Cheney War Crimes: Just Look at the Statute
By Matthew Rothschild, March 25, 2009
President Obama needs to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to indict Dick Cheney, right now, for war crimes.
Just look at the statute, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 2441. It says that someone is guilty of a war crime if he or she commits a “grave breach of common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions. And then it defines what a grave breach would be.
One such breach is torture, or the conspiracy to commit torture, which Cheney was clearly in on, as when he repeatedly defended waterboarding and talked about the need to go to the “dark side” Here’s the language from the statute: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”
Another grave breach is “cruel or inhuman treatment,” or the conspiracy to inflict such treatment. Again, Cheney was supervising such treatment in the White House, which would qualify as committing this crime. One time, it got so ghoulish that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the other principals, “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”
Here’s the language on “cruel or inhuman treatment”: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering . . . including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.”
An additional breach is “mutilation or maiming.” Since some detainees say they no longer have the complete functioning of arms or limbs, Cheney may be on the hook here, too. “The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons . . . by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.”
“Intentionally causing serious bodily harm” is yet another grave breach. The statute defines this as: “The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.”
For each of these offenses, Cheney could receive life in prison, according to the statute.
That is where he belongs.
And it’s time for Obama to stop pussyfooting around. He should indict, arrest, and prosecute Cheney.
“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” said Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.), in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, “Broken Laws, Broken Lives”. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
That question is now firmly on Obama’s desk.
And if he continues to dodge it, he’ll make a sick joke of the pious claim that we are a nation of laws, not men.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Receive a full year of the print and digital versions of The Progressive magazine for only $14.97.
Comments
I tend to agree with those who feel that we have no real choice but to go after them criiminally for what they've done. The bottom line is deterrence; absent prosecution what is there to stop a future George W. Bush or even worse? So, we must keep exerting pressure on Obama to at least join the International Criminal Court, and not to try protecting these thugs from an exercise of jurisdiction by that court.
Sure, it would feel good to me personally to witness Bush & co sent to jail (retribution), but we must overcome personal, subjective feelings. Also, it may not be good for our collective self esteem to see former leaders led away, but, again, there is no choice if our democracy is to survive. The real question that we must be prepared for is what happens if there is another terrorist incident under Obama's watch and while such prosecutions are occurring? We know that it may be no fault of his or his administration but, nonetheless, he will be blamed badly politically for it. After all, the average independent in this country is willing to say "screw it" to torture, loss of constitutional rights, and all the rest, to be safe. Framed this way, the question really goes to the continuation of a free democracy or the imposition of a real dictator.
Also, I don't think that a discussion of this possiblility is to waste time dealing with only a remote possibility. Terrorists are continually trying to gain entry across our admittedly porous borders, and the chances of at least one getting through and touching off a major incident is not minor. What will or should the left do in such circumstance, and especially if such prosecutions are then occurring?
The answer can only be the education of the public: to drill home the likelihood of a terrorist occurrence regardless of the efficacy of efforts to stop it. In fact, we should be talking more of this now and not waiting for the event to happen. The alternative is the obvious crushing of any liberal leaning regime in this country, and a "goosestepping" in line while blindly following a leader who appears and calls for safety of the "homeland" at all costs.
I feel that it comes down to just that. If we are to retain any chance of a free and relatively open society (and avoid real dictatorship), we must stress the likelihood of another terrorist event regardless of the effort to prevent it. Can the public handle it? Better to err on the side of truth.
So, yes, agreed that we must prosecute Bush and his cronies. But, simultaneously, the public must be educated on this point. As I see it, they go together.
And that final thought (at the risk of oversimplification) summarizes what we can realistically hope for in the Obama Administration: in sharp contrast to the last 8 years, being open and truthful with the American people. Let's only hope.