[DEBATE] : (Fwd) The *conclusive* case against Bush

[Patrick Bond]

(Dennis Brutus is one of the Commissioners)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY COMMITTED BY
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES VERDICT and Findings of Fact

September 13, 2006


Bush Crimes Commission
305 West Broadway, #199
New York, NY 10013

www.bushcommission.org


Preface

With this international commission we are looking at the crimes against 
humanity, which we have been experiencing for some years, ever since the 
Bush administration came into office, but whose antecedents really go 
back far into American history. It is a history of a very aggressive 
foreign policy, a history which starts with the extermination of the 
Indians driving them out of this continent, killing them, which proceeds 
with the invasion of Mexico, and goes on to send troops into the 
Caribbean and then into the Philippines. And we’ve seen in this 
post-World War II America, what was called by Henry Luce, the “American 
Century,” the military dominance of the United States in the world.

The problem is that it is has not been moral dominance. The military 
dominance has gone along with an immorality, which in these last years 
especially, has now reached the point of crime, crimes against humanity, 
a phrase which came into general understanding after World War II when 
the Nuremberg trials talked about the Nazis and their crimes against 
humanity. And it’s a shame that we are at this point in American history 
where the charge that was made against the Nazis is now a charge that 
people all over the world, and now more and more people in the United 
States, are beginning to level against this administration.

Here is an administration that has taken this country into two wars in 
five years, ruthlessly sending troops, first into Afghanistan and then 
into Iraq, under the guise of a war on terrorism, but in fact waging 
war, carrying out acts of terrorism, against the populations of 
Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Administration has been reserving to 
itself the right to unilaterally act whenever it felt obliged to act, 
presumably in the interests of democracy and liberty, but actually in 
the interests of business, big business, the oil business in this instance.

I remember during the Vietnam War, there was an artist who did a poster, 
which was distributed by the thousands. The poster had simple words on 
it. It said, “War is good for business. Invest your son.” That’s the 
situation we’re in now. Our sons, daughters are being invested for 
business purposes. People all over the world know this, and now the 
American people recognize the immorality of what we are doing.

The destruction of life abroad is accompanied by the destruction of our 
liberties at home. Whenever the government was engaged in war, in near 
war, or in a foreign policy crisis, then it has used this as an excuse 
to say to the nation: “The First Amendment doesn’t count anymore. We are 
in danger.” Precisely at that time is when people most need their 
freedom of speech, when constitutional rights are most required, yet 
exactly at that point are they crippled and destroyed, as is happening 
now with this administration with its Patriot Act, with its 
surveillance, with its barging into libraries to demand the names of 
people who take out books, with its detention of people without any due 
process and without trial.

The Bush Administration has been following a course, which can only now 
be described as a series of crimes against humanity. The Constitution 
provides for impeachment for what it calls “high crimes and 
misdemeanors.” It has never been made exactly clear what this means. 
Generally, the presidents that have been impeached or threatened with 
impeachment have had that happen, not as a result of high crimes, but as 
a result of relatively small actions which irritated the opposite 
political party. But in this case, this is a clear case for the removal 
of a president for committing “high crimes.” What could be a higher 
crime than sending the young people of the country into a war against a 
small country on the other side of the world, which is no danger to the 
United States, and in fact a war which is condemned by people all over 
the world and a war which results in, not only the loss of American 
lives and the crippling of young Americans, but results in the loss of 
huge numbers of people in Iraq? These are high crimes.

Along with it, of course, comes the incapacity of the government to use 
its resources, because the resources are being used for war. We are in 
the midst right now of international catastrophes, of hurricanes, of 
earthquakes, which are taking the lives of tens of thousands of people. 
It is a crime that we have military equipment and soldiers fighting a 
war, when they could be used in other parts of the world to save 
peoples’ lives. These are crimes, which I think the American people now 
are more and more recognizing. If Congress doesn’t act, and Congress has 
been so reluctant to act, with the Democratic Party so feeble and really 
cowardly in its subservience to the Administration and its policies, in 
such a situation, where the political mechanisms of the government are 
inadequate to address these crimes, then it is the responsibility of the 
people to speak up and to demand that these crimes be recognized and 
that the people responsible for these crimes be removed from office and 
brought to justice.

The Declaration of Independence, which is our founding philosophical 
document for democratic ideas, says that “governments are established by 
the people” and that the purpose of government is to ensure that people 
have an equal right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 
And when governments become destructive of these ends, when governments 
become destructive of these ends, “it is the right of the people to 
alter or abolish the government.” That is the situation we are in today. 
This government is destructive of the rights of people, of their right 
to life, their right to liberty. It is also destructive of the right to 
life of people abroad, which is why the rest of the world has opposed 
this war in Iraq. The government is destructive of the health of people, 
because, while people are dying of disease in Africa and Asia, and the 
Middle East, and even in this country, this government with enormous 
wealth at its disposal is using that wealth to wage.

We’re facing a situation which really is intolerable from a moral point 
of view, a situation which, not being redressed by Congress or by the 
Supreme Court, a situation in which democracy must arise. Democracy must 
come alive, as historically in the past, where the government has failed 
to act on behalf of human rights, where the government has failed to act 
for racial equality. Black people in the South had to take it upon 
themselves to create the kind of commotion in the country that would 
bring about a change. When working people were facing 12-hour days and 
couldn’t survive and the government was not doing anything about this, 
the working people themselves had to go out on strike and stop the 
machinery of the economic system. Those are situations when democracy 
came alive. And we face that kind of situation today. My hope is that 
this tribunal will be an important step in advancing a movement which 
will demand that the crimes taking place now stop, that the people 
responsible for it be removed from office, and that democracy be 
restored in the United States.

Howard Zinn


Table of Contents

Preface by Howard Zinn 3

Table of Contents 5

Introduction by C. Clark Kissinger 7

Summary 11

Verdict and Findings 13

Appendices

A. Commission Charter 35
B. Standards for Judgment 39
C. Witness List 41
D. Panel of Jurists and Prosecutors 43
E. Opening Remarks to Hearings from Harry Belafonte and Michael Ratner 45




Introduction

The extraordinary Commission of Inquiry convened to consider charges 
that the President George W. Bush and his administration have committed 
war crimes and crimes against humanity has now reached a verdict: Guilty.

On wars of aggression, illegal detention and torture, suppression of 
science and catastrophic policies on global warming, potentially 
genocidal abstinence-only policies imposed on HIV/AIDS prevention 
programs in the Third World, and the abandonment of New Orleans before, 
during, and after Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush and his 
administration have been found guilty of war crimes and crimes against 
humanity.

This verdict comes at crucial moment. As Michael Ratner, President of 
the Center for Constitutional Rights, emphasized at the Commission 
hearings: “We want this trial to be a step in the building of mass 
resistance to war, to torture, to the destruction of earth and its 
people. It’s a serious moment. . . . We still have a chance, an 
opportunity to stop this slide into chaos. But it is up to us. We must 
not sit with our arms folded, and we must be as radical as the reality 
we are facing.”

Acts of the Bush Administration have continued to reinforce this 
assessment. The crimes cited in the indictments have continued. We have 
witnessed a continuing onslaught of horrors in Iraq from the massacres 
in Haditha and Mahmudiya to the exposure of rapes and murders by U.S. 
forces. Torture continues at secret overseas sites. New Orleans still 
lies in ruins, much of its Black population “resettled.” New evidence 
concerning the deadly impact of U.S. AIDS policy in Africa has come to 
light. New crimes have been committed such as the destruction of Lebanon 
with U.S. weapons and backing. And now even more serious crimes loom 
with open threats to launch a new war of aggression on Iran.

This administration has flouted and defied the Geneva Conventions. It 
has arrogated to itself the right to suspend habeas corpus, engage in 
mass warrantless searches, and defines the powers of the 
“commander-in-chief” to be above the law. Bush’s Attorney General, 
Alberto Gonzales, has sought to legitimize torture and exempt those who 
employ torture from prosecution.

At the 1967 Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal, Bertrand Russell gave a 
profound mandate: “We meet at an alarming time. Overwhelming evidence 
besieges us daily of crimes without precedent. We investigate in order 
to expose; we document in order to indict; we arouse consciousness in 
order to create mass resistance.” Establishing the truth of the Bush 
Administration’s acts and their implications for humanity is our moral 
and political responsibility in this time.


Background of the Commission

Bush’s new doctrine of “preventive war,” massive civilian casualties in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, the opening of a concentration camp at Guantánamo 
Bay in Cuba, and the appearance of government documents seeking to 
legitimize torture, the potentially catastrophic and genocidal policies 
on global warming and HIV/AIDS prevention all made clear that a serious 
investigation and adjudication was demanded.

Recognizing the need for this inquiry to establish the truth about 
charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Not In Our Name 
statement of conscience convened the International Commission of Inquiry 
on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration. The 
Commission was initiated with a Charter (see Appendices) that was itself 
signed by many noted voices of conscience.

The Charter begins, “When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and 
crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn 
responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to 
determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes 
against humanity.”

The Charter also forthrightly states the Commission’s intent that “[t]he 
holding of this tribunal will frame and fuel a discussion that is 
urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. 
Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity?”

The Commission took oral testimony and accepted documentary evidence 
from 44 witnesses at public hearings held at the Manhattan Center, the 
historic Riverside Church, and the Columbia School of Law during October 
2005 and January 2006. These witnesses were an amazing array of former 
government officials, noted experts, journalists, and victims.

