Guilty

Since their invasion of Iraq in 2003, former US President George W Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been dogged by allegations of war crimes. Sadly, the United Nations and the International Criminal Court have refused to act on complaints, so in their absence former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, modelled on the Russel Tribunal which investigated the Vietnam war. Today, that Tribunal handed down its verdicts: guilty:

Former US president George W Bush and British ex-prime minister Tony Blair were Tuesday found guilty at a mock tribunal in Malaysia for committing "crimes against peace" during the Iraq war.

[...]

"The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George Bush and second accused Blair have been found guilty of crimes against peace," the tribunal said in a statement.

"Unlawful use of force threatens the world to return to a state of lawlessness. The acts of the accused were unlawful."

This isn't a formal body, so Bush and Blair won't face any formal punishment. But it highlights their crime and the fact that they have not been punished, and adds to the verdict of history. And hopefully, one day, we'll see that verdict made official in the ICC, rather than having to do it ourselves.

Prosecute Bush!

That's the conclusion of Human Rights Watch's investigation into torture and war crimes by the Bush administration:

Overwhelming evidence of torture by the Bush administration obliges President Barack Obama to order a criminal investigation into allegations of detainee abuse authorized by former President George W. Bush and other senior officials, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Obama administration has failed to meet US obligations under the Convention against Torture to investigate acts of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, Human Rights Watch said.

The 107-page report, "Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees," presents substantial information warranting criminal investigations of Bush and senior administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and CIA Director George Tenet, for ordering practices such as "waterboarding," the use of secret CIA prisons, and the transfer of detainees to countries where they were tortured.

"There are solid grounds to investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tenet for authorizing torture and war crimes," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "President Obama has treated torture as an unfortunate policy choice rather than a crime. His decision to end abusive interrogation practices will remain easily reversible unless the legal prohibition against torture is clearly reestablished."

Of course, nothing will happen. US politicians consider themselves to be above the law, and will happily cover for each other to ensure that they remain so. And Obama, despite his fine rhetoric of "change", is part of this corrupt, cosy culture of unaccountability. In the eyes of US politicians, laws are for peasants, not Presidents.

...which means it will instead come down to the international community. Every civilised country in the world (including New Zealand) has universal jurisdiction for torture. And there will be strong pressure for them to exercise it whenever one of these criminals steps outside the US. The only way that pressure will disappear is if the US lives up to its values, and holds its torturers legally accountable in a court of law.

Bush can't travel

Former US President George Bush is a war criminal. In office he authorised the use of torture, in violation of US and international law. And now he's finding out that there are consequences for that decision: he's been forced to cancel a trip to Switzerland for fear of arrest:

Former U.S. President George W. Bush, under fire from human rights group over allegations of ordering torture, has canceled a visit to Switzerland where he was to address a Jewish charity gala.

Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.

Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say, and several human rights groups signaled that they were poised to take further legal action this week.

Those human rights groups are now set up to follow Bush wherever he goes. If he sets foot outside the United States, there will be a criminal complaint waiting for him, demanding he be arrested and prosecuted under the universal jurisdiction clause of the Convention Against Torture. While host governments will no doubt collude to avoid applying their own laws to this criminal (just as ours did when Condolezza Rice visited in 2008, and just as the UK government does to protect Israeli war criminals), the threat of prosecution will be some deterrent. At the least, its going to severely impinge on Bush's chances to make money on the lucrative international speaking circuit.

This is Bush's future. Like Pinochet and Kissinger before him, he and the rest of their administration are going to spend the rest of their lives hiding from justice. Unfortunately, the US provides a safe haven for these torturers. But if they ever leave it, then international justice will take its course.

A monument to Bush in Iraq

When American troops invaded Iraq back in 2003, the Bush Administration expected them to be greeted as liberators with "sweets and flowers". And no doubt they expected the grateful Iraqi people to build monuments to their foreign liberators.

Well, now some of them have. But I don't think its quite what they had in mind:

Yes, really - a giant bronze shoe has been erected in Tikrit. OK, so technically it honours Muntazer al-Zaidi, the infamous Iraqi shoe-thrower - but every time someone looks at it, they're going to remember who those shoes were throw at and why (and likely wish they could throw a few of their own).

The last day of Bush

So, after four long years of war, torture, and domestic spying, we're finally here: the last day of Bush. In a little over seventeen hours, George Walker Bush will formally leave office and become former President Bush. The madness of King George will finally be over.

