Keep in mind. This happened in February. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKKG-Xw2sFE
On Aug 29, 4:15 am, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > This should keep you awake tonight! > > Eric Holder's Hidden Agenda > > The investigation isn't about torture, but about transnationalism. > > By Andrew C. McCarthy > > 'This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule > of law. And to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an > appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it." > > It was springtime in Berlin and Eric Holder, a well-known "rule of law" > devotee, was speaking to the German press. He'd been asked if his Justice > Department would cooperate with efforts by foreign or international > tribunals to prosecute U.S. government officials who carried out the Bush > administration's post-9/11 counterterrorism policies. The attorney general > assured listeners that he was certainly open to being helpful. "Obviously," > he said, "we would look at any request that would come from a court in any > country and see how and whether we should comply with it." > > As the Associated Press reported > <http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-04-29-holder-detainees_N.htm> at > the time, Holder was "pressed on whether that meant the United States would > cooperate with a foreign court prosecuting Bush administration officials." > He skirted the question in a way Americans ought to find alarming. The > attorney general indicated that he was speaking only about "evidentiary > requests." Translation: The Obama administration will not make arrests and > hand current or former American government officials over for foreign > trials, but if the Europeans or U.N. functionaries (at the nudging of, say, > the Organization of the Islamic Conference) want Justice's help gathering > evidence in order to build triable cases - count us in. > Hue and cry followed Holder's decision this week to have a prosecutor > investigate CIA interrogators and contractors. The probe is a nakedly > political, banana republic-style criminalizing of policy differences and > political rivalry. The abuse allegations said to have stunned the attorney > general into acting are outlined in a stale CIA inspector general's report. > Though only released this week - a disclosure timed to divert attention from > reports that showed the CIA's efforts yielded life-saving intelligence - the > IG report is actually five years old. Its allegations not only have been > long known to the leaders of both parties in Congress, they were thoroughly > investigated by professional prosecutors - not political appointees. Those > prosecutors decided not to file charges, except in one case that ended in an > acquittal. As I outline here > <http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWRhNzAwYmYzMWExYTBlMTM2MjI2MjA4... > IwMTg=> , the abuse in question falls woefully short of torture crimes under > federal law. > > Americans are scratching their heads: Why would Holder retrace this > well-worn ground when intimidating our intelligence-gatherers so obviously > damages national security? The political fallout, too, is palpable. Leon > Panetta, the outraged CIA director, is reportedly > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543564,00.html> pondering resignation. > President Obama, laying low in the tall grass > <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDVmM2MyNTZiMDRmZDdmMTkwNDZi... > QyOWFkNDk=> on his Martha's Vineyard vacation, is having staffers try to > put distance between himself and his attorney general. It is unlikely that > many will be fooled: Both Obama > <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWEyMjA4ODgzNGYyZjcwMGYxZWNi... > RjYWE3NGE=> and Holder > <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDA2ZTRmNDVjZDQzMjIyODUwNTY4... > hhZDhkYjI=> promised their antiwar base just this sort of "reckoning" > during the 2008 campaign. But the question remains, Why is Holder (or, > rather, why are Holder and the White House) instigating this controversy? > > I believe the explanation lies in the Obama administration's fondness for > transnationalism, a doctrine of post-sovereign globalism in which America is > seen as owing its principal allegiance to the international legal order > rather than to our own Constitution and national interests. > > Recall that the president chose to install former Yale Law School dean > Harold Koh as his State Department's legal adviser. Koh is the country's > leading proponent of transnationalism. He is now a major player in the > administration's deliberations over international law and cooperation. > Naturally, membership in the International Criminal Court, which the United > States has resisted joining, is high on Koh's agenda. The ICC claims > worldwide jurisdiction, even over nations that do not ratify its enabling > treaty, notwithstanding that sovereign consent to jurisdiction is a bedrock > principle of international law. > > As a result, there have always been serious concerns that the ICC could > investigate and try to indict American political, military, and intelligence > officials for actions taken in defense of our country. Here it's crucial to > bear in mind that the United States (or at least the pre-Obama United > States) has not seen eye-to-eye with Europe on significant national-security > matters. European nations, for example, have accepted the 1977 Protocol I to > the Geneva Conventions, while the United States has rejected it > <http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTE1YWZkMzkwYmQyNWM5MzBkOTZhZTAy... > FhNzQ=> . Protocol I extends protections to terrorists and imposes an > exacting legal regime on combat operations, relying on such concepts as > "proportional" use of force and rigorous distinction between military and > civilian targets. That is, Protocol I potentially converts traditional > combat operations into war crimes. Similarly, though the U.S. accepted the > torture provisions of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), our > nation rejected the UNCAT's placing of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading > treatment" on a par with torture. By contrast, Europe generally accepts the > UNCAT in toto. > > #pageAs long as we haven't ratified a couple of bad human-rights treaties, > why should we care that Europe considers them binding? Because of the > monstrosity known as "customary international law," of which Koh is a major > proponent. This theory holds that once new legal principles gain broad > acceptance among nations and international organizations, they somehow > transmogrify into binding law, even for nations that haven't agreed to them. > That is, the judgment of the "international community" (meaning, the > judgment of left-wing academics and human-rights activists who hold sway at > the U.N. and the European Union) supersedes the standards our citizens have > adopted democratically. It is standard fare among transnational progressives > to claim that Protocol I is now binding on the United States and that what > they define as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is "tantamount to > torture > <http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQ2MWIzNzA4ZDkwMDMxMWQ4OGZlMTc0... > kwMGE=> ." > > And the transnational Left has still another treat in store: its notion of > "universal jurisdiction." This