RINF.COM : THE BREAKING NEWS ALTERNATIVE rinf.com ：突發新聞的替代 Tuesday, July 1st, 2008週二， 2008年7月1日 |  |
Breaking News 突發新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | World News 世界新聞 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁 | |
BREAKING NEWS 突發新聞 |
The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’ '瓦特'主張， '戰爭罪犯' Sunday, June 29th, 2008 週日， 2008年6月29日 By通過 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) . |在一個6月6日寫信給總檢察長邁克爾mukasey -在很大程度上忽略了一個記者沉浸在未來的希拉里- 56民主黨人在眾議院的代表要求“立即展開調查與任命一名特別檢察官，以確定是否採取的行動由總統，他的內閣，和其他政府官員均違反了戰爭罪法案（美國聯邦法典18 2441 ） 。 . 。 . 。 and other US and international laws.”和其他美國和國際法律“ 。 This isn’t front-page news?這是不是頭條新聞？ 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”).這封信開始，簡述了臭名昭著的事實，阿布格萊布（ “性剝削和性酷刑” ）和關塔那摩（ “一個獨立的調查是由國際紅十字委員會的記錄數。 。 。酷刑的行為。 。 。包括浸泡一名囚犯的頭部在酒精和照明，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“脅迫性審訊”在阿富汗的省略： “在2005年10月，新紐約時報報導說， 3被拘留者死亡，盤問期間，在阿富汗和伊拉克，由中央情報局特務或中央情報局承辦商” 。 This is not a call for articles of impeachment.這不是一個要求彈劾條款。 Bush will soon be gone, and the new president and Congress have far too much to do to get mired in that quicksand.布什將很快消失了，和新的總統和國會有太多這樣做讓陷入在這流沙。 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.這些都是嚴重的刑事指控，由於國際犯罪所涉及的作為，以及美國戰爭罪法和反酷刑法，其他國家的法律包括“普遍管轄權”可以起訴。 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?但為什麼會眾院司法委員會主席約翰科尼爾斯Jr 。和情報委員會成員jerrold納德勒（我的國會代表）和1月schakowsky -除其他署名-作出這樣的戲劇性的和歷史性的收費“戰爭罪”之後，現在最國會的民主黨人都沒有顯示同樣的興趣？ 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.眾議院議長佩洛西，例如，不在清單上的簽名，她和參議院民主黨多數黨領袖哈里里德從來沒有，在他們反對政府，今後在任何地方附近的這些令人震驚的指控。 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.作為本寫作，我見過沒有明顯的恐慌當中，共和黨，但如果故事的兩條腿，反應將開始與嘲弄聲稱，這是一種廉價，透明，布什聯賽的伎倆，以推進選舉巴拉克奧巴馬。 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，這些後者-天托馬斯paines （假設你同意他們的）斷言是什麼促使他們立即採取行動是， “在過去一個月中，額外資料已經出現表明，這一事實不但沒有頂端政府官員滿足在白宮和批准使用增強技術，包括waterboarding對被拘留者，但布什總統知道並批准的會議，正在發生的 。 . 。 . 。 . 。 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.)這一信息表明，布什政府可能有系統地實施，從自上而下，被拘留審訊的政策，構成酷刑或其他違反法律。 “ （強調是後加的） 。 If Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al.如果布什，切尼，岡薩雷斯等人。 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).是以往任何時候都在被告席後，這樣的調查，我相信檢察官會顯示，除其他外徹底記載的來源，很具體的名稱，肇事者和日期，這一連串的犯罪，作為出版的酷刑團隊：拉姆斯菲爾德的備忘錄和出賣美國的價值觀由phillippe砂（ Palgrave Macmillan出版）和不可辯駁的證據，發現在休斯敦大學教授約旦j. paust奇摩超越法律：布什政府的非法的反應，在“戰爭”的反恐 （劍橋大學出版社） 。 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.後者是一本書，我想每一個選民在十一月將已閱讀，隨著同一出版商的1249頁的酷刑論文：道路阿布格萊布 ，編輯克倫j.格林伯格和約書亞的影響dratel 。 Such books will help build the careers of future historians around the world.