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector testified to the complete 
lies and fabrications of the Bush administration in making the case for 
war in Iraq, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the former commander of 
all prisons in Iraq established the chain of command from the torture 
chambers of Abu Ghraib to the highest offices of the land, and Craig 
Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan testified to the use 
of torture by U.S. allies in the War on Terror. Murray exemplified the 
moral clarity needed by society when he stated, “I would personally 
rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life”


Standards for the Commission

The Commission’s legitimacy derives from its integrity, its rigor in the 
presentation of evidence, and the stature of its participants.

Precisely because of the singular nature of some of this 
administration’s actions and the lack of relevant precedent in existent 
law, it was necessary to proceed from a “first principles” definition of 
crimes against humanity. As a basis for its verdicts and findings of 
fact, these principles were codified in its Standards of Judgment 
document (see Appendices), which sets forth the definition of “crimes 
against humanity” to be used by the Commission:

“[C]rimes against humanity as popularly understood and conceived [are] 
acts that, by their scale or nature, shock the conscience of humankind.

“Crimes against humanity are brutal crimes that are not isolated 
incidents but that involve large and systematic actions often cloaked 
with official authority. These include mass murder, extermination, 
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts perpetrated against a 
population, conducted in wartime or not. Apartheid and persecution on 
political, ethnic, and gender grounds have also been considered inhumane 
acts causing great suffering, and therefore crimes against humanity.”

While the Commission has referenced existing international law where 
applicable, it neither attempted to develop new law nor to force-fit its 
findings into existing legal frameworks. Rather, through the rigorous 
presentation of expert and witness testimony, documents, and other 
evidence, the Commission has sought to establish the truth about major 
acts and policies of the Bush administration, acts that could by their 
nature or scope, rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against 
humanity.

That is, first and foremost, it is the task of the Commission to 
establish the truth.

Finally, the Standards gives a charge to its panel of judges (referred 
to in the Charter as a “jury of conscience”): “The historic and 
political responsibility before this tribunal lies in delivering 
findings of fact and a verdict on the central question before the 
commission: ‘whether George W. Bush and his administration have 
committed crimes against humanity.’ As the Charter mandates, ‘The 
Commission’s jury of conscience will come to verdicts and its findings 
will be published.’ The jury of conscience will carefully assess the 
evidence and base its conclusions on the sufficiency of the evidence.”

* * *
It was a great strength that the hearings were held in the United States 
itself and were not limited to one issue. By taking the charges 
together, a whole emerges that is greater than the sum of its parts: the 
conscious, systematic malevolence at the core of the Bush agenda.
Realizing and confronting the reality that war crimes and crimes against 
humanity are being committed by your government, in your name, brings to 
the fore the moral and political responsibility to bring these crimes to 
halt -- and make sure that they are never repeated.

C. Clark Kissinger
New York, NY


C. Clark Kissinger was an initiator of the Not In Our Name statement of 
conscience as is the Convener of the Bush Crimes Commission.


FINDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON CRIMES AGAINST 
HUMANITY COMMITTED BY THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES


The Commission’s panel of jurists has reached a unanimous decision that 
George W. Bush and his administration have committed war crimes and 
crimes against humanity.
We find the Bush Administration guilty of all five indictments presented 
for which we have received evidence: wars of aggression, torture and 
indefinite detention, global warming policies and actions, attacks on 
public health HIV/AIDS programs and reproductive rights, and preparation 
for and response to Hurricane Katrina.
Each of these constitutes a shocking crime in itself, and taken together 
the full horrors are all the more unconscionable. It is also clear that 
this is an administration that demonstrates an utter disregard for truth 
and flagrantly lies about the reasons for its actions.
In arriving at this decision the jurists were particularly alarmed by 
the degree to which the Bush Administration’s actions in all five 
indictments were informed by the extreme right. It was the politics and 
perspective of the extreme, often religious, right that appeared in most 
cases to provide the ideological framework for the Bush Administration 
within which the lives of the poor, people of color and frequently 
non-Christians, were devalued to the extent that their human rights were 
flagrantly violated. Thus, although the specific conduct differs among 
the indictments, the result is the same: human life was debased and 
devalued by gratuitous acts of violence, torture, narrow self interest, 
indifference, and disregard.
The findings outlined below were reached after careful assessment of the 
evidence presented to the Commission in October 2005 and January 2006 as 
well as documents submitted by the prosecutors after the hearings at the 
request of the jurists during the hearings. The findings are based on 
our application of the Standards of Judgment for the International 
Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush 
Administration of the United States. As required by this standard, the 
Commission relied on fundamental principles of morality and justice, 
and, where appropriate, customary international law and international 
law principles including the United Nations Charter, The United Nations 
Declaration of Human Rights, Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the 
Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Torture Victims’ 
Protection Act, the War Crimes Act, and the international law of War 
Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
Finally, the Commission has fulfilled its responsibility outlined in the 
Charter of the International Commission of Inquiry: “When the 
possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity 
exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire 
into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in 
fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” We 
find that the acts of the Bush Administration in the five indictment 
areas do “rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Members of the panel:

Adjoa Aiyetoro
Dennis Brutus
Abdeen Jabara
Ajamu Sankofa
Ann Wright

FINDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON CRIMES AGAINST 
HUMANITY COMMITTED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES 
(hereinafter The Commission)


FINDINGS:

WARS OF AGGRESSION INDICTMENT

Count 1: The Bush Administration authorized a war of aggression against 
Iraq.

As to count 1, we find that the Bush Commission authorized, under the 
doctrine of “preemptive war” and a policy of “regime change”, a war of 
aggression against Iraq.

The doctrine of “preventive war” is not recognized as a justification 
for war under international law. The goal of “regime change” is also not 
recognized as a legitimate purpose for waging war under international 
law. Notwithstanding these facts, the Bush Administration launched a 
full scale war against Iraq, a sovereign state; it did so not in 
self-defense or under the authorization of the United Nations Security 
Council. The Bush Administration knew prior to the 2003 invasion that 
Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda, was disarmed, had no weapons of mass 
destruction, and was incapable of mounting a credible defense much less 
an attack on the United States. Accordingly, the Iraq war is an 
aggressive war in violation of international law.

The Bush Administration steadfastly asserted only one justification for 
its invasion of Iraq: it claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction . The Bush Administration fixed and manipulated intelligence 
on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to 
mislead deliberately and persuade the United States population and their 
elected representatives to support the war of aggression. Accordingly, 
what the Bush Administration called intelligence to justify the invasion 
of Iraq was politically motivated propaganda deliberately concocted to 
prosecute a war of aggression.

Count 2: The Bush Administration authorized conduct of the war that 
involved the commission of “war crimes.”

As to Count 2, we find that the Bush Administration authorized conduct 
of the war that involved the commission of war crimes.

As discussed above, the war is a war of aggression against the Iraq 
people. A war of aggression is termed the supreme international war 
crime in international law because it is the world’s most egregious war 
crime. This is so because it contains within it the combined atrocities 
of all war crimes. In addition to committing the supreme international 
war crime, the Bush Administration, pursuant to its war of aggression in 
Iraq, has committed additional enumerated war crimes that include but 
are not limited to the following:

1. The use of force beginning with the campaign of “Shock and Awe” was 
not a necessary means or necessary measure to attain a lawful objective 
and it was a severe example of overwhelming, indiscriminate, and 
disproportionate use of military force against a nation state.
2. The indiscriminate use of weapons such cluster munitions, incendiary 
bombs, depleted uranium, and chemical weapons for which it is reasonably 
foreseeable would have caused and indeed caused significant civilian 
injuries.

Count 3: The Bush Administration authorized the occupation of Iraq 
involving, and continuing to involve, the commission of “war crimes.”

As to Count 3, we find that the Bush Administration authorized the 
occupation of Iraq involving and continuing to involve, the commission 
of war crimes.

In the spring of 2003, the Bush Administration announced a military 
victory in Iraq signaled by its destruction of the Iraqi Ba’athist 
government at which point the United States proceeded to occupy Iraq.

For the duration of the United States occupation of Iraq, the United 
States is failing to safeguard the lives of Iraqi civilians that have 
resulted from the devastation created by its intentionally bombing of 
civilian infrastructure, termed “Shock and Awe” and created by its 
ongoing criminal acts that include but are not limited to the following:

1. Because the invasion of Iraq was the supreme war crime, the resultant 
occupation of Iraq itself is a war crime. The occupation consisted of 
additional war crimes such as: collective punishment upon the Iraqi 
people in the form of post invasion intentional and targeted attacks 
upon civilian populations, hospitals, medical centers, residential 
neighborhoods, electrical power stations and water purification 
facilities the wide spread use of torture against the Iraqi people, mass 
arrests and detention of civilians and civilian home demolitions and the 
destruction and desecration of the cultural and archeological heritage 
of the Iraqi people
2. Killing and injuring individual civilians through random fire during 
military operations or in response to attacks by resistance forces, e.g. 
killing of over 40 people in a wedding near Al Qaim, and over 600 people 
in Fallujah, half of them women and children. The Bush Administration 
declared the City of Fallujah, a population of 350,000 people, a free 
fire zone. As a result, the Bush Administration bombed 70 % of the city 
in 2004. The Bush Administration also extensively and indiscriminately 
bombed Ramadi, Samara, Haditha, Alkaim, Abuhisma, Sania, Najaf, Kut, 
Baghdad, Musul and other Iraqi cities causing substantial civilian 
deaths and severe injuries.
3. The failure of civil reconstruction, the impeding of medical care 
during the occupation, and the facilitation of the corporate looting of 
Iraq through the rewriting of Iraq’s laws. ;
4. Deliberately bombing civilian and neutral broadcasting outlets and 
otherwise restricting press and media coverage of actual events. ; and
5. Extrajudicial killings at checkpoint.