theory holds that individual nations have the > power to prosecute actions that occur in other countries, even when they > have no impact on the prosecuting nation. The idea is that some offenses - > such as torture and war crimes - so offend the purported consensus of > humanity (i.e., so offend left-wing sensibilities) that they may be > prosecuted by any country that cares to take the initiative. In fact, many > countries (the United States included) open their justice systems to civil > suits against government officials - again, even if the country where the > suit is filed has nothing to do with the alleged offenses. > > #ad#So we come back to Holder in Berlin. Two months before the attorney > general's visit, the U.N.'s "special rapporteur on torture" told > <http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEs-XWCHd2efuDAyzp... > oOTA> German television that the Obama administration had "a clear > obligation" under the UNCAT to file torture charges against former president > George W. Bush and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The rapporteur > was relying on documents produced because of American investigations - > including a nakedly partisan report by the Democrat-controlled Senate Armed > Services Committee. > > Meanwhile, as I detailed here > <http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NjYTNjM2U4OWEyNDI1ZWRiMDhmMGEy... > E2N2U=> in March, Spain's universal-justice crusader Baltasar Garzón is > pursuing his own torture case against Bush administration lawyers who > weighed in on interrogation policy. Garzón is the Spanish investigating > magistrate who, with the help of a terrorist turned human-rights lawyer, had > Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet arrested in England for crimes against > humanity. The same terrorist-lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, is helping Garzón on the > Bush case. The Brits, by the way, eventually decided not to send Pinochet to > Spain, but not before the law lords ruled that they could, a decision > enthusiastically hailed at the time by U.N. High Commissioner on Human > Rights Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland. That would be the > same Mary Robinson of Durban infamy - the one President Obama just honored > with the Medal of Freedom. > > And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist > organization that for years has coordinated > <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGU5ZGEyYTYyMTE4MDE1ZWJiYjRl... > NhYWUzNDQ=> legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. > The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other > countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration > officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary > Rumsfeld. In representing America's enemies, CCR has collaborated with many > private lawyers, who also volunteered their services - several of whom > <http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428688933> are now working in > the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder's former firm boasts > <http://www.cov.com/probonooverview/probono.aspx?show=morehighlights> that > it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). > And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal > for DOJ's National Security Division - a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with > no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the > startling advocacy > <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjc4ZTkwM2Q5ZjRlNDVhZmVhODNj... > FmNWIyYzU=> she has done for enemy combatants. > > Put it all together and it's really not that hard to figure out what is > going on here. > > Transnationalists from outside and, now, inside our government have been > ardent supporters of prosecutions against American officials who designed > and carried out the Bush counterterrorism policies that kept this country > safe after 9/11. The U.N.'s top torture monitor is demanding legal action, > almost certainly as a prelude to calling for action by an international > tribunal - such as the ICC - if the Justice Department fails to indict. > Meantime, law-enforcement authorities in Spain and elsewhere are weighing > charges against the same U.S. officials, spurred on by the CCR and > human-rights groups that now have friends in high American places. In > foreign and international courts, the terrorist-friendly legal standards > preferred by Europe and the U.N. would make convictions easier to obtain and > civil suits easier to win. > > Obama and Holder were principal advocates for a "reckoning" against Bush > officials during the 2008 campaign. They realize, though, that their > administration would be mortally wounded if Justice were actually to file > formal charges - this week's announcement of an investigation against the > CIA provoked howls, but that's nothing compared to the public reaction > indictments would cause. Nevertheless, Obama and Holder are under intense > pressure from the hard Left, to which they made reckless promises, and from > the international community they embrace. > > The way out of this dilemma is clear. Though it won't file indictments > against the CIA agents and Bush officials it is probing, the Justice > Department will continue conducting investigations and releasing reports > containing new disclosures of information. The churn of new disclosures will > be used by lawyers for the detainees to continue pressing the U.N. and the > Europeans to file charges. The European nations and/or international > tribunals will make formal requests to the Obama administration to have the > Justice Department assist them in securing evidence. Holder will piously > announce that the "rule of law" requires him to cooperate with these "lawful > requests" from "appropriately created courts." Finally, the international > and/or foreign courts will file criminal charges against American officials. > > Foreign charges would result in the issuance of international arrest > warrants. They won't be executed in the United States - even this > administration is probably not brazen enough to try that. But the warrants > will go out to police agencies all over the world. If the indicted American > officials want to travel outside the U.S., they will need to worry about the > possibility of arrest, detention, and transfer to third countries for > prosecution. Have a look at this 2007 interview > <http://www.alternet.org/story/69421/> of CCR president Michael Ratner. See > how he brags that his European gambit is "making the world smaller" for > Rumsfeld - creating a hostile legal climate in which a former U.S. defense > secretary may have to avoid, for instance, attending conferences in NATO > countries. > > The Left will get its reckoning. Obama and Holder will be able to take > credit with their supporters for making it happen. But because the > administration's allies in the antiwar bar and the international Left will > do the dirty work of getting charges filed, the American media will help > Obama avoid domestic political accountability. Meanwhile, Americans who > sought to protect our nation from barbarians will be harassed and framed as > war criminals. And protecting the United States will have become an > actionable violation of international law. > > I'm betting that's the plan. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
