Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5546)	11/15/2005 12:52:50 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

Policymakers on Torture Take Note -- Remember Pinochet by Philippe Sands Before embarking on international travels, David Addington and others who are said to be closely associated with the crafting of the Bush administration's policy on the interrogation of detainees would do well to reflect on the fate of Augusto Pinochet. The Chilean senator and former head of state was unexpectedly arrested during a visit to London on Oct. 16, 1998, at the request of a Spanish judge who sought his extradition on various charges of international criminality, including torture. The House of Lords -- Britain's upper house -- ruled that the 1984 convention prohibiting torture removed any right he might have to claim immunity from the English courts and gave a green light to the continuation of extradition proceedings. As counsel for Human Rights Watch, I participated in that case. This allowed me to witness the case firsthand. It also gave me the opportunity to chat with Pinochet's advisers, and one conversation in particular has remained vividly at the forefront of my mind. "It never occurred to us that the torture convention would be used to detain the senator," remarked the human rights adviser who had been involved in the decision by Pinochet and Chile to ratify the Convention Against Torture in 1988. Pinochet spent more than a year in custody before being returned to Chile on medical grounds. The adviser's words came back to me recently, during a debate with Professor John Yoo at the World Affairs Council of San Francisco. Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, is the author of legal advice that rode roughshod over the torture convention, and contributed to at least one opinion that ignored the well-established international definition of torture. These opinions are plainly inconsistent with the requirements of international law. They may have opened a door into the forbidden world of torture, and were perhaps offered as part of a policy on the part of the U.S. administration to allow more aggressive interrogation techniques in the "war on terror." Yoo was well aware of the torture convention. However, when I raised the Pinochet precedent in our debate, he seemed slightly taken aback. It seems he may not have turned his mind to the possibility that a legal adviser associated with a policy that permits torture contrary to international legal obligations could be subject to international investigation. How might this happen? The United States has led the world in promoting international human rights laws. It played a leading role in negotiating a global convention that would outlaw the use of torture in any circumstances. The convention sets up an elaborate enforcement mechanism. The United States and the 140- plus other countries that have joined the convention agree to take certain actions if any person who has committed torture is found on their territory. Such a person is to be investigated, and if the facts warrant, must either be prosecuted for the crime of torture or extradited to another country that will prosecute. The convention intends to avoid impunity for this most serious of international crimes by removing the possibility that the torturer will be able to find any safe haven. This was the basis for Pinochet's arrest in Britain. The potential problem for Yoo, vice presidential chief of staff David Addington and others who may have been associated with torture, is to be found in Article 4 of the convention. This section criminalizes not only the act of torture itself but also other acts, including "an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture." Can the mere drafting of legal advice that authorizes a policy of torture amount to complicity in torture? Any case will turn on its particular facts. A prosecutor would have to establish that there was a direct causal connection between the legal advice and the carrying out of particular acts of torture, or perhaps a clear relationship between the legal advice and a governmental policy that permitted torture (or turned a blind eye to it). That evidence is not yet established, and it would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of any investigations that may be carried out in the future. Nevertheless, those associated with the legal opinions and their surrounding policies should be aware that there is case law from Nuremberg that suggests that lawyers and policymakers can be criminally liable for the advice they have given and the decisions they have taken. In the case of United States vs. Josef Altstotter, some of the accused were lawyers who had been involved in enacting and enforcing Nazi laws and Hitler decrees that permitted crimes against humanity. None of the defendants was charged with murder or the abuse of a particular person. They were charged with participating in a governmentally organized system of cruelty. As the tribunal put it: "The dagger of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist." Eight of the 14 were convicted in December 1947 for "complicity in international crime." It is not just lawyers who should beware. Some media reports have suggested that a chief architect of the policy that gave rise to the legal advice was Addington, who has recently been appointed as the vice president's chief of staff, after Lewis Libby's indictment and resignation. If Addington did play such a role, and if further evidence emerges that acts of torture resulted from the existence of any such policy, then he too may wish to reflect carefully before embarking on foreign travels. Responsibility may go even higher in the administration's hierarchy. These are early days in understanding the precise relationship between the administration's policy on detainee interrogations, the legal advice and the allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. There is a need for a full and independent investigation. There is an urgent need to bring into law Sen. John McCain's sensible and welcome proposal to explicitly ban abusive treatment and give effect to the United States' obligations under the torture convention. In the meantime, the Pinochet and Altstotter cases and the torture convention should serve as a salutary reminder of the growing reach of international criminal law. The possibility cannot be excluded that the Pinochet precedent will come back to haunt Addington, Yoo and others in the Bush administration. International law is not just for other people in other countries. Ignoring it will not be cost-free, including worries about foreign travel, as former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori learned last week when he was taken into custody in Chile. Philippe Sands is professor of law at University College London and a practicing barrister. He is the author of "Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking Global Rules," published by Viking. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com. Copyright © 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5546)	11/15/2005 4:49:22 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 9838