TORTURE, RENDITION, ILLEGAL DETENTION and MURDER INDICTMENT

Torture:

Count 1: The Bush Administration authorized the use of torture and abuse 
in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, 
customary international law, and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

As to Count 1, we find that the Bush Administration authorized the use 
of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and 
human rights law, customary international law, and domestic 
constitutional and statutory law.

In December 2001, the Bush Administration implemented the Special Access 
Program that authorized the secret seizure, detention, and interrogation 
of persons and subjected them to torture. The torture included but was 
not limited to: water boarding, beatings, the administration of electric 
shocks, extreme temperatures, denial of pain medication for injuries, 
severe burning, deprivation of food and water, and threats of death and 
sexual assault of family members. .

In January 2002, the Bush Administration declared that Geneva 
Conventions protections will not be honored for the “war on terror” 
prisoners held at the Guantánamo detention center in Cuba. In August 
2002, the Administration attempted to redefine “torture” to escape 
liability and/or insure immunity for those who authorized or committed 
torture. Under the Bush Administration’s new torture definition, torture 
only exists when a person is put at risk of complete organ failure or 
death. The Bush Administration also examined the ways that it could 
avoid liability under circumstances where its actions exemplified its 
new definition of torture, including raising the defenses of necessity 
and self-defense.

The United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that 
Guantánamo prisoner, Al-Qahtani was tortured at Guantánamo. Other 
Guantánamo detainees were subjected to extremes of temperature, deprived 
of food and water, shackled for days to the floor in extreme positions 
calculated to cause pain, and denied medical care. As a direct result of 
this torture, detainees suffered permanent injuries including the loss 
of limbs and broken bones. Other detainees suffered severe personality 
decompensation and are now suffering from a range of mental illnesses. 
The techniques of torture used at Guantánamo were transferred by General 
Geoffrey Miller to and used on the detainees imprisoned at Abu Ghraib in 
Iraq.

Persons held under United States custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
Guantánamo as well as those held under the custody of the United States 
during rendition were subjected to torture, and cruel, inhuman and 
degrading treatment as a matter of policy and systemic practice.

Secret detention itself is a form of torture for the person detained and 
for the families who were faced with a situation that amounted to that 
of enforced disappearance of an individual .

Rendition:

Count 2: The Bush Administration authorized the transfer (“rendition”) 
of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is 
known to be practiced.

As to Count 2, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration 
authorized the seizure, transfer, and detention (“rendition”) of persons 
to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

In late 2001, at the request of CIA Director, George Tenet, the 
President authorized the creation of CIA-run secret detention centers in 
countries outside the United States where post 9/11 detainees would be 
sent (“rendered”) and subjected to practices that would be unlawful in 
the United States.

The original rendition program was conceived by the CIA and authorized 
in the 1990’s by the Clinton Administration. The strategic target of the 
CIA rendition program has always been, and remains the global network 
known as Al-Qaeda. Post 9/11, under the Bush Administration, the CIA has 
taken a much larger role in the rendition program to include its 
participation in interrogation of detainees rather than just placing 
them behind bars. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice referred to this 
program as “extraordinary rendition.

The result has been that captured suspects are placed outside of the 
reach of any judicial system and are subjected to enhanced interrogation 
techniques that are in themselves forms of torture.

The Bush Administration undertook an untold number of these 
“extraordinary renditions” where the abductees, while under US custody 
or control, were tortured by CIA agents or foreign operatives. Typical 
of these renditions is the case of Egyptian citizen, Hassam Mustafa 
Nasr, known as Abu Omar. He was abducted by the CIA in Milan Italy on 
June 17th 2003 and transferred to Egypt where he was detained. Abu Omar 
was tortured after his abduction and prior to his being sent to Egypt 
during which time the CIA participated in the torture investigation. CIA 
operatives acknowledged that rendered suspects were being tortured in 
Egypt. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, born in Syria was detained in the 
United States and rendered to Syria against his wishes where he was 
tortured and held for ten and a half months. Mamdouh Habib was picked up 
in Pakistan and sent to Egypt where he was tortured for four months 
before being transferred to Guantánamo by the United States.

Illegal Detention:

Count 3: The Bush Administration authorized the indefinite detention of 
persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from 
any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva 
Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of 
the US Constitution.

As to Count 3, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration 
authorized the indefinite detention of person seized in foreign combat 
zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them 
the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners 
of war and the protections of the US Constitution.

On November 13th 2001, the Bush Administration created a “trial system” 
for trying non-citizen detainees where the United States does not 
provide these detainees due process protections that are well 
established in domestic and international law. The “trial system” is to 
be held in Guantánamo where detainees are deprived due process rights 
under the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments of the United 
States Constitution.

Persons have been or are currently detained in these detention centers 
without charge and are being held indefinitely. These US controlled 
detention centers are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as in several 
sites in Eastern Europe and North Africa. The Bush Administration 
declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these detainees who 
were defined as “enemy combatants”, a term not valid under international 
law.

Round ups

Count 4: The Bush Administration authorized the round-up and detention 
in the United States of tens of thousands of immigrants on pretextual 
grounds and held them without charge or trial in violation of 
international law and domestic constitutional and civil rights law.

As to Count 4, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration 
authorized the round-up and detention in the United States of thousands 
(the exact number is unknown) of immigrants on pretextual grounds and 
held many of them illegally long past the resolution of their 
immigration status.

The FBI and INS, under the rubric of very large immigration sweeps, 
rounded up and detained immigrants, mostly Arabs, Muslims or South Asian 
men. The sweeps were a flagrant example of racial profiling. The 
detainees could not call their family, nor call their consulate. Very 
few were permitted out on bond. They were in a legal black hole. Many 
were brutalized by guards and held in virtual solitary confinement. 
These actions were in violation of international law and domestic 
constitutional law.

In September 2001, the Bush Administration authorized the seizures and 
detention of US immigrants in US detention centers. The seizures and 
detentions in the United States were called “material witness “seizures 
by the US Justice Department. The Commission finds that the Bush 
Administration held possibly hundreds of people under the material 
witness statute without charge or trial in violation of international 
and domestic constitutional and civil rights law. In many cases, people 
who merely looked Arab or South Asian were picked up first based on 
uncorroborated tips and then held if they had a minor immigration 
violation or were designated as a material witness. No one knows exactly 
how many are still being held in the United States pending deportation 
or as material witnesses; evidence strongly suggests that it may be 
hundreds. They are held without charge and denied basic principles of 
due process and judicial review. These practices contravene the 
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

Another category of detainees are people who entered the United States 
for purposes other than becoming a permanent resident, for example, on a 
visitor or student visa (non-immigrants). Thousands of such individuals 
were subjected to the National Registration Act, a post 9/11 law. This 
act was intended to register and monitor non-immigrants from countries 
designated by the Secretary of State entering or already in the United 
States but in fact was used as a means of arresting and deporting these 
individuals. In addition, the Act was enforced in an discriminatory 
manner only against Muslims and Arab visitors, and in an arbitrary 
manner in that some people were deported to countries from which they 
had previously been granted political asylum. The discriminatory and 
arbitrary enforcement of the Act contravene the International Covenant 
for Civil and Political Rights.

Indefinite Detentions

Count 5: The Bush Administration used military force to seize and detain 
indefinitely without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to 
challenge their detention in U.S, courts.

As to Count 5, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration used 
military force to seize and detain indefinitely without charges U.S. 
citizens, denying them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. 
courts.

The Bush Administration seized and detained within the United States 
persons who are United States citizens. The Bush Administration has 
classified these seized persons as “enemy combatants.” For example, 
Yaser Hamdi, A US citizen, was detained in Afghanistan and placed in 
United States custody. There is also Jose Padilla, a US citizen, who was 
arrested in O’Hare airport by law enforcement agent and later 
transferred to military custody at the request of the President. These 
detainees were taken into US military custody after they had been 
declared “enemy combatants” by the Bush Administration. All such “enemy 
combatant” detainees were denied a judicial hearing on the facts or on 
the legality of their detention. In each case and in violation of the US 
Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, the United States took the 
position that the president has the authority to hold “enemy combatants” 
and decide their status unilaterally.

The US Supreme Court subsequently gave meaning to the Bush 
Administration’s made up term “enemy combatant.” The Court limited the 
meaning to persons who, while in Afghanistan, had taken up arms against 
the United States in alliance with the Taliban or other terrorists and 
as long as hostilities existed. The Bush Administration proceeded to 
violate the Supreme Court’s definition as exemplified by the fact that 
Mr. Padilla was not arrested in Afghanistan or anywhere near a 
battlefield, and was not shown to have ever taken up arms against the 
United States in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Murder

Count 6: The Bush Administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA 
to kill those that the president designates either US citizens or 
non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

As to Count 6, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration 
committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those that the president 
designates, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world 
and where this authorization was acted upon causing death.

Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, issued a secret directive to 
Special Operations forces allowing them to “capture terrorists for 
interrogation or, if necessary, to kill them” anywhere in the world. . 
The Bush Administration had already issued a presidential finding 
authorizing the killing of terrorist leaders, but the secret Rumsfeld 
directive increased such efforts. The Bush Administration, claiming that 
terrorists are military combatants, never rescinded a preexisting 
presidential executive order signed by US President Ford in 1976 that 
banned all assassinations.

In February 2002, a Predator drone missile was launched by the CIA; it 
targeted for assassination someone intelligence agents thought was bin 
Laden. The drone hit its target, but killed three innocent Afghan 
farmers instead. The first successful assassination takes place in 
November 2003 when the CIA launched a Hellfire drone missile that killed 
US citizen Kamal Derwish and five others in Yemen. The United States 
considered the dead men to be enemy combatants in its global war on terror.


GLOBAL WARMING INDICTMENT

Denial and Distortion of Scientific Consensus and Findings

Count 1: The Bush Administration has consistently denied the scientific 
consensus around global warming and its causes. Administration officials 
have misrepresented, distorted, and suppressed scientific information on 
the subject, especially as it would impact public opinion.

As to Count 1, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration has 
consistently denied the scientific consensus around global warming and 
its causes. Administration officials have misrepresented, distorted, and 
suppressed scientific information on the subject, especially as it would 
impact public opinion.

The Bush Administration, early in its existence, requested the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is composed 
of 2,000 scientists; they had been studying global warming since 1989. 
The Bush Administration also wanted the NAS to provide it a further 
assessment of what climate science says about the reality of global 
warming/climate change. The NAS subsequently strongly confirmed the 
findings of the IPCC that had affirmed the existence of global warming 
and climate change. In addition, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), 
the world’s largest organization of earth scientists had also released a 
strong report describing the human causes of disruption of the Earth’s 
climate.

Despite the scientific consensus evidenced in the IPCC, NAS, and the AGU 
reports on the existence of global warming and the human behavior that 
is causing it, the Bush Administration contended in full contradiction 
and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus presented to it, that 
uncertainties in climate projections existed and that fossil fuel 
emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.

The Bush Administration successfully lobbied to have the chief of the 
IPCC, Dr. Robert Watson, removed from the IPCC.

An example of the Bush Administration actively suppressing information 
showing the existence of global warming is illustrated by its pressuring 
the Environmental Protection Agency to remove any reference discussing 
the existence to global warming and extreme climate change and its 
causes from its 2002 annual air pollution report.

An example of the Bush Administration actively distorting the science on 
global warming and extreme climate change was evident when a 
whistleblower, Rick Piltz, a senior associate from a federal climate 
change program publicly disclosed proof of the Bush Administration 
editing federal documents to distort the science. The New York Times 
printed excerpts of the documents in June 2005. The documents showed 
that a Mr. Philip A. Cooney, chief of the White House Council on 
Environmental Quality, also a former manager for the American Petroleum 
Institute who had led the oil industry’s drive to prevent restrictions 
on greenhouse emissions, and who had no scientific training; redrafted 
the federal climate change official report to deny the validity of the 
scientific consensus on global warming and extreme climate change. 
Cooney and his staff had made 100 to 450 pertinent editorial changes per 
report.

Among the topics that the Bush Administration is attempting to keep from 
the public are the national and regional deleterious outcomes to the 
earth and its human population from global warming and extreme climate 
change: for example, increased heat waves and corresponding public 
health threats, droughts and conflicts from water shortages, flooding 
that will destroy costal infrastructure and wetlands as occurred due to 
Katrina and other hurricanes, irreversible destruction of coral reefs 
indispensable to sea life, massive economic dislocation with the 
elimination of major coastal industries and government and corporate 
action that could be taken to prevent, mitigate, and adapt to the coming 
disasters.

As a result of the Bush Administrations behavior to misrepresent, 
distort, and suppress information on global warming and extreme climate 
change, the actual problem solving of global warming has been set back 
ten years.

Obstructionism on International Efforts

Count 2: The Bush Administration has refused to take any measures to 
curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, guided by narrow corporate 
interests. It has withdrawn from any international efforts that would 
impose binding restrictions, however minimal. It has done this with full 
knowledge of the catastrophic effects of global warming and the 
disproportionate U. S. share of world greenhouse emissions, the leading 
cause of global warming.

As to Count 2, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration has 
refused to take any measures to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, 
guided by narrow corporate interests. It has withdrawn from any 
international efforts that would impose binding restrictions, however 
minimal. It has done this with full knowledge of the catastrophic 
effects of global warming and the disproportionate U. S. share of world 
greenhouse emissions, the leading cause of global warming.

The United States, under the Bush Administration, withdrew from the 
Kyoto Protocol which is an international effort to reduce greenhouse 
emissions and end global warming. It did so despite the fact that the 
United States has only 5% of the world’s population and is responsible 
for nearly 25% of greenhouse emissions.

Despite a pledge by George Bush during the 2000 Presidential campaign to 
mandate mandatory emission reductions of carbon dioxide on the US based 
coal fired power plants, President Bush reversed this pledge two months 
after his inauguration in 2001. In March 2001, under the leadership of 
Vice President, Dick Cheney, the Bush Administration presented its 
energy plan. This plan, the Report of the National Energy Policy 
Development Group, called for the construction of 1,300 to 1,900 new 
power plants, most of them coal fired.

The motives of the Bush Administration are clear. The Bush 
Administration is deliberately targeting the information that expert 
policy-makers have on climate change in an effort to protect the most 
powerful industries on the planet: the oil, gas and coal industries, in 
full disregard of the harm to the environment and to the most vulnerable 
people globally. According to a World Health Organization study, 160,000 
people are dying every year as a result of extreme climate change 
related to floods, hurricanes, droughts, disease, and food shortages.

For the peoples of Africa, the threat is worse, because the temperature 
increases over many areas of the continent will be double the global 
average. This suggests that 182 million people in sub-Sahara Africa 
could die of diseases directly attributable to climate change by the end 
of the century.

Indigenous people of the Pacific Islands, The United States Great Lakes, 
Southwest, and Great Plains regions are experiencing the severe 
difficulties reported by the UN. Indigenous people of the Artic region, 
specifically the Inuit and the Yupik, are experiencing enormous 
difficulties as well. They are experiencing life threatening accidents 
due to falling through thinning ice, community displacements, previously 
unknown health problems such as sunburn, skin cancer, cataracts, immune 
system disorders and heat related health problems.

Despite the scientific consensus on the present known toll in human 
death and suffering attributed to global warming and extreme climate 
change and the prospects for far more catastrophic and irreversible 
injury to the Earth and its human population, the Bush Administration 
has used its enormous power through deliberate deception, to diffuse and 
confuse the focused attention of the world on the multilateral framework 
of the Kyoto protocol and the climate convention. The Bush 
Administration used its power to exacerbate the problems associated with 
extreme climate change by promulgating policies and practices that 
actually increased global warming and extreme climate change and that 
simultaneously limited the capacity of the world’s people to respond 
before irreversible injuries result.

SUMMARY

The Commission considers the deliberate acts and failures to act by the 
Bush Administration regarding global warming to be systemic. We also 
consider the global consequences of this behavior to be both grave and 
foreseeable. The Administration’s behavior also constitutes breaches of 
UN treaties that the US has signed and ratified related to protecting 
the global environment: they are the UN Framework Convention on Climate 
Change that commits the US to developing policies aimed at returning its 
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. We also find, as it pertains to 
the fundamental rights of sovereign indigenous people of the Americas 
that the Bush Administration is violating indigenous people’s 
fundamental human rights as protected by the American Declaration of the 
Rights and Duties of Man.

We find that the disproportionate role that the United State plays in 
polluting the earth is directly causing global warming and extreme 
climate change. We also find that the systemic nature of the Bush 
Administration’s deliberate refusal to act reasonably to curb global 
warming combined with its deliberate acts that directly increase global 
warming and extreme climate change place the world’s people at imminent 
risk of unspeakable and irreversible destruction in the near future. 
Accordingly, we find that the Bush Administration is committing a crime 
against humanity.

GLOBAL HEALTH INDICTMENT

Imposition of Abstinence-Only HIV prevention Programs

Count 1: The Bush Administration is using its political influence, aid, 
and funding in the sphere of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment to 
advance policies and programs that worsen the AIDS pandemic. Guided by a 
Christian fundamentalist ideological agenda, the administration is 
promoting and forcing deadly abstinence-only HIV prevention and sex 
education programs instead of proven comprehensive programs that 
comprise consistent and correct use of condoms.

As to Count 1, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration is 
using its political influence, aid, and funding in the sphere of 
HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment to advance policies and programs that 
worsen the AIDS pandemic. We also find that the Administration, guided 
by a Christian fundamentalist ideological agenda, is promoting and 
forcing deadly abstinence-only HIV prevention and sex education programs 
instead of proven comprehensive programs that comprise consistent and 
correct use of condoms.

