Why Being “Worst President Ever” Is Not Enough

[babylonsister]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17838.htm

Why Being “Worst President Ever” Is Not Enough

By James Rothenberg and Otto Hinckelmann

06/06/07 "ICH" -- -- Jimmy Carter recently said, as others have before him, that this is the worst presidential administration ever (then he softened it some). The White House, in typical form, questioned Carter’s “relevance”. Considering what Carter could have said, the White House got off easy.

An unbiased look at certain, singular actions of this administration is far more damaging. Beside it, the seemingly larger, and unprovable, “worst” claim becomes very much beside the point. The real point is not the administration’s relative standing; it is the unique blatancy of its criminality.

At the end of World War 2, German government leaders were tried at Nuremberg for some of their official activities between 1933 and 1945. These trials were deemed to have established precedents for defining as crimes certain official acts. Some of the acts committed by US government officials appear to fall under the Nuremberg precedents.

snip//

Bush administration officials responsible for Iraq (incidentally all surviving) repeatedly and dramatically represented Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States. This was a great lie. Ample proof exists of this, most famously (though not here in the States) the Downing Street Memos. The invasion took place without UN authorization (illegally according to Kofi Annan) and therefore was an outright act of aggression, the “supreme international crime,” the crime for which the Nazi defendants were condemned.

We have a modern version of the Nuremberg Tribunal, called the International Criminal Court. It was conceived as a way to bring war criminals to justice because crimes like these inevitably reach beyond borders, making it the world’s problem. Even though the United States played a strong role in elaborating the Statute of the ICC, there were elements in it which were considered disturbing. Namely, that it would apply to the US. So President Clinton signed the treaty but asserted he would not submit it to the ratification process. State Secretary Colin Powell announced the withdrawal of Clinton's signature on the grounds that making US officials and military personnel subject to the ICC could subject them to "frivolous lawsuits." We are outside its jurisdiction.

snip//

If a war crime was committed, it is elementary that those that aid and abet this crime are also war criminals. This includes the Congress when it repeatedly funds the operations which are criminal. It also includes the soldiers who carry out the orders of the war criminals. And, yes, to the extent that we don't publicly object to it, you and me.

[BlackHawk706867]

1. Now I wish many in the Senate and Congress would read this and dare to

argue the points within. And then get off of their collective asses and do what should be done in this instance, Impeachment, Trials, and finally Prison Terms for those that are guilty.

ww

[Bravo Zulu]

2. “Worst President Ever”

[yurbud]

3. and if he is not impeached, the GOP can eventually rehabilitate his reputation.

[yurbud]

4. Even if impeached and not removed, what's the one thing people remember about Andrew Johnson 150

years later?

[MasonJar]

5. If the Bushistas have committed war crimes, wouldn't it be irrelevant that

the cabal did not recognize the International Court?