RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突发新闻的替代 Tuesday, July 1st, 2008周二， 2008年7月1日 |  |
Breaking News 突发新闻 | | Forum 论坛 | | UK News 英国新闻 | | USA News 美国新闻 | | World News 世界新闻 | | Political News 政治新闻 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新闻 | | War & Terrorism News 战争和恐怖主义新闻 | | Sports News 体育新闻 | | Multimedia 多媒体 | | Set Homepage 设为首页 | |
BREAKING NEWS 突发新闻 |
The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’ '瓦特'主张， '战争罪犯' Sunday, June 29th, 2008 周日， 2008年6月29日 By通过 Nat Hentoff NAT的亨托夫 | In a June 6 letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—largely ignored by a press immersed in the future of Hillary Clinton—56 Democrats in the House of Representatives asked for “an immediate investigation with the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act (18 USC 2441) . |在一个6月6日写信给总检察长迈克尔mukasey -在很大程度上忽略了一个记者沉浸在未来的希拉里- 56民主党人在众议院的代表要求“立即展开调查与任命一名特别检察官，以确定是否采取的行动由总统，他的内阁，和其他政府官员均违反了战争罪法案（美国联邦法典18 2441 ） 。 . 。 . 。 and other US and international laws.”和其他美国和国际法律“ 。 This isn’t front-page news?这是不是头条新闻？ The letter began with a brief account of the notorious facts about Abu Ghraib (”sexual exploitation and torture”) and Guantánamo (”an independent investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross documented several . . . acts of torture . . . including soaking a prisoner’s head in alcohol and lighting it on fire”).这封信开始，简述了臭名昭著的事实，阿布格莱布（ “性剥削和性酷刑” ）和关塔那摩（ “一个独立的调查是由国际红十字委员会的记录数。 。 。酷刑的行为。 。 。包括浸泡一名囚犯的头部在酒精和照明，它的防火“ ） 。 Nor was “coercive interrogation” in Afghanistan omitted: “In October 2005, The New York Times reported that three detainees were killed during interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq by CIA agents or CIA contractors.”也不是“胁迫性审讯”在阿富汗的省略： “在2005年10月，新纽约时报报道说， 3被拘留者死亡，盘问期间，在阿富汗和伊拉克，由中央情报局特务或中央情报局承办商” 。 This is not a call for articles of impeachment.这不是一个要求弹劾条款。 Bush will soon be gone, and the new president and Congress have far too much to do to get mired in that quicksand.布什将很快消失了，和新的总统和国会有太多这样做让陷入在这流沙。 These are grave criminal charges, and since international crimes are involved as well as the US War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act, other nations whose laws include “universal jurisdiction” could prosecute.这些都是严重的刑事指控，由于国际犯罪所涉及的作为，以及美国战争罪法和反酷刑法，其他国家的法律，包括“普遍管辖权”可以起诉。 But why would House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers Jr. and Intelligence Committee members Jerrold Nadler (my congressional representative) and Jan Schakowsky—among other signers—make such dramatic and historic charges of “war crimes” now, after most congressional Democrats have not shown the same interest?但为什么会众院司法委员会主席约翰科尼尔斯Jr 。和情报委员会成员jerrold纳德勒（我的国会代表）和1月schakowsky -除其他署名-作出这样的戏剧性的和历史性的收费“战争罪”之后，现在最国会的民主党人都没有显示同样的兴趣？ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not on the list of signers; she and Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid have never, in their opposition to the administration, come anywhere near these shocking accusations.众议院议长佩洛西，例如，不在清单上的签名，她和参议院民主党多数党领袖哈里里德从来没有，在他们反对政府，今后在任何地方附近的这些令人震惊的指控。 As of this writing, I’ve seen no alarm evident among Republicans, but if the story has legs, the response will begin with a derisive claim that this is a cheap, transparent, and bush-league trick to propel the election of Barack Obama.