The change is welcome, and even if Obama fails to live up to the hype and is only as bad as Clinton, he'll still be a vast improvement on the Bush Administration. But the big question is what happens next. Because the Bush Administration has unquestionably committed crimes against both US and international law. It has repeatedly admitted it, sought to justify it, been proud of it. If the US truly is a nation of "laws, not men", then the policymakers, lawyers and officials responsible for those crimes - including the (soon-to-be former) President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence, as well as the torturers themselves - must be publicly held to account. They must be investigated, prosecuted, and if convicted, sentenced to appropriately long jail terms.

While there is always the chance of a last-minute pardon, a final "fuck you" to the world, it is looking unlikely (and will simply shift the burden of prosecution to international courts while confirming guilt). So, the question for Obama is how will he deal with this: will he stand up for American values and American law, confirm that the law applies even to kings presidents, and ensure that these crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted? Or will he play the usual Washington political game of sweeping it all under the carpet in the name of "unity" (and having your own indiscretions similarly ignored in future)? That, ultimately, is what I will be judging the new President on. And I am hoping that he will not screw it up.

Tortured

Last week, Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi famously threw his shoes at US President George Bush during a press conference, underlining the failure of the Bush Presidency and its Iraq project. Within a day he had reportedly apologised, writing a grovelling letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki begging forgiveness for his "big, ugly act" and claiming a "terrorist" had invited him to do it. Now it turns out that apology was tortured out of him:

Uday al-Zaidi said his brother told him the letter was written against his will because he was subjected to torture, including being doused with cold water while naked.

"He told me that he has no regret because of what he did and that he would do it again," Uday said. "The thing that makes you cry and laugh at the same time is that when the prime minister said that my brother was not tortured and will not be tortured, he was under severe torture by security authorities."

And this is Bush's model for the Middle East he killed a million people to create: a country where people are tortured for insulting the state or foreign allies - just like under Saddam.

Tell me - was it really worth killing a million people simply to change the name in which torture is committed? I don't think so.

Fresh Python

Terry Jones: I beg your pardon, Mr President

Just what we all want to do

You too can now throw a shoe at George Bush.

(Unfortunately, its in Norwegian. But you drag the sliders on the power and angle, then tell it to "kast skoen").

A fitting end

Today, (soon to be former) US President George W Bush went to Iraq for what was supposed to be his "victory lap", a last tour over his bloodstained legacy before he leaves office. It was supposed to be a triumph, instead it descended into farce when an Iraqi journalist at the press conference threw his shoes at him.

(The BBC video of this (linked above) is particularly good, and the interview afterwards makes it clear how deeply Bush just doesn't get it).

It's a fitting end to Bush's presidency, and one which will be remembered. Every documentary on his career is now going to end with a slow-motion shot of him ducking flying footwear flung by one of the people he is supposed to have "liberated".

Pardoning war crimes?

For the last seven years, the United States has run programmes as part of its "war on terror" which can only be described as war crimes. Extraordinary rendition, forced disappearance, the use of torture, the denial of fair trial rights and the violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions among them. These actions are illegal under both US and international law, and if the US ever regains its sanity and removes that enormous parochial chip from its shoulder, should see a lot of people - not just the torturers and interrogators, but also the officials, lawyers and policymakers who designed and signed off on the policy (and in some cases, personally approved individual acts of torture) - go to jail for a very long time.

But there's a problem: writing in Salon, James Ross points out the real risk that President Bush will issue a pre-emptive pardon for war crimes as a final "fuck you" to the world, effectively letting all those torturers and war criminals (including himself) off the hook. But while this will be effective at preventing action under US law, in the eyes of the international community, its is likely to compound the crime and be evidence that America refuses to clean up its own mess, thus justifying action in international courts. While the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court (precisely because it could be used to hold US war criminals accountable), most civilised states (including New Zealand) claim universal jurisdiction over war crimes. And by removing the fig leaf of potential US action, a Bush pardon ironically will be the sort of thing that makes us use it. I'm not suggesting that the international community will stage a Nazi-hunter style exercise, snatching US war criminals and dragging them back to face justice; rather, former members of the Bush administration would be wise to heed Philippe Sands warning: don't travel. Otherwise, like Pinochet, they may find themselves facing justice for their crimes.

La la la I can't hear you

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

So, the most powerful government in the world behaves like a four year old when told something it doesn't want to hear: stick their fingers in their ears, make a lot of noise, and claim they can't hear. And the worst bit is that they've been successful - the EPA has now issued a new version of the report, sans conclusion, which makes no recommendations and strips out a finding that "tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."

This is how they "create their own reality": pretend the real one doesn't exist. And all of us will be paying a price for it.

The future of the Bush Administration

Last night, members of the Bush Administration got a glimpse of their future: at the Hay festival in the UK, several people (including George Monbiot) attempted to make a citizens arrest of former Bush official John Bolton for war crimes:

As Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN, ended his hour-long discussion at the Hay festival, Monbiot, who had earlier challenged him for alleged breaches of the post-war Nuremburg Principles, moved towards the stage waving a charge sheet.

