Elaine Scarry explains in devastating detail why not holding accountable the Bush Adminstration for sanctioning torture is not allowed

The question remaining is, are we a country of law, or not? If so, there is no alternative. If not, what have we become?

from the BostonReview.net: (this is the end of a very long article)

...Finally—and for us, most important—the international rules against war crimes and torture do not allow prosecution to be thought of as discretionary; they do not allow an escape provision based on electoral euphoria or on one’s doubts about one’s own stamina in fighting injustice. Very distant from a mere disinclination to prosecute is a country’s act of granting an amnesty. The international laws about some criminal acts do, in fact, allow for amnesty if required to establish peace. But torture is not one of those crimes. As Michael Scharf writes, the Commentary to the Geneva Conventions (the “official history” of their adoption) “confirms that the obligation to prosecute is ‘absolute,’ meaning . . . that states parties can under no circumstances grant perpetrators immunity or amnesty from prosecution for grave breaches.”⁶³ So, too, the Convention against Torture requires that states “submit” cases to the “competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”⁶⁴ This means, writes Scharf, that “where persons under color of law commit acts of torture in a country that is a party to the Torture Convention, the Convention requires Prosecution.”⁶⁵

The United States is a party to these agreements. The duty to prosecute means that the failure of a government to do so violates international law and that the country reneges on its treaty obligations.⁶⁶ It also increases the pressure of other countries to bring cases against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and former Secretary of State Rumsfeld based on the principle of “universal jurisdiction” that permits all parties to a treaty to prosecute grave war crimes that originated in another country.

It is odd that the designers of the Brattleboro resolution used “universal jurisdiction” as one of its legal bases, since that doctrine exists to enable countries distinct from the wrongdoer’s home ground to indict and arrest them. It is also odd that New York City’s Center for Constitutional Rights ,which in 2004 successfully argued for Guantánamo detainees to be heard in federal court, a year later chose to file a torture case by Iraqi prisoners against Donald Rumsfeld in Germany rather than in the United States. Their choice of venue was based on the fact that Germany has an explicit statute permitting them to try war crimes carried out anywhere in the world if the home country neglects to do so. The logic both in Vermont and New York seems to be: if the doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows citizens of a different country to try a case, surely it authorizes citizens of the home country to do so. Perhaps the valiant Brattleboro citizens and the stern fighters at the Center for Constitutional Rights doubt whether the ground they stand on is still in the United States. Can the ground be put back under their feet? How long?

Illegal War Authorized by Head of Major World Power

Yes, news is that the leader of a major world power has approved a covert attack against a sovereign country, involving propaganda, misinformation, currency manipulation, and, more importantly, support of terrorists.

This is being approved by a very high-ranking official who has a history of being convicted of previous criminal activity against another country, only to be pardoned by the world leader's father when he was the president of his country.

Just imagine if these actions were perpetrated against the US. What would our reaction be?

ABCNews.com/The blotter:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding' that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

...

Also briefed on the COA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Adviso Steve Hadley and deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.

"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan." And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagon administrations's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicataguan sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABSNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TB last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

(Reminds me of some military leader mentioning in passing last year that the US had had covert agents operating in Iran for many months, passing out stacks of money to groups to stir up trouble.)

Even more striking and dangerously depressing, a quick scan of the first batch of hundreds of comments on this Blotter story reveals that most of them castigate ABC for "treasonously" daring to alert us to these actions. We seem to have entered a new era (or returned to an old one) in which international law is considered "quaint and old fashioned." Since the US is the "sole bastion of freedom and justice," it's quite proper to use covert terror and injustice to further it's aims. And many think it treasonous to mention it!

Remember those Germans back in the 40s who said "We didn't know about the illegal things our government was doing! How could we know? If we knew, we surely wouldn't have let this happen!" And we still held them responsible. Imagine if, instead, they had said, "When people told us about illegal things our country was doing, we didn't dispute it—indeed, we endorsed it!—but instead called the messengers traitors!"

Would we be inclined to forgive them now?