Stand for Bradley Manning this Saturday at Fort Meade!

[Magda Hassan]

Manning is Obama's, Bush's and Blair's worst nightmare: this man explains why…

Posted on August 13, 2013 by admin


Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be tried for war crimes for his role in the US-led second Iraq War and the Afghanistan War (ongoing). He also stated that whistleblower Bradley Manning should have received the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for his part in revealing the very war crimes Blair (and George W Bush and Barack Obama) are accused of. This begs the intriguing question, if Tony Blair or a US president was arraigned at a war crimes tribunal, could we see Bradley Manning assigned witness protection and be subpoenaed to provide evidence for the prosecution, or, even better, as the instigator of the prosecution? Below, we outline how and the options available what is possible or improbable. It's time to think and act laterally…
A. The context
Last September, Archbishop Tutu declared that former British prime minister Tony Blair should be charged and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, specifically in relation to the second Iraq War, which was led by the USA. Had this declaration come from a blogger or a lefty paper no one would have taken a blind bit of notice. But this came from one of the most respected human rights' activists in the world and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate at that. So why was Tutu singling out Blair and not, say Bush, or even Obama? Answer: because the US Government and its officials, together with Israel, have notoriously not signed up to the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court, where war crimes charges are heard (though it is possible, albeit difficult, to prosecute US leaders via US courts see below for more).
Archbishop Tutu is supported in his demand by renowned academic Noam Chomsky and award-winning journalist John Pilger; and in a damning article by Ajamu Baraka, the founding Director of the US Human Rights Network and now fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Legal experts concur (see below). Note: see also a good article on how and why Bush & Co have so far succeeded in avoiding charges in this article in AlterNet .
B. Charges: the rationale
A Dutch inquiry , led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion of Iraq had "no sound mandate in international law". Lord Steyn, a former British law lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal" . Lord Bingham, the former British lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law" . The Chilcot Inquiry is yet to reveal its findings.
George Monbiot (who set up a website called Arrest Blair) went much further and in an article in The Guardian said: "Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted."
C. Charging Blair
Tony Blair has been accused, specifically, of carrying out acts of aggression and if he ever stepped foot in a country where he can be arrested and subsequently tried at the International Criminal Court , that would be it. Unfortunately the definition of acts of aggression' is still ongoing and so Blair cannot be charged retrospectively for a crime still to be defined. But…
Luis Moreno-Ocampo , the first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, believes otherwise and told the Sunday Telegraph that he was willing to start an inquiry by the ICC and possibly a trial for war crimes committed in Iraq involving Blair and American President George W. Bush. With Bush it may be impossible, but with Blair does he does come within ICC jurisdiction as Britain is a party to the Rome Statute.
Consequently, for the past four years Tony Blair has been assiduously dodging potential prosecutors by staying out of countries where he might be nabbed and charged. One wrong step and he may find himself behind bars, or under house arrest as Pinochet was (see below) with a pending trial in one of the world's court's. So, for the moment, you could say that Mr. Blair is on the run.
D. Charging Obama and Bush
While it may be difficult, but not impossible, to prosecute Bush and Obama and co via the ICC, it is possible to do so using the US War Crimes Act . This Act defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", to which the US is party. The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death.
It is also interesting to note that Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a Nuremberg-like trial. There would be another instances (see Appendix below).
And let us not forget that shortly before the end of President Bush's second term, news media in countries other than the US began publishing the views of those who believe that, under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the US is obliged to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law. One proponent of this view was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Professor Manfred Nowak , who, on January 20, 2009, remarked on German television that former president George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the US would be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture. Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Nowak's comments by saying that under US and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as an interrogation tool.
Further, we should recall that former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested in London in 1998, on Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon's demand, on charges of human rights abuses and on grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his extradition from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the European Union regarding extradition. (Pinochet was finally released on grounds of health.) Theoretically, therefore, a South American can be arrested by a Spanish judge under European legislation. (Indeed, Pinochet would have gone to trial had it not been for the intervention of the British Government under Tony Blair.)
Similarly, there is nothing, in theory, to stop a US citizen, including a president, present or past, from being arrested in Europe under European law if the alleged crimes had directly affected Europeans (which was the case with the war in Iraq) or their families.
E. Bradley Manning and the European dimension
Bradley Manning is a US citizen and a British citizen and therefore a European. His British citizenry automatically means that Manning has access not only to the UK courts but also the European courts; similarly, his mother, Susan Manning, or his aunt. This provides Manning or family members with a number of additional legal options to examine via UK or European-wide lawyers. As a UK citizen, for example, he has the right to lodge a claim in person or via legal representatives in both the UK courts and the European courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. Likewise, Susan Manning, or another family member, has the option of instigating legal action on his behalf or in relation to any violation of their own rights again, via the UK or European courts. These options are not instead of but additional to any appeals Manning makes in the US courts against convictions and sentences.
So far, none of these additional options have been taken up, though there are UK-based lawyers who are very much aware of these possibilities and it may well be that at some point action could be taken by, or on behalf of, Bradley Manning or a family member, to demand, for example, that all verdicts made against Bradley be overthrown given that he is protected by the Nuremberg Charter (the Principles of which he has followed) and the Geneva Convention (which forbids war crimes). It might also be added that his prosecution is a crime in itself, that his trial is more than an absurdity but a travesty of international justice and that those implicated in his prosecution should be arraigned.
Lastly, we should remember that Archbishop Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (each one a Nobel Peace Prize laureate) declared Manning should have received the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, but also, only very recently, Manning was awarded the Sean MacBride Peace Prize , named after one of the authors of the European Human Rights Convention, the bedrock of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which Manning and his family have right of access to correct injustices suffered. Which brings us to…
F. Manning the prosecutor
Let's get down to specifics…
One scenario in which Obama or Bush or Blair could be prosecuted for war crimes, or crimes against humanity, or for initiating an illegal war of aggression, is via a private prosecution by someone or a class of persons who allege are a victim or victims of those crimes. And it can be argued that Bradley Manning's prosecution was a direct consequence of wrong-doings by these politicians and their colleagues and moreover he has the evidence to prove it. Should such a prosecution come about, then the tribunal or trial for war crimes could subpoena not only Barack Obama, George W Bush and Tony Blair, but also Donald Rumsfeld, David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal, Paul Bremer, Dick Cheney, James Steele, etc. Prosecution witnesses could include editors of newspapers that published the war crimes (e.g. Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel), former Guantanamo Bay detainees, persons tortured by US forces or Iraqi forces under US supervision, whistleblowers/witnesses (e.g. John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake, Daniel Ellsberg, Ethan McCord) and researchers from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and similar bodies.
In summary, at some point and with the assistance of US attorneys, or British lawyers, or European-based advocates/jurists, Bradley Manning could and with great irony commence a prosecution of Barack Obama, George W Bush and Tony Blair to prove their guilt in conducting war crimes or in conducting an act of aggression (i.e. the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan). In so doing, Manning would, in effect, be demonstrating his own innocence, in that justice is not, despite what Judge Lind thinks, about mere process and adhesion to principles of national law, but about loyalty to universal truths of a far higher authority.
Finally… there would be a way in which Blair, Bush and Obama could avoid any possible repercussions or counter-claim by Manning: to take the escape route option and pardon Manning as part of a deal. And who better to broker that deal than the man who believes wholeheartedly that Manning is a victim and that Blair, Bush and Obama are the criminals: Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Appendix
A reminder of the war crimes… Here are the eight main charges (from a total of more than 40 ):
Note: the main charges, as listed below, relate directly to the Iraq War and the conflict in Afghanistan, with the bulk of evidence emanating from files uploaded to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning.
Charge #1. US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished. The "Iraq War Logs" published by WikiLeaks revealed that thousands of reports of prisoner abuse and torture had been filed against the Iraqi Security Forces. Medical evidence detailed how prisoners had been whipped with heavy cables across the feet, hung from ceiling hooks, suffered holes being bored into their legs with electric drills, urinated upon, and sexually assaulted. For more, click here .
Charge #2. The "Iraq War Logs" also revealed the existence of "Frago 242," an order implemented in 2004 not to investigate allegations of abuse against the Iraqi government. This order is a direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. The Convention prohibits the Armed Forces from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." According to the State Department's own reports,the U.S. government was already aware that the Iraqi Security Forces engaged in torture. For more click here .
Charge #3. The Guantanamo Files describe how detainees were arrested based on what the New York Times referred to as highly subjective evidence. For example, some poor farmers were captured after they were found wearing a common watch or a jacket that was the same as those also worn by Al Queda operatives. How quickly innocent prisoners were released was heavily dependent on their country of origin. Because the evidence collected against Guantanamo prisoners is not permissible in U.S. courts, the U.S. State Department has offered millions of dollars to other countries to take and try our prisoners. According to a U.S. diplomatic cable written on April 17, 2009, the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners requested that the National Court indict six former U.S. officials for creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture against five Spanish prisoners at Guantanamo. However, "Senator Mel Martinez… met Acting FM [Foreign Minister] Angel Lossada… on April 15. Martinez… underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship". For more click here .
Charge #4. US special-operations forces have targeted militants without trial in secret assassination missions, and many more Afghan civilians have been killed by accident than previously reported, according to the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war document dump. For more click here .
Charge #5. The "Collateral Murder" video released by Wikileaks depicted the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad,including two journalists working for Reuters. The Reuters news organization has repeatedly been denied in its attempts to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters photographer and his rescuers. Two young children who were present in the attempted rescue were also seriously wounded. Ethan McCord, a U.S. army soldier who can be seen in the video carrying wounded children to safety, has said that whoever revealed this video is a "hero." An internal U.S. military investigation concluded that the incident was consistent with the military's "Rules of Engagement." For more click here .
Charge #6. The Obama administration worked with Republicans during his first few months in office to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies that some considered torture. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid obtained by WikiLeaks details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution [by Baltasar Garzon] . For more, click here .
Charge #7. U.S. defense contractors were brought under much tighter supervision after leaked diplomatic cables revealed that they had been complicit in child trafficking activities. DynCorp a powerful defense contracting firm that claims almost $2billion per year in revenue from U.S. tax dollars threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring boys purchased from child traffickers for entertainment. DynCorp had already faced human trafficking charges before this incident took place. According to the cables, Afghan Interior minister Hanif Atmar urged the assistant US ambassador to "quash" the story. These revelations have been a driving factor behind recent calls for the removal of all U.S. defense contractors from Afghanistan. For more, click here .
Charge #8. There is (despite government claims to the opposite) an official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was false. Between 2004 and 2009,the U.S. government counted a total of 109,000 deaths in Iraq, with 66,081 classified as non-combatants. This means that for every Iraqi death that is classified as a combatant, two innocent men,women or children are also killed. Note… A respected British medical journal published a set of figures indicating not just thousands of Iraqi casualties but closer to a million a genocide in both name and fact, that is only now becoming apparent. For more, click here .
http://darkernet.in/manning-is-obamas-bu...lains-why/