ehnyah
09-07-2005, 01:13 PM
http://pegc.no-ip.info/archive/letters/Jcom_stmt_20050902.pdf
Charles Gittings, Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions (PEGC)
cbgittings@yahoo.com
+1-509-687-7709
September 2, 2005
EXCERPTS FROM Charles Gittings Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, submitted in the last day or so:
"These policies are inconsistent with both the Constitution and any rational concept of justice or law. Anyone who would advocate, defer to, condone, or obey such a policy is unfit to hold any position of public trust. *** This is not a political matter, it is a matter of LAW, and this is a nation of laws, not men: a government that will not obey its own laws is no government at all."
++++++
" * Neither Congress nor the President have any authority to commit, authorize, or condone war crimes.
* The only actual purpose of the President’s "Military Order" of November 13, 2001("PMO") was to commit war crimes pursuant to 18 USC 2441 in violation of Geneva 1949, IMT 1945, and Hague IV 1907 – in particular, the improperly constituted ad hoc military commissions at issue in Hamdan."
+++++++
"Exhibit A is principal reason for submitting this statement to the committee, a commentary on the D.C. Circuit decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a member of the panel and joined in the opinion. The commentary shows that the opinion, like the earlier circuit court decisions in Hamdi III (4th Cir. 2003) and Al Odah (D.C. Cir. 2003),
is both erroneous and dishonest to such an extent that it strongly suggests prejudice, or in the alternative, gross incompetence.
+++++++++++
The documents speak for themselves, but I also want to briefly summarize my view of their significance in some of the matters before the committee:
1) Sen. Graham has proposed legislation to “clarify” the proper treatment of detainees. The White House has indicated that it would veto such legislation, but in fact there is no need for the legislation in the first place: the congress has already spoken on this matter and there is nothing unclear about it. Detentions are regulated by Geneva, Hague, and IMT, all of which were ratified by the Senate, and 18 USC 2441, enacted by the full congress in 1996 and expanded in 1997. The administration’s detainee policies are simply illegal and criminal.
2) Sen. McCain’s proposal to require compliance with Geneva is likewise unnecessary, though admirable in and of itself. What is really required is the enforcement of 18 USC 2441 and other existing laws in regard to the deliberate war crimes of the Bush administration.
3) Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy have proposed the formation of an independent commission to fully investigate the detainee policies. While it would be a step in the right direction, here again, what’s really required is enforcement by a fully independent prosecutor and a special grand jury. There has been sufficient evidence to establish probable cause since 2002.02.07, and indeed, enough to prove guilt virtually to a logical certainty on
the strength of the administration’s own public statements since the summer of 2002. There is a great deal more evidence now, and while I’m sure there is still a lot that hasn’t come to light, what we have is more than enough, and it is an utter disgrace that so many in this nation have worked so hard for so long to ignore all of it while our highest public officials openly commit heinous crimes behind an immense smokescreen of frauds and cover-ups designed to
play on the worst prejudices and inclinations of their political supporters.
4) In regard to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I believe that my commentary on the Hamdan decision shows clearly that the opinion was dishonest and prejudiced, and that it was also a judicial war crime in violation of 18 USC 2441. Judge Roberts is obviously well-qualified on paper, but in my opinion, any lawyer who would concur in a decision so utterly dishonest and unlawful as the one in Hamdan is unfit to practice law, let alone sit on the Supreme Court. We already have an Attorney General and Solicitor General (among others) who are directly implicated in the war crimes against the detainees; we do not need a war criminal on our highest bench.
This matter is not going to go away. There is no form of immunity or statutory limitation for war crimes, and there is nothing political about any of this to me – this is a matter of law, and of a stain on our national honor that can only be removed by punishing those responsible for their crimes. The policies of this administration are a direct threat to the Constitution itself: they have claimed nothing less than the power to act as a Roman dictator, and that is a proposition that is entirely inconsistent with the Constitution."
- Doug Bracewell
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/2486534.html
Charles Gittings, Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions (PEGC)
cbgittings@yahoo.com
+1-509-687-7709
September 2, 2005
EXCERPTS FROM Charles Gittings Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, submitted in the last day or so:
"These policies are inconsistent with both the Constitution and any rational concept of justice or law. Anyone who would advocate, defer to, condone, or obey such a policy is unfit to hold any position of public trust. *** This is not a political matter, it is a matter of LAW, and this is a nation of laws, not men: a government that will not obey its own laws is no government at all."
++++++
" * Neither Congress nor the President have any authority to commit, authorize, or condone war crimes.
* The only actual purpose of the President’s "Military Order" of November 13, 2001("PMO") was to commit war crimes pursuant to 18 USC 2441 in violation of Geneva 1949, IMT 1945, and Hague IV 1907 – in particular, the improperly constituted ad hoc military commissions at issue in Hamdan."
+++++++
"Exhibit A is principal reason for submitting this statement to the committee, a commentary on the D.C. Circuit decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a member of the panel and joined in the opinion. The commentary shows that the opinion, like the earlier circuit court decisions in Hamdi III (4th Cir. 2003) and Al Odah (D.C. Cir. 2003),
is both erroneous and dishonest to such an extent that it strongly suggests prejudice, or in the alternative, gross incompetence.
+++++++++++
The documents speak for themselves, but I also want to briefly summarize my view of their significance in some of the matters before the committee:
1) Sen. Graham has proposed legislation to “clarify” the proper treatment of detainees. The White House has indicated that it would veto such legislation, but in fact there is no need for the legislation in the first place: the congress has already spoken on this matter and there is nothing unclear about it. Detentions are regulated by Geneva, Hague, and IMT, all of which were ratified by the Senate, and 18 USC 2441, enacted by the full congress in 1996 and expanded in 1997. The administration’s detainee policies are simply illegal and criminal.
2) Sen. McCain’s proposal to require compliance with Geneva is likewise unnecessary, though admirable in and of itself. What is really required is the enforcement of 18 USC 2441 and other existing laws in regard to the deliberate war crimes of the Bush administration.
3) Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy have proposed the formation of an independent commission to fully investigate the detainee policies. While it would be a step in the right direction, here again, what’s really required is enforcement by a fully independent prosecutor and a special grand jury. There has been sufficient evidence to establish probable cause since 2002.02.07, and indeed, enough to prove guilt virtually to a logical certainty on
the strength of the administration’s own public statements since the summer of 2002. There is a great deal more evidence now, and while I’m sure there is still a lot that hasn’t come to light, what we have is more than enough, and it is an utter disgrace that so many in this nation have worked so hard for so long to ignore all of it while our highest public officials openly commit heinous crimes behind an immense smokescreen of frauds and cover-ups designed to
play on the worst prejudices and inclinations of their political supporters.
4) In regard to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I believe that my commentary on the Hamdan decision shows clearly that the opinion was dishonest and prejudiced, and that it was also a judicial war crime in violation of 18 USC 2441. Judge Roberts is obviously well-qualified on paper, but in my opinion, any lawyer who would concur in a decision so utterly dishonest and unlawful as the one in Hamdan is unfit to practice law, let alone sit on the Supreme Court. We already have an Attorney General and Solicitor General (among others) who are directly implicated in the war crimes against the detainees; we do not need a war criminal on our highest bench.
This matter is not going to go away. There is no form of immunity or statutory limitation for war crimes, and there is nothing political about any of this to me – this is a matter of law, and of a stain on our national honor that can only be removed by punishing those responsible for their crimes. The policies of this administration are a direct threat to the Constitution itself: they have claimed nothing less than the power to act as a Roman dictator, and that is a proposition that is entirely inconsistent with the Constitution."
- Doug Bracewell
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/2486534.html