The Bush Administration’s abstinence-only policy influences global HIV 
prevention efforts. It is called the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 
(PEPFAR). It is a moralistic, Christian fundamentalist, and non public 
health oriented approach, promulgated in February 2004; it focuses on 15 
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia that are 
severely stricken by the AIDS pandemic.

PEPFAR requires that grantees devote at least 33% of prevention spending 
to abstinence-until marriage programs. These policies are inherently 
coercive in that they withhold needed information and they also promote 
inaccurate opinions and harmful outcomes. The PEPFAR law includes no 
comparable minimum for condom distribution; hence prevention funds are 
steered to abstinence only programs.

The Bush Administration developed PEPFAR through a closed-door process 
that did not include participation of key stakeholders in the global 
AIDS policy debate. The Bush Administration continues to be the primary 
donor for HIV/AIDS programs in Uganda and in the world.

The PEPFAR policies are reversing the well-recognized successes that 
Uganda had achieved in preventing the spread of HIV between 1991 and 2001.

Global inequality drives health disparity. AIDS funds represent a 
substantial sum of money to Uganda, and other desperately impoverished 
that are already critically financially dependent on western 
international financial institutions dominated by the United States. 
Substantial economic dependence on the West, coupled by the Bush 
Administration’s manipulation of AIDS funding to promulgate a religious 
doctrine at the expense of sound public health policy and science, has 
shattered coercively and dramatically Uganda’s preexisting successful 
AIDS domestic priorities. As a practical matter, many third-world 
countries, such as Uganda, have little or no choice because of a lack of 
public health funds and infrastructure but to comply with PEPFAR.

In 2005, the Ugandan Minister of Health, the Hon. Maj. Gen. Jim K. 
Muhwezi reported that despite the historical record of Uganda’s success 
in reducing HIV, the Uganda government, in an effort to prevent a drying 
up of AIDS resources, since 2003, started downplaying its own proven 
successful track record and re-wrote its own history in an obvious 
attempt to please the United States that had started pouring millions of 
dollars into ideologically driven PEPFAR HIV-prevention programs that 
provided misleading information about the effectiveness of condoms and 
that failed to equip people, particularly women with the essential 
skills needed to negotiate safer sex.

Ambassador Stephen Lewis, the United Nations secretary general’s special 
envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa since 2001, and the former Canadian 
ambassador to the United Nations, stated the PEPFAR policies in the 
Uganda will cause significant numbers of HIV and other STD infections in 
Uganda which should never have occurred.

Imposition of “Gag Rule”

Count 2: The Bush Administration has re-instated the “gag-rule” 
restricts foreign organizations that receive US funds from using their 
own, non-US. Funds to provide legal abortion services or even provide 
accurate medical counseling of reproductive health clinics dependent on 
international funding in very poor parts of the world. In man areas, 
these clinics have also been the only source of HIV/AIDS prevention and 
care, including the supply of much-needed and life saving condoms.

As to Count 2, the Commission finds that The Bush Administration has 
re-instated the “gag-rule” that restricts foreign organizations that 
receive US funds from using their own, non-US funds to provide legal 
abortion services or even provide accurate medical counseling of 
reproductive health in clinics dependent on international funding in 
very poor parts of the world. In many areas, these clinics have also 
been the only source of HIV/AIDS prevention and care, including the 
supply of much-needed and life saving condoms.

The Bush Administration put the gag-rule in place on the first business 
day of its administration in 2001. The gag rule denies foreign 
organizations receiving U.S. family planning assistance the right to use 
their own non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion, counsel or referral 
for abortion, or lobby for the legalization of abortion in their own 
country. NGO’s must withhold information from women about the option of 
legal abortion and where to obtain safe abortion services using their 
own, non US government funds to do so. Also, these NGOs are banned from 
disseminating any information regarding the health hazards of unsafe 
abortion, or provide legal abortion services with non-U.S. funding.

The gag rule is a public health disaster in the developing world and 
places people at grievous risk of injury, disease and death: about 
70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions, many of them leaving 
young children behind. By preventing high-risk pregnancies, family 
planning could save at least 25% of these women’s lives.

The gag rule has exacerbated and intensified a condom shortage across 
the developing world and decreased the effectiveness of HIV prevention 
programs. Although the global gag rule does not apply to HIV/AIDS 
assistance, most family planning organizations have been denied HIV/AIDS 
resources because implementing partners have been chilled by the gag 
rule and abstinence only policies; the partners are frightened of 
retribution, and scrutiny from the right wing ideologically driven Bush 
Administration. This is a disastrous outcome given the fact that family 
planning providers are crucial to HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

In 2005, 5 million people were infected with HIV globally. The 
Commission finds that the Bush Administration’s reproductive health 
global policy is complicit in putting millions of people around the 
world at risk for HIV by intentionally obstructing the dissemination of 
crucial medical information about condoms as a well proven effective 
means of HIV prevention, to vulnerable, powerless and poor people, in 
the midst of an HIV pandemic. This behavior is unethical, morally 
reprehensible, and shocks the conscience.

Distortion of Science

Count 3: The Bush Administration and its political operatives have 
distorted sound science and attempted to suppress medical research 
studies in HIV prevention when it conflicts with the ideology of the 
Christian Right.

As to Count 3, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration and its 
political operatives have distorted sound science and attempted to 
suppress medical research studies in HIV prevention when it conflicts 
with the ideology of the Christian Right.

As early as 1997, the Joint United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS found 
evidence that sexual health education for children and young people that 
included the promotion of condom use and safer sexual practices, which 
is one the main scientifically proven forms of HIV/AIDS prevention, did 
not increase participant’s sexual activity. Indifferent to this data, 
the Bush Administration pursued its AIDS global agenda when it clearly 
knew or should have known that its abstinence-only HIV/AIDS prevention 
strategies had not demonstrated that they did or could prevent the 
spread of HIV.

The Institute of Medicine, a body of experts that acts under a United 
States Congressional charter as an advisor to the U.S. federal 
government, noted in 2001, that there was no evidence supporting 
abstinence-only program, and that investing “millions of dollars of 
federal…funds…in abstinence-only programs with no evidence constitutes 
poor fiscal and health policy.” The Institute simultaneously concluded 
that scientific studies have shown that comprehensive sex and HIV/AIDS 
programs and condom availability programs can be effective in reducing 
high-risk sexual behaviors.

In contravention of federal government experts’ recommendations, the 
Bush Administration required that the abstinence-only programs in Uganda 
be administered according to the precise guidelines evaluated and 
criticized by the Institute of Medicine. These policies continue 
notwithstanding an ever-growing scientific consensus of the 
ineffectiveness and potential harms of these programs.

In 2001, under pressure from anti-condom activists within the Bush 
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) removed a 1999 
fact sheet on condom use that encouraged sexually active youth to use 
condoms to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. In 2002, 
the CDC replaced the fact sheet with biased information regarding condom 
use that dissuades use. This action demonstrates a willingness to censor 
vital, life saving information in the face of the HIV pandemic.

Absent any scientific support and notwithstanding peer review scientific 
research to the contrary, The Bush Administration, in December 2002, at 
the United Nations Fifth Asia-Pacific Population conference in Bangkok 
claimed that the promotion of abstinence-only is preferred as the 
healthiest choice for sexually active unmarried adolescents. In 
addition, the Bush Administration has erroneously linked condom failure 
with the relatively high prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) as a 
means to dissuade people from the use of condoms. This deliberate 
misinformation is spread despite the solid science that HPV is spread by 
exposure to areas not covered or protected by condoms.

The Commission is persuaded that the Bush Administration’s ideologically 
driven policy has caused countless deaths in the five years since the 
Bush Administration has been in power. Uganda’s AIDS Commissioner, 
Kihumuro Apuuli announced that HIV infections have almost doubled in 
Uganda over the past two years, from 70,000 in 2003 at the approximate 
time that PEPFAR was initiated in Uganda to 130,000 in 2005.

Restriction of Generics

Count 4: The Bush Administration has used its political and economic 
power to coerce other countries into agreements that severely restrict 
and manufacture and supply of generic drugs, the only affordable option 
for most HIV positive people in the Third World.

As to Count 4, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration has 
used its influence in ways that frustrate the supply of generic HIV/AIDS 
drugs, the only affordable option for most HIV positive people in the 
Third World.

Until 2003, the prior Clinton and current Bush Administrations had 
consistently obstructed a World Trade organization pact on the export of 
inexpensive generic drugs. Since September 2003, the United States 
requires that the requests for importation of generics be made in “good 
faith” and “for no commercial gain” and that the generic drugs so 
exported be packaged and labeled differently to prevent re-exportation. 
These conditions create bureaucratic obstacles to generic HIV/AIDS drug 
importation.
The body of evidence as a whole demonstrates that Bush Administration’s 
Global Health Agenda violates International law:

SUMMARY

Access to accurate HIV/AIDS prevention information is a human right that 
the Bush
Administration is intentionally violating. Its coercive abstinence-only 
and gag-rule policies are imposed on impoverished and politically and 
economically dependent countries of the world with catastrophic and 
foreseeable injury to children in violation, the UN Convention on the 
Rights of the Child. The policies also obstruct the purpose of Article 
12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Commission finds that grave injuries and the risk of grave injuries 
confront the worlds’ people who are subjected to the Bush 
Administration’s HIV/AIDS and family planning global health policies. 
The injuries are preventable, racially discriminatory in their 
disproportionate impact on people of color, religiously intolerant, and 
systemic. As a result, the Commission finds that the Bush 
Administration’s HIV/AIDS and family planning policies constitute a 
crime against humanity.