這樣的書籍將有助於建立職業未來的歷史學家在世界各地。 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.我進一步鼓勵，因為主席約翰科尼爾斯， 6月8 華盛頓郵報“ ，這是尋找到所扮演的角色，政府的律師”在所有這些罪行。 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.”科尼爾斯，要求被拘留者的待遇“一個真正的可恥的插曲， ”強調，布什的“強化”審訊技術“用於掩護下，司法部法律意見， ”等“需要外聘律師是顯而易見的” 。 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.由於信中從56家同盟是前往總檢察長邁克爾mukasey -誰聲稱，他可以不起訴的任何犯罪行為人對這些指控的戰爭罪行，因為，由golly ，他們被授權由美國司法部的法律意見，這些房子的愛國者說mukasey必須任命一位特別的律師，而不是處理自己的調查。 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).給你的快照邁克爾mukasey的獻身精神，以法治和它的本質要求，公平和公正，在所有審判，布什的總檢察長最近說，一屆年會在華盛頓的聯邦法官審判的恐怖分子嫌疑人，由軍事委員會在關塔那摩將是“在最好的傳統，美國的法律制度” （ 紐約太陽報 ，六月五日） 。 On June 12, the Supreme Court, declaring the commissions unconstitutional, exposed Mukasey’s constitutional ignorance. 6月12日，最高法院宣布違憲的委員會，暴露了mukasey憲法的無知。 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.政府律師，其中科尼爾斯也正在後，設計這些關塔那摩軍事委員會提供諮詢意見後，布什說，這些囚犯不能享受保護人身保護權和日內瓦公約和沒有受到審判，在我們的聯邦法院。 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說，這些律師（他們大部分的畢業生，我們的總理法律學校）說： “不自納粹時期以來，有這麼多律師被如此明確地參與了國際罪行的關於處理和審訊被拘留的人在戰爭期間。 . 。 . 。 . 。 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.這樣一個直接的作用的過程，剝奪的保護下，戰爭法[和我們的憲法]是遠遠更為嚴重的損失，榮譽和完整性[總統]的權力， 它可以形式的基礎上為律師的民事和追究刑事責任。 . 。 . 。 . 。 “[These were lawyers] . “這些都是律師] 。 . 。 . 。 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.直接提供意見，如何拒絕的保護在未來的（否認這種保護是違反戰爭法和戰爭罪） 。 “挖一點：政府的律師建議總統如何採取”行動，據稱將可避免的束縛，各種刑事法規和他們的接觸，向總統和其他方面的未來進行 “ ，特別是與尊重計劃”強制性“的審訊策略，授權布什總統。 (Emphasis added). （強調是後加的） 。 Some of these lawyers have gone on to prominent government positions—like Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington.一些這些律師已經就以突出政府的立場一樣切尼的參謀長，大衛阿丁頓。 Next week: the legal and historic precedents for “command responsibility.”下週：法律和歷史的先例“指揮責任” 。 See More: 看到更多的： Bush 布什Have Your Say: The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’ 你說： '瓦特'主張， '戰爭罪犯' Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。 Or discuss this report in our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的新論壇 2 Responses to “The ‘W.’ Stands for ‘War Criminal’” 2反應“ '瓦特'主張， '戰爭罪犯” 。
| Translations 翻譯               Free Newsletter 免費通訊 Related News 相關新聞
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞 Archive 存檔
|
About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員 |
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. 所表達的意見，在rinf新聞電線和通訊是唯一的責任作者（ S ）和並不一定反映的意見，網站管理員。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. rinf.com ：突破新聞與其他的媒體是copyleft的-複製及分發自由。 News Forum 新聞論壇 |
[...] Continued . [ … … ]繼續。 . 。 . 。 [...] [ … … ]