作为本写作，我见过没有明显的恐慌当中，共和党，但如果故事的两条腿，反应将开始与嘲弄声称，这是一种廉价，透明，布什联赛的伎俩，以推进选举巴拉克奥巴马。 But in the letter, these latter-day Thomas Paines (assuming you agree with them) assert that what impelled them to act immediately was that, “within the last month, additional information has surfaced that suggests the fact that not only did top Administration officials meet in the White House and approve of the use of enhanced techniques, including waterboarding against detainees, but that President Bush was aware of and approved of the meetings taking place .但在信中，这些后者-天托马斯paines （假设你同意他们的）断言是什么促使他们立即采取行动是， “在过去一个月中，额外资料已经出现表明，这一事实不但没有顶端政府官员满足在白宫和批准使用增强技术，包括waterboarding对被拘留者，但布什总统知道并批准的会议，正在发生的 。 . 。 . 。 . 。 This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law.” (Emphasis added.)这一信息表明，布什政府可能有系统地实施，从自上而下，被拘留审讯的政策，构成酷刑或其他违反法律。 “ （强调是后加的） 。 If Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al.如果布什，切尼，冈萨雷斯等人。 are ever in the dock after such an investigation, I am sure that the prosecutors will show, among other thoroughly documented sources, the very specific names of the perpetrators and the dates of this series of crimes, as published in Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values by Phillippe Sands (Palgrave MacMillan) and the irrefutable evidence found in University of Houston professor Jordan J. Paust’s Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration’s Unlawful Responses in the “War” on Terror (Cambridge University Press).是以往任何时候都在被告席后，这样的调查，我相信检察官会显示，除其他外彻底记载的来源，很具体的名称，肇事者和日期，这一连串的犯罪，作为出版的酷刑团队：拉姆斯菲尔德的备忘录和出卖美国的价值观由phillippe砂（ Palgrave Macmillan出版）和不可辩驳的证据，发现在休斯敦大学教授约旦j. paust奇摩超越法律：布什政府的非法的反应，在“战争”的反恐 （剑桥大学出版社） 。 The latter is a book I wish every voter in November will have read, along with the same publisher’s 1,249-page The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib , edited by Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel.后者是一本书，我想每一个选民在十一月将已阅读，随着同一出版商的1249页的酷刑论文：道路阿布格莱布 ，编辑克伦j.格林伯格和约书亚的影响dratel 。 Such books will help build the careers of future historians around the world.这样的书籍将有助于建立职业未来的历史学家在世界各地。 I am further encouraged because chairman John Conyers, the June 8 Washington Post reported, “is looking into the role played by administration lawyers” in all of these crimes.我进一步鼓励，因为主席约翰科尼尔斯， 6月8日华盛顿邮报“ ，这是寻找到所扮演的角色，政府的律师”在所有这些罪行。 Conyers, calling treatment of detainees “a truly shameful episode,” emphasizes that Bush’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques were “used under cover of Justice Department legal opinions,” and so “the need for outside counsel is obvious.”科尼尔斯，要求被拘留者的待遇“一个真正的可耻的插曲， ”强调，布什的“强化”审讯技术“用于掩护下，司法部法律意见， ”等“需要外聘律师是显而易见的” 。 And since the letter from the 56 House Democrats is going to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—who claims that he cannot prosecute any perpetrator of these alleged war crimes because, by golly, they were authorized by Justice Department legal opinions—these House patriots are saying that Mukasey must appoint a special counsel rather than handle the investigation himself.由于信中从56家同盟是前往总检察长迈克尔mukasey -谁声称，他可以不起诉的任何犯罪行为人对这些指控的战争罪行，因为，由golly ，他们被授权由美国司法部的法律意见，这些房子的爱国者说mukasey必须任命一位特别的律师，而不是处理自己的调查。 To give you a snapshot of Michael Mukasey’s dedication to the rule of law and its essential requirement of fairness and impartiality in all trials, Bush’s attorney general recently told an annual conference of Washington federal judges that trials of suspected terrorists by military commissions at Guantánamo will be “in the best traditions of the American legal system” ( New York Sun , June 5).