HURRICANE KATRINA INDICTMENT

The Levees

Count 1: Knowing failure of the Bush Administration to adequately 
maintain and upgrade the levees directly contributed to the foreseeable 
loss of life and suffering of many people when Hurricane Katrina struck.

As to Count 1, the Commission finds that knowing failure of the Bush 
Administration to adequately maintain and upgrade the levees directly 
contributed to the foreseeable loss of life and suffering of many people 
when Hurricane Katrina struck.

The Federal Government is responsible for monitoring the design and 
construction of the levees in the United States at every step. Since the 
late 1960’s, the federal government has been very well aware of New 
Orleans vulnerability to flooding due to levee breaches. “[The New 
Orleans] levees were never intended to protect against category four 
hurricanes such as Katrina according to Corps of Engineer’s official, 
Lt. General Strock.

In addition, the 17th Street Canal Levee was built at 93% to 98% of the 
strength needed to meet a category 3 hurricane and far below the 130% 
standard requirement for a category 3 hurricane. As early as 2003, civil 
engineers were well aware that the levees could not handle a lingering 
category 3 storm.

Since 2003, under the Bush Administration, the flow of federal dollars 
to deal with flood relief issues in New Orleans fell to trickle due to 
the pressures on federal funding caused by the war in Iraq.

Foreknowledge of Hurricane Katrina

Count 2: Despite foreknowledge of Hurricane Katrina striking land as a 
greater than category 3 storm and the devastation that this would cause, 
the Bush Administration failed to implement an emergency evacuation plan 
for people in the path of the storm and unable to evacuate on their own.

As to Count 2, the Commission finds that despite foreknowledge of 
Hurricane Katrina striking land as a greater than category 3 storm and 
the devastation that this would cause, the Bush Administration failed to 
implement an emergency evacuation plan for people in the path of the 
storm and unable to evacuate on their own.

President George Bush falsely claimed that no one could have predicted 
the Katrina disaster. Prior to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade 
Center, FEMA ranked the potential of hurricane caused damage to New 
Orleans as among the likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing the 
United States. Since 2002, Dr. Ivor van Heerdon, the director of 
Louisiana State University’s Center for Public Health Impacts of 
Hurricanes led a multidisciplinary team looking at precisely what would 
happen if a major storm hit New Orleans. Their research included how the 
city would flood and how many people would ignore evacuation warnings. 
There predictions, analyses, and summary of expected devastation were 
almost 100% accurate.

In 2003, Louisiana State oceanographer, Joseph Suhayda modeled the grave 
disaster that would be caused by a lingering category 3 or a category 4 
or 5 hurricane. He shared his findings with emergency preparedness 
officials throughout Louisiana.

In 2004, FEMA conducted a hurricane simulation for New Orleans. In that 
simulation, a category 3 hurricane named Pam slammed into New Orleans 
with sustained winds of 120 mph. Water from Lake Ponchartrain poured 
over the levees and the entire city was quickly under water. FEMA 
drafted a comprehensive disaster response plan in response to the 
simulation. The plan stated that there could be thousands of fatalities, 
floating coffins, and large quantities of hazardous waste that would 
result in airborne and waterborne contamination. In addition, in 2004, 
New Orleans residents advocated to both the federal and local 
governments for the creation and implementation of a comprehensive 
emergency evacuation plan. Yet no such plan was ever implemented.

The record of the Bush Administration’s failure to act is well established:

On August 25, 2005, category 1 Katrina hit Florida, killing 9 people. 
That same day the National Hurricane Center indicated that Katrina is 
likely to become a dangerous storm in 3 days. President Bush is in 
Crawford, Texas.

On August 26, Katrina became a category 2 hurricane and was forecasted 
to become a category 3 by August 26. On August 26, the Bush 
Administration announced a state of emergency for parts of Louisiana not 
threatened by Katrina. On August 27, Katrina became a category 3 
hurricane and was predicted to become a category 4 within 24 hours. 
However, on August 27, Pres. Bush was still in Crawford, Texas. The Gov. 
of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, contacted Pres. Bush and requested 
federal assistance on August 27th. Pres. Bush’s, August 26 declaration 
of a state of emergency omitted the Louisiana Parishes at risk that were 
identified by Gov. Blanco.

On August 28, the National Hurricane Center Director, Max Mayfield 
briefed Pres. Bush on hurricane Katrina. Gov. On August 28, Blanco sends 
a second request to Pres. Bush for federal relief, listing again the 
parishes at risk. On August 28, weather experts predicted that Katrina 
will soon hit landfall as a category 5 hurricane. Katrina hit the Gulf 
as a high category 4 hurricane on August 28. President remained in 
Crawford hailing the draft Iraqi constitution as an inspiring success. 
There is no record of Bush ever declaring a state of emergency for areas 
that were put a risk by Hurricane Katrina or that were identified by 
Gov. Blanco.

Despite several days of warnings of a monstrous hurricane heading for 
the Gulf that would devastate New Orleans and the Gulf region causing 
large losses of life and human suffering and despite the availability of 
a comprehensive federal disaster response draft plan in case of such a 
predicted disaster scenario that would mitigate the loss of life and 
human suffering, the Bush Administration did not initiate its disaster 
response plan prior to or during the duration of Katrina and admitted as 
much.

Failure to launch rescue operations

Count 3: The Bush Administration neither launched an immediate rescue 
operation nor provided the emergency shelter, food and water needed to 
save peoples lives and prevent needless suffering.

As to Count 3, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration neither 
launched an immediate rescue operation nor provided the emergency 
shelter, food and water needed to save peoples lives and prevent 
needless suffering.

On August 28, 2005, the National Weather Service sent an urgent weather 
message nationwide, warning of devastating damage that it described 
comprehensively. Katrina hit New Orleans on August 29. Electrical power 
in the Superdome where the city’s poor, disabled, and homeless were 
crammed failed at 5am. Entire New Orleans neighborhoods were submerged 
in water. In late afternoon, on August 29, a levee broke near St. 
Bernard-Orleans parish. President Bush was playing golf. Five hours 
after Katrina hits FEMA dispatched 1000 employees to region, giving them 
two days to arrive.

On September 12, 2005, the Congressional Research Service, in response 
to an inquiry from Congressmen John Conyers (D. Mich.), determined that 
the Bush Administration had not taken the steps needed to trigger 
Stafford Act emergency assistance and disaster assistance.

Federal Authorities Block Emergency Relief

Count 4: Federal authorities block provision of emergency services, 
including rescue and provision of food and water on the part of other 
levels of government and private sources despite the obvious need for 
this kind of relief.

As to Count 4, the Commission finds that federal authorities block 
provision of emergency services, including rescue and provision of food 
and water on the part of other levels of government and private sources 
despite the obvious need for this kind of relief.

On August 29, the 17th Street Canal levee broke. However, FEMA instructs 
outside fire and rescue departments not to enter disaster area and 
refuses to allow firefighters into New Orleans. On August 31, the 
Department of Homeland Security blocked assistance from foreign countries.

The first 100 persons rescued from the flooding in New Orleans and 
delivered to the Houston Astrodome were rescued by an 18 year old, not 
FEMA, who had commandeered an abandon bus. Four days after Katrina it 
landfall, the Bush Administration requested assistance from the airline 
industry to evacuate Katrina victims. As of September 1, the Bush 
Administration had not directed the U.S military to immediately assist 
people without food or water in the city center.

The military prevented a caravan of nearly 100 buses from Houston, Texas 
carrying food and water for people trapped in New Orleans to get the 
supplies to the Convention Center. The military stopped caravan in sight 
of the Convention Center. The supplies never got to the Convention 
Center. On September 3, FEMA blocked life saving aid to Jefferson 
Parish. On September 13, a frustrated FEMA employee appeared on 
Nightline, speaking for himself, said, “right now as we talk, 
unfortunately, Homeland Security is actually impeding…the rescue effort.”

Federal Authorities Enforce Repressive Conditions

Count 5: Federal authorities enforced repressive conditions and 
eventually carried out an evacuation that separated families, including 
small children from their parents, and left many people not knowing 
where their loved ones were located and even if they had survived the 
storms.

As to Count 5, the Commission finds that the federal authorities 
enforced repressive conditions and eventually carried out an evacuation 
that separated families, including small children from their parents, 
and left many people not knowing where their loved ones were located and 
even if they had survived the storms.

A direct consequence of the federal government’s belated involvement in 
evacuations, were the avoidable instances of family separation and 
missing persons.

The primary focus of early federal intervention in New Orleans was the 
protection of property at the expense of rescuing people from the 
rapidly unfolding natural disaster caused by Katrina. The federal 
government contracted with private security agencies that acted, with 
impunity, as legitimate local law enforcement in ways that violated 
residents’ civil rights and that terrified disaster victims and 
systematically thwarted their attempts to survive at risk of being shot. 
The Bush Administration promulgated a “Zero Tolerance” order on 
September 1 that told local law officials to move against anyone engaged 
in, looting and other crimes. Consequently, the police went after 
desperately hunger people attempting to get food and water to survive.