a speech that W could NEVER give Clinton tells Gulf Arabs to spread the wealth 1 hour, 18 minutes ago Former U.S. President Bill Clinton criticized Gulf Arab countries on Tuesday for not spreading their huge oil wealth around the Middle East to push education, fight poverty and find alternative energy sources. Addressing business leaders in the United Arab Emirates, Clinton said Gulf governments should resist the urge to spend mainly on itself in a new period of high oil prices which analysts say is set to continue for the foreseeable future. "This is a magic moment for this part of the world. I think you should think about ... what you should do today so that (your grandchildren) will think 50 years from now that it was a magic moment because of the gifts you left behind," he said. "Many people will look back and say you had all these riches and you built some beautiful buildings, you had a very good time -- but you also thought about me and how the world would work." Analysts estimate that Gulf Arabs will plow $360 billion into foreign assets in 2005-2006, although some of the money is being invested in other Middle Eastern countries. In past oil booms Gulf States mostly parked petrodollars in the West. Construction in Gulf countries is racing ahead as regional economies boom. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are among the world's top oil producers, but their reserves are generally seen as lasting for no more than several more decades. "If I were a benevolent dictator of all the Middle East, I'd turn it not into the oil center of the world but the energy center," Clinton said, listing solar and wind energy. "I'd take some of the cash reserves and invest money in all the poor countries around here ... I would educate them and manufacture massive amounts of alternative energy technologies." Clinton said such a regional redistribution of wealth would help reduce Islamic extremism, which would also require an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (5546)	11/15/2005 5:04:18 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 9838

This is what Bush has been doing with HIS cabal and influence Bush's Vision Fails to Win Over Middle East by Simon Tisdall Jack Straw put his finger on it. Speaking after a disputatious Middle East summit in Bahrain at the weekend, the foreign secretary said: "It would be a disaster if this region thought democracy was an American idea." Many in the region appear to think exactly that - and have ideas of their own. Washington's latest disappointment came when a 30-country Middle East "democratic manifesto" statement was torpedoed in Bahrain. Backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt insisted that governments should decide which activist groups benefited from a new $50m (£29m) regional democracy fund. The summit was part of a process begun by George Bush's speech at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington in 2003. Speaking before US control in Iraq began to unravel, the president predicted a regional revolution. "Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere ... they are beginning to see the need for change," Mr Bush said. "The US has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." Backed by Liz Cheney, the vice-president's daughter and state department expert, and Karen Hughes, Mr Bush's image polisher-in-chief, Condoleezza Rice is trying to turn presidential vision into reality. During her current, didactic Middle East tour the secretary of state won a Saudi pledge for $1bn in Iraq reconstruction aid. She reminded Palestinians that groups such as Hamas must be disarmed. And she made clear that Syria was the region's democratic dunce. "We would like to see democracy, liberty and justice under the rule of law," she said. But Ms Rice and colleagues have encountered a range of obstacles. The Cheney name, associated with the Iraq invasion, has negative connotations on the Arab street. Ms Hughes's recent goodwill tour was widely ridiculed. Ms Rice's call for international monitoring of Egypt's presidential election last June was rejected. Like this month's parliamentary polls, the process - portrayed by Washington as a watershed moment for Arab reform - was dogged by fraud claims. Likewise, Lebanon's US-backed "cedar revolution" is looking root-bound. Saudi Arabia promised to provide funds for Iraq more than two years ago but has not delivered. Like Kuwait and the UAE, Riyadh has refused to forgive $48bn in Saddam-era debt. And despite western urgings, many Arab countries have still not resumed diplomatic relations with Baghdad. Although Ms Rice signalled an agreement on post-withdrawal Gaza yesterday, violence by both sides continues while Washington seems powerless to break the overall peace process logjam. Her veiled threats against Syria may have reinforced fears that the US will again resort to force if it does not get its way. Broader Arab concerns about an imposed US agenda include Sunni-led governments' worries that democracy in Iraq is producing another potentially antagonistic Shia power, standing alongside Iran. US policy could even undermine its own security goals, said Professor Gregory Gause in Foreign Affairs magazine. "Based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the US than are the current authoritarian rulers," he said. Far from celebrating Mr Bush's "rising tide" of reform yesterday, Ms Rice was obliged to divert to the scene of last week's al-Qaida bombs in Amman. She still has a long road to travel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005