But security staff, alerted by pre-publicity, intervened and bundled Monbiot out of the tent as 20 supporters chanted "war criminal" and waved placards. The comedian, Marcus Brigstocke, who tried to pursue Bolton as he left the other side of the tent, was also blocked by security staff.

This is going to happen practically everywhere they go from now on. Universal jurisdiction is a well-established legal principle for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and plenty of countries (including New Zealand) have applicable laws. And while today it is activists seeking publicity, one day it will be real police, with a real warrant from a Spanish or Italian judge. Just like Pinochet.

The upshot is that Bolton and his fellow conspirators would be wise to never set foot outside the USA again. Otherwise, they're going to end up in jail.

Is Bush trying to start a civil war in Lebanon?

That was the question which sprang to mind after reading about US President George Bush's offer to strengthen the Lebanese army this morning. Yeah, let's paint the only stabilising force in the country as a US-backed puppet! In a part of the world where the US is deeply unpopular (to put it mildly), that's a stunningly stupid and counterproductive move.

America should condemn Hizbollah for bringing out the guns. But if it wants to avoid making the situation worse (and to be honest, I'm not sure that they do), then a little subtlety would help.

"Ambitious"

So, George Bush has finally decided to get serious about climate change, and set an ambitious target for US policy. That target? Halting growth in emissions by 2025. When the EU is promising a 20% unilateral cut from 1990 levels by 2020 (and 30-40% if other developed nations come to the party), and a need to cut global emissions by 60% by 2050 if we are to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, that looks very unambitious indeed.

Self-parody

Bush speech hails Iraq 'victory'

Really, he should be writing for the Onion.

Vetoing for torture

Last month, in a welcome return to sanity and decency, the US Congress passed a bill limiting the CIA to using interrogation methods listed in the Army Field Manual - effectively banning waterboarding.

Today, Bush vetoed it.

The message is clear: torture is not an abberation, it is US policy, supported at the highest levels of the US government. And it will not end until Bush/Cheney are driven from office.

Fortunately, that's only 317 days away.

Bush is on the hook for torture

In the wake of yesterday's admission from the CIA that it had tortured three suspected terorists in violation of US and international law, the White House has come out fighting, denying that waterboarding is torture and saying that they might waterboard more people if they decide it is necessary. But the real news here isn't that President Bush still loves torture or that he is still in denial about the legal status of what he is doing (hint: if the Spanish Inquisition and the Gestapo did it, it's torture - something US courts have at least had the decency to recognise in the past), but that he personally authorised it every time it was used:

If the CIA wanted to water-board a suspect in future, the head of the CIA would discuss the particular circumstances with the attorney general, who would determine the legality of the issue, and then take it to the president, Mr Fratto said.

(Emphasis added)

There's a word for a person who decides whether someone is tortured or not: "co-conspirator". And if the process remotely resembles that admitted by the White House, then the President of the United States is now on the hook for three charges of "conspiracy to torture", each carrying a penalty of up to life imprisonment. And if that isn't a "high crime and misdemeanor" justifying impeachment, I don't know what is.

Lying their way to war

We all know now that the Bush Administration lied its way to war in 2003, repeating endlessly the twin allegations that "Saddam was in bed with Osama" and "Saddam had WMD", neither of which had any basis in reality. Now, five years on, the Center for Public Integrity has documented the lies that led to war and compiled them into a database which both lists what was said publicly, and compares it with what was being said in private. Their major finding?

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

They even have a handy graph showing the lies by month:

(Click for a larger version).

A decade ago, the US tried to impeach its President for lying about a blowjob. Bush lied his way into a war which has so far killed hundreds of thousands. He shouldn't just be impeached - he should be tried for crimes against peace and imprisoned for the rest of his life.

George Bush doesn't care about freedom of speech

President Bush is visiting his good friends in Saudi Arabia at the moment (you know - the ones who whip rape victims, throw people in prison for peacefully seeking to change their government, executes more people than Texas, and has the death penalty for homosexuality and adultery). Given his claimed support for human rights in the Middle East, you'd expect Bush to be raising the case of imprisoned Saudi blogger Fouad al-Farhan. Unfortunately, it seems he's more interested in the price of oil than in freedom of speech...

Vetoing for torture

And in more good news from the US, the House has just passed a bill barring the CIA from waterboarding:

The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care.

Naturally, Bush is threatening a veto. Because the last thing he wants is for his torturers to be barred from waterboarding or using Abu Ghraib tactics. Really, the man has no shame at all.