SUMMARY

The Bush Administration’s response to the Katrina natural disaster 
violated and obstructed the purpose of international law. The persons 
most injured by the Bush Administration’s response to the Katrina 
natural disaster were the poor, people of color, and especially people 
of African descent who were already living under circumstances of 
institutional racism that the Bush Administration’s failed response 
profoundly exacerbated.

The foreseeable consequences of the Bush Administration’s Katrina 
response violated the legal principles embodied in the International 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. In 
addition the failures of the Bush Administration obstructed the efforts 
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Political Rights 
because of its deliberate indifference to provide medical services, 
food, and shelter to the residents of the Gulf in a manner that was 
within its capacity to provide and that would have saved lives and 
prevented enormous suffering.

Further this record is clear. The Bush Administration demonstrated a 
gross and wanton indifference to human life that caused thousands of 
Gulf coast residents to die and suffer needlessly. The suffering 
continues, systemically causing continuous grievous injuries due to 
displacement and related issues. Accordingly, the Bush Administration 
has committed crimes against humanity.



The International Commission of Inquiry on
Crimes Against Humanity
Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States

W
hen the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against 
humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to 
inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they 
do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes 
Against Humanity. The final session will be held January 20-22 in New 
York City. This tribunal will, with care and rigor, present evidence and 
assess whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed 
crimes against humanity. Well-established international law will be 
referenced where applicable, but the tribunal will not be limited by the 
scope of existing international law.

T
he tribunal will deliberate on four categories of indictable crimes: 1) 
Wars of Aggression, with particular reference to the invasions and 
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2) Torture and Indefinite 
Detention, with particular reference to the abandonment of international 
standards concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of 
torture. 3) Destruction of the Global Environment, with particular 
reference to systematic policies contributing to the catastrophic 
effects of global warming. 4) Attacks on Global Public Health and 
Reproductive Rights, with particular reference to the genocidal effects 
of forcing international agencies to promote “abstinence only” in the 
midst of a global AIDS epidemic.

T
he Commission’s jury of conscience will be composed of internationally 
respected jurists and legal scholars, prominent voices of conscience, 
and experts and monitors in relevant fields. The tribunal’s legitimacy 
is derived from its integrity, its rigor in the presentation of 
evidence, and the stature of its participants. Representatives of the 
Bush administration will be invited to present a defense.

P
rior to the meeting of the Commission, teams with sufficient expertise 
will prepare preliminary indictments in each of the four areas, setting 
forth the scope of the Bush administration’s actions and how they 
contravene legal and moral norms for international behavior. At the 
meeting of the Commission, there will be four prosecution teams that 
organize the presentation of the evidence. This evidence will be 
documents as well as eyewitness testimony by victims and observers of 
the crimes alleged. The formal proceedings will be held in a public 
venue and all attempts will be made to publicize and broadcast its 
deliberations internationally. The Commission’s jury of conscience will 
come to verdicts and its findings will be published.

T
he holding of this tribunal will frame and fuel a discussion that is 
urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. 
Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? The Commission 
will conduct its work with a deep sense of responsibility to the people 
of the world.

The Commission is sponsored by the Not In Our Name statement of 
conscience, joined by the following individuals and organizations:

James Abourezk, former United States Senator
As'ad AbuKhalil, professor of politics & public administration, 
California State University-Stanislaus
Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal executive committee and coordinator 
SOS Iraq
After Downing Street
Dr. Nadje Al-Ali, social anthropologist at the Univ. of Exeter, founding 
member of Act Together: Women's Action on Iraq & and member Women in 
Black UK
Anthony Alessandrini, organizer with the World Tribunal on Iraq and New 
York University Students for Justice in Palestine
Edward Asner
Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild and professor, 
Suffolk Law School
Russell Banks, novelist
The Rev. Luis Barrios, Ph.D., associate professor at John Jay College of 
Criminal Justice & Anglican Priest
Amy Bartholomew, professor of law at Carleton University
Greg Bates, Common Courage Press
Tony Benn, former chairman of the British Labour Party
Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
Michael S. Berg, grieving father of Nick Berg killed in Iraq May 7, 
2004, and one man for Peace
Ayse Berktay, from the organizing team of the World Tribunal on Iraq
William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions 
Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
Francis Boyle, author of Destroying World Order and professor at the 
University of Illinois College of Law
Jean Bricmont, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Center for Constitutional Rights
Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and executive 
vice president of the National Lawyers Guild
Lieven De Cauter, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Patrick Deboosere, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Eve Ensler, playwright
Peter Erlinder, William Mitchell College of Law and lead defense 
counsel, United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha, Tanzania
Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global 
Agenda and Behind the Poison Cloud: Union Carbide’s Bhopal Massacre
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of International Law, Princeton, and 
Visiting Professor in Global and International Studies, UC-Santa Barbara
Thomas M. Fasy, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City
Lawrence Ferlinghetti, member, American Academy of Arts & Letters and 
founder & editor in chief, City Lights Books, San Francisco
The Rev. Dr. James E. Fitzgerald, minister for mission and social 
justice, The Riverside Church
Ted Glick, former coordinator, Independent Progressive Politics Network
Dr. Elaine C. Hagopian, former president of Association of Arab-American 
University Graduates (AAUG) and primary founder of the Trans-Arab 
Research Institute (TARI)
Sam Hamill. director, Poets Against War
International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia
Abdeen Jabara, past president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Dahr Jamail, U.S. independent journalist who has reported extensively 
from Iraq since the invasion
C. Clark Kissinger, contributing writer for Revolution and initiator of 
the Not In Our Name statement of conscience
The Reverend Doctor Earl Kooperkamp, Rector, St. Mary's Episcopal 
Church, West Harlem, New York
Joel Kovel, editor-in-chief, Capitalism Nature Socialism: A Quarterly 
Journal of Socialist Ecology, and author of The Enemy of Nature
Jesse Lemisch, professor of history emeritus, John Jay College of 
Criminal Justice
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and author of The Left 
Hand of God: Taking Back America from the Religious Right
Rev. Davidson Loehr, Ph.D., First Unitarian Universalist Church of 
Austin, Texas National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Rev. Davidson Loehr, Ph.D., First Unitarian Universalist Church of 
Austin, Texas
Robert Meeropol, Executive Director, Rosenberg Fund for Children
New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee
New Jersey Workers Democracy Network
National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Not In Our Name Project
Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for 
Constitutional Rights and author of Secret Trials and Executions
James Petras, professor emeritus of sociology at Binghamton University, 
New York
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Consti¬tutional Rights and 
author with Ellen Ray of Guantanamo: What the World Should Know
Stephen F. Rohde, civil liberties lawyer and co-founder of Interfaith 
Communities United for Justice and Peace
Marc Sapir, MD, MPH, co-convener of the UC Berkeley Teach In on Torture 
and executive director of Retro Poll
Sister Annette M. Sinagra, OP
Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
State of Nature on-line magazine
U.S. Tour of Duty
Inge Van de Merlen, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Gore Vidal
Anne Weills, civil rights attorney in Oakland, National Lawyers Guild
Leonard Weinglass, criminal defense attorney
Naomi Weisstein, professor emeritus of Neuroscience, State University of 
NY at Buffalo
Howard Zinn, historian
[institutions for identification only]
Web site: www.bushcommission.org E-mail: commission at nion.us


Standards of Judgment for the International Commission of Inquiry on 
Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the 
United States

When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against 
humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to 
inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they 
do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes 
Against Humanity. This tribunal will, with care and rigor, present 
evidence and assess whether George W. Bush and his administration have 
committed crimes against humanity.
-- From the Charter of The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes 
Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States

The need for this tribunal, as an instrumentality of world humanity, 
arises from the historical, moral and political responsibility of people 
of conscience to sit in judgment of this administration: to inquire and 
assess whether this administration has committed crimes that do in fact 
rise to the levels of crimes against humanity as popularly understood 
and conceived, that is, acts that, by their scale or nature, shock the 
conscience of humankind.

Crimes against humanity are brutal crimes that are not isolated 
incidents but that involve large and systematic actions often cloaked 
with official authority. These include mass murder, extermination, 
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts perpetrated against a 
population, conducted in wartime or not. Apartheid and persecution on 
political, ethnic, and gender grounds have also been considered inhumane 
acts causing great suffering, and therefore crimes against humanity.

We see the need to proceed from this first-principles definition of 
crimes against humanity precisely because of the singular nature of some 
of this administration’s actions and the lack of relevant precedent in 
existent law. This is especially true for judging categories of crimes 
other than wars of aggression and torture, where precedent and 
conventional standards do exist within international law.

We are not pre-determining a minimum quantitative level required to 
constitute a “mass scale” -- or “large and systematic action” -- within 
our definition of crimes against humanity. Rather, we are focusing on 
the overall nature and scope of the impact of these actions and 
policies. Nor are we making a criterion of explicit intentionality. The 
jury of conscience will inquire into and assess whether the Bush 
administration policies involve foreseen or foreseeable risk of 
catastrophic or genocidal proportions. The question is not whether the 
Bush administration is intentionally setting out to make millions suffer 
with its global warming and global health policies, for example. Rather, 
the question is, whether such suffering is clearly the predictable 
consequences of policies guided by ideological and political goals?

Such culpability must also distinguish actions specific to the Bush 
administration from general systemic causes and the actions of previous 
administrations (even where such actions themselves may rise to the 
level of crimes against humanity).

