]: ال يكسر أخبار خيار
يوم الثلاثاء, يوليو-تمّوز [22ند], 2008
![[رينف] ساحة](http://rinf.com/images/reloaded.jpg)
[رينف.كم]: ال يكسر أخبار خيار
|
|
يكسر أخبار |
لن يحاكم ال [أوس] بوش
يوم السّبت, يوليو-تمّوز [19ث], 2008 تناقشت هذا تقرير في ال [رينف] ساحات > سيحاول بوش, [شني] ورمسفيلد أبدا كنت لجريمة حرب في ال [أوس] لأنّ البلد يفتقر توافق الآراء على تعذيب لن يحاكم ال [أوس] بوش بجون [مكقويد], [غردين.ك.وك] يعلو البيّنة أنّ علويّة [أوس] مسؤولات - بما في ذلك رئيس جورج بوش, نائب رئيس ديك [شني] وسابقة دفاع سكرتيرة دونالد رمسفيلد - يرتكب جريمة حرب ب يفوّض الإستعمال من "يحسن إستجواب تقنيات" - [إي] تعذيب. الجريمة حرب قد أسرع صوت طبل مع الإطلاق أخيرة من اثنان كتب: جديدة [يوركر] كاتبة [جن] [مر] ال قاد [درك سد] و [فيليبّ] رمال تعذيب فريق, أيّ يوثّق ال [دسسون-مكينغ] تنفيذيّة أنّ ال [أوس] أن يرصد لا فقط ال [جنفا كنفنأيشن], غير أنّ تقليد الإحترام لالحقوق الإنسان من سجينات عدوّ [ثت دت] إلى [بك تو] جورج واشنطن حظر على يضرّر [بووس]. حاليّة وسابقة بوش يندفع مسؤولات الآن أن يتفادى العار - لا أن يذكر الخطر من سجن وقت [- ثت] نتج من مقاضاة إجراميّة. عاملت هذا أسبوع, [كبيتول هيلّ] كان إلى المشهد من رمال ودوغلاس [فيث], سابقة رمسفيلد محميّ الذي كان معماري من العراق غزوة, يشهد [سد بي سد] قبل منزل لجنة فرعيّة. في مقابلة مبكّرة مع رمال, ادّعى [فيث] أن يكون "حقّا لاعب" في الهندسة من جائز [ووركرووند] إلى ال [جنفا كنفنأيشن] في [غنتنمو]. قبل اللجنة, أفاد [فيث] ه معصوم دعم لجنيف. يشمّع التيار التعليق على هذا موضوع بما أنّ نحن نقارب النهاية من بوش رئاسة. نيويورك أوقات ذهب محرّر عمود صحفيّ [نيشلس] [كريستوف] ه رفيقة خبيرات واحدة على نحو أفضل, يقترح أنّ ماذا ال [أوس] يحتاج يكون جنوبيّة [أفريك-ستل] حقيقة وتوفيق عمولة أن يصنّف من خلال لا فقط ال جائز انتهاكات من السابقة ثمانية سنون, غير أنّ المعالجة سياسيّة أيضا. تعليق على عزم. هناك ما من طريق أنّ بوش, [شني], رمسفيلد أو ال [سكند-] و [ثيرد-تير] [إنبلر] التعذيب - [فيثس] وجون [يووس] - كنت سيحاكم لجريمة حرب في الولايات المتّحدة الأمريكيّة. العائقة إلى مقاضيات الغياب من توافق الآراء وطنيّة على الإصدار خاصّة تعذيب, أو, أكثر عموما, ال [بوش دمينيسترأيشن] أعمال على ذعر. Certainly there is a consensus that the Bush administration has been a disaster and that the Iraq war was a mistake. But this doesn’t apply to specific terrorism policies, on which the White House still has more or less a political blank check to do as it pleases. (Whether a majority of the public supports those policies is debatable, but Republicans still back Bush, and Democrats are still cowed by the risk of appearing soft on the issue.) See Kevin Drum on why this is not Watergate: a well of political support remains for Bush’s terror policies, “enhanced interrogation” among them. The matter of criminal culpability lies several steps further on. Even if they concede that torture is a war crime and buy the practical arguments against it - that it generates false information, endangers US soldiers should they be taken prisoner and is disastrous for America’s image and diplomatic efforts - many Americans would still resist prosecuting officials whose motive was averting terror attacks. This also goes deeper than politics. I hate to sound cynical, but Americans don’t have much interest in accountability, truth or reconciliation. Our national motto is “move on”. The buzzword of the decade is Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness”. Trials or commissions on war crimes would force a reckoning that many Americans don’t think is necessary and/or would simply rather not have. However, those still hoping to see Bush and his associates in the dock might see promise in another feature of American culture: its disposability. What seems set in stone today, an immutable law of politics, almost certainly won’t be tomorrow. What once seemed an issue of high principle to many conservatives - embracing torture and defending Bush & Co - may quickly become passé once Bush leaves office and other issues come to dominate. The ideal condition for a successful prosecution is not a rising tide of outrage at Bush that would stoke the divisions in US society, but indifference. Still, the most likely scenario for a torture prosecution is something like what happened to ex-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. His own country wouldn’t touch him, but an industrious Spanish prosecutor - aided by the work of human rights activists and backed by international opinion - indicted him for torture and war crimes and nearly snared him. If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld faced a similar indictment from abroad, Americans would be outraged - but not really. The US government would try to head it off, but wouldn’t be able to do much. No one would actually go on trial, but the indictees would see their travel options humiliatingly curtailed and go to their graves knowing the phrase “charged with war crimes” will be next to their names in the history books. See More:USA NewsDiscuss this report in the RINF forums > Have Your Say: The US will not prosecute Bush This entry was posted on Saturday, July 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |
Translations             
Free Newsletter
Related News
Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld were indicted from abroad, surely we could just grab them, put them on a plane, stop off at Diego Garcia for a spot of refuelling and then take them to the country as required. I was under the impression that this was an accepted method of transport for suspected criminals\enemies of the state.