给你的快照迈克尔mukasey的献身精神，以法治和它的本质要求，公平和公正，在所有审判，布什的总检察长最近说，一届年会在华盛顿的联邦法官审判的恐怖分子嫌疑人，由军事委员会在关塔那摩将是“在最好的传统，美国的法律制度” （ 纽约太阳报 ，六月五日） 。 On June 12, the Supreme Court, declaring the commissions unconstitutional, exposed Mukasey’s constitutional ignorance. 6月12日，最高法院宣布违宪的委员会，暴露了mukasey的宪法的无知。 The administration lawyers, whom Conyers is also going after, designed those Guantánamo military commissions after advising Bush that the prisoners were not entitled to the protections of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions—and didn’t have to be tried in our federal courts.政府律师，其中科尼尔斯也正在后，设计这些关塔那摩军事委员会提供咨询意见后，布什说，这些囚犯不能享受保护人身保护权和日内瓦公约和没有受到审判，在我们的联邦法院。 In Beyond the Law , Paust says of these lawyers (most of them graduates of our premier law schools): “Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons detained during war.在超越法律 ， paust说，这些律师（他们大部分的毕业生，我们的总理法律学校）说： “不自纳粹时期以来，有这么多的律师被如此明确地参与了国际罪行的关于处理和审讯被拘留的人在战争期间。 . 。 . 。 . 。 Such a direct role in a process of denial of protections under the laws of war [and our Constitution] is far more serious than the loss of honor and integrity to [presidential] power. It can form the basis for a lawyer’s civil and criminal responsibility.这样一个直接的作用的过程，剥夺的保护下，战争法[和我们的宪法]是远远更为严重的损失，荣誉和完整性[总统]的权力， 它可以形式的基础上为律师的民事和追究刑事责任。 . 。 . 。 . 。 “[These were lawyers] . “这些都是律师] 。 . 。 . 。 directly advising how to deny protections in the future (denials of such protections are violations of the laws of war and war crimes).” And dig this: The administration lawyers advised the president how to take “actions that allegedly would avoid the restraints of various criminal statutes and their reach to the President and others with respect to future conduct ,” and especially with respect to the planned “coercive” interrogation tactics authorized by George W. Bush.直接提供意见，如何拒绝的保护在未来的（否认这种保护是违反战争法和战争罪） 。 “挖一点：政府的律师建议总统如何采取”行动，据称将可避免的束缚，各种刑事法规和他们的接触，向总统和其他方面的未来的行为 ， “特别是与尊重计划”强制性“的审讯策略，授权布什总统。 (Emphasis added). （强调是后加的） 。 Some of these lawyers have gone on to prominent government positions—like Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington.一些这些律师已经就以突出政府的立场一样切尼的参谋长，大卫阿丁顿。 Next week: the legal and historic precedents for “command responsibility.”下周：法律和历史的先例“指挥责任” 。 See More: 看到更多的： Bush 布什Have Your Say: The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’ 你说： '瓦特'主张， '战争罪犯' Please note, only selected comments will be published.请注意，只有选定的评论将出版。 Or discuss this report in our new forums 或讨论这个报告在我们的新论坛 2 Responses to “The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’” 2反应“ '瓦特'主张， '战争罪犯” 。
| Translations 翻译               Free Newsletter 免费通讯 Related News 相关新闻
Email This Page To A Friend 电子邮件此页给朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的新闻标题
More更多 Breaking News突发新闻 Archive 存档
|
About 大约 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 评语 | | Special Guests 特别来宾 | | Webmasters 网站管理员 |
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. 所表达的意见，在rinf新闻电线和通讯是唯一的责任作者（ S ）和并不一定反映的意见，网站管理员。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. rinf.com ：突破新闻与其他的媒体是copyleft的-复制及分发自由。 News Forum 新闻论坛 |
[...] Continued . [ … … ]继续。 . 。 . 。 [...] [ … … ]