Proceeding from the tribunal’s Charter and its mission, the character of 
this commission is sui generis -- a unique response by people of 
conscience to the unprecedented historical responsibility before us. The 
Commission’s Charter states, “The tribunal’s legitimacy is derived from 
its integrity, its rigor in the presentation of evidence, and the 
stature of its participants.” Its political and moral authority is based 
on high standards which are not arbitrary and capricious but predefined 
and consistent. These standards are critical to safeguarding findings of 
this commission from arbitrariness, a priori political motivations, or 
other forms of subjectivity.

Though it is not a court of law with power to impose sanctions, the 
“judicial” character of the Commission’s conduct, proceedings, and 
verdict is foundational to its integrity and its historic mission. As 
the Charter states, “Well-established international law will be 
referenced where applicable, but the tribunal will not be limited by the 
scope of customary international law.” This commission is neither 
attempting to develop new international law per se, nor tortuously 
applying current law to force-fit its proceedings and findings into 
existing legal frameworks. Rather, through the rigorous presentation of 
expert and witness testimony, documents, and other evidence, the 
Commission aims to establish the truth about major acts and policies of 
the Bush administration in the areas specified in the Charter. In 
addition, “representatives of the administration will be invited to 
present a defense.”

The historic and political responsibility before this tribunal lies in 
delivering findings of fact and a verdict on the central question before 
the commission: “whether George W. Bush and his administration have 
committed crimes against humanity.” As the Charter mandates, “The 
Commission’s jury of conscience will come to verdicts and its findings 
will be published.” The jury of conscience will carefully assess the 
evidence and base its conclusions on the sufficiency of the evidence. In 
assessing sufficiency, we are aware that some acts constitute crimes 
against humanity in and of themselves, while other particular acts may 
be instances of more general patterns of conduct that constitute such 
crimes.

We must continuously return to the fact that the need for this 
Commission flows precisely from the real and horrendous crimes being 
committed and our historical, moral and political responsibility as 
people of conscience. We reaffirm that “The Commission will conduct its 
work with a deep sense of responsibility to the people of the world.”


Witnesses

Annette A., New Orleans survivor of Hurricane Katrina
Saleh Ajaj, Victim of arbitrary detention in the US after 9/11
Anthony Alesandrini, World Tribunal on Iraq
Jay Arena, Housing rights advocate from New Orleans
Abigail B., School bus driver from Houston blocked by authorities from 
rescuing people from New Orleans
Amy Bartholomew, Professor of law, Carleton University
Dr. Alan Berkman, Professor of epidemiology, Columbia University School 
of Public Health
Vanessa Brocato, International Policy Associate, Sexuality Information 
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), author of SIECUS 
PEPFAR
Stephen Bronner, Professor of political science, Rutgers University
Dr. Robert Bullard, Director, Environmental Justice Resource Center at 
Clark Atlanta University, Author, “Quest for Environmental Justice: 
Human Rights & the Politics of Pollution”
Eric Carter, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
John Clark, Professor of Environmental Studies, Loyola University, New 
Orleans
Naina Dhingra, Advocates for Youth
King Downing, National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial 
Profiling
Larry Everest, Author, “Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global 
Agenda”
Dr. Thomas Fasy, Professor of pathology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 
Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
Chris Fox, Chairman, Department of Environmental Science & Technology, 
Community College of Baltimore County
Lindsey German, Convenor, UK Stop the War Coalition
Ted Glick, Climate Crisis Coalition
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
Arron Guyton, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Denis Halliday, ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General, former head of UN 
Humanitarian Mission In Iraq
Dahr Jamail, Independent journalist, reported extensively from Iraq
Tanya Jones, Filmmaker from New Orleans
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former commander Abu Ghraib prison, author 
of "One Woman’s Army : The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story"
Mark Krasnoff & Monique Verdin, Cajun community activists and filmmakers
Eric Lerner, New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee
Larry McBride, who was left to drown in a New Orleans prison when 
Katrina struck
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst
Camilo E. Mejia, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Dr. Stephen Miles, Professor, Center for Bioethics, University of 
Minnesota Medical School, author “Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical 
Complicity and the War on Terror”
Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, author “Murder in 
Samarkand”
Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights and co-ordinator of 
Guantanamo detainee defense
Malik Rahim, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, author, “Iraq Confidential”
Jeremy Scahill, correspondent for Democracy Now! and The Nation, 
eyewitness to the Iraq occupation and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
Sarah Sohn, Legal fellow with Immigration Equality
Dr. Ida Susser, Professor, Columbia University School of Public Health
David Swanson, Co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, on the Downing 
Street memo
Josh Tulkin, Organizing Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action 
Network, on the relationship between Hurricane Katrina and global warming
Devon Turner, Hurricane Katrina survivor from the Louisiana wetlands
Emma Lofton Woods, Volunteer aid worker in New Orleans
Beverly Wright, Director, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice at 
Xavier University
Daphne Wysham, Institute for Policy Studies, Sustainable Energy & 
Economy Network
Tony Zimbado, MSNBC videographer and producer, provided video testimony 
of aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans

Panel of Jurists

Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas at 
Little Rock. She has servied as Executive Director, National Conference 
of Black Lawyers (NCBL), the Director of Administration for the 
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., a consultant to the 
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Chief Legal 
Consultant for the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in 
America (N’COBRA).
Dennis Brutus, professor emeritus, Department of Africana Studies, 
University of Pittsburgh. Currently visiting scholar. Centre for Civil 
Society University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Holds several 
honorary doctorates, former political prisoner on Robben Island in South 
Africa. Published several books including Poetry and Protest; a Dennis 
Brutus reader, Haymarket Press Chicago. University of Kwazulu Press, Durban.
Abdeen Jabara, former President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
Committee. In the mid-1980s, he played a major role in exposing the 
Nixon administration’s Operation Boulder program, a program begun in the 
1960s that included surveillance, deportations and other incidents 
involving the Arab and Arab-American community in the United States.
Ajamu Sankofa, lives in Brooklyn, NY. He is a human rights public policy 
specialist and community organizer. He is the former executive director 
of the NYC chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. He is a 
consultant for the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in 
America, Legal Defense, Research and Education Fund and he chairs the 
NYC local organizing committee of Health Care-Now.
Ann Wright, is a retired United States Army Colonel, retired official of 
the U.S. State Department, and now full-time anti-war activist. She 
currently sits on the Board of Directors for organizations Operation 
Truth/Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Veterans for Common 
Sense. Wright is most noted for being one of three U.S. State Department 
officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq 
in March, 2003.

Prosecutors

Wars of Aggression: Stephen Bronner, Larry Everest, Ray McGovern

Torture and Detention: Marjorie Cohn, Eric Lerner, Barbara Olshansky

Global Environment: Ted Glick

Health and Reproductive Rights: Ida Susser, Jonathan Garcia

Destruction of New Orleans: Carl Dix, King Downing, Dionne Franklin, 
Chokwe Lumumba

WE GO IN THE FINAL HOUR,
TO THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE OF BATTLE:
THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES

by Harry Belafonte

Thank you very much. I would to first express my great sense of 
privilege, and opportunity to be part of this evening's tribunal and 
what we will be seeing and hearing. I would like to also extend my 
respects to the panel and to the tasks you have before you, and what we 
will be hearing.

It is most gratuitous that this should be taking place at the end of a 
week of celebration of the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This 
nation has never, ever produced a greater citizen, who stood and still 
stands for the principles for why we are all gathered here: the pursuit 
of justice, the pursuit of human rights, the pursuit of human dignity.

Theodore Roosevelt once said that when the powers of state, that having 
been mandated to reach out and to protect the interest of the people, 
begin to usurp the Constitution and undermine our laws, that it is the 
responsibility of the citizens to rise up and to speak against this 
process. And, to in fact, insist upon the changing of the guard, the 
changing of regime. And those, (applause), those citizens who fail to 
hear that call, in fact should be charged with patriotic treason 
(Applause). I think none gathered here this evening can be so charged.

It is important when all the instruments of government collapse, we go 
in the final hour, to the most important line of battle: the people 
themselves. The people of this nation, I think, and I know it, are 
awake, and are being more awakened every day. They are hearing and 
sensing the danger that sits on the horizon. Looking at the 
international oppressions that we are a part of, looking at how we have 
violated international humanity and law, one day this tribunal I hope, 
will reach out, and in its investigation look at the oppression and 
illegal experiences people in this nation are experiencing themselves.

On 9/11, we were all stunned by the tragic events that took place when 
the Twin Towers collapsed, and this terrorism was put upon our people. 
Two thousand lost their lives. Two thousand who were innocent, two 
thousand who did not cause war. And we said they were terrorists and we 
should hunt them down and bring them to justice. Tell me, where for you 
does the line blur?

When a nation as powerful as this, the most powerful in the history of 
human existence, and those who have dubiously come to power and who are 
reigning over the will of this nation, when they lie and mislead the 
citizens of this country, when they put before us fear and then govern 
by terrorism -- where does the line blur for you? When our sons and 
daughters are sent to die in foreign battlefields, each day we claim the 
lives of tens and thousands of innocent men, women, and children, in 
other places -- where for you does terrorism end and where does it 
begin, and who are the terrorists?

Those who would choose to detract the real meaning of this tribunal, the 
real meaning of this people's moment, would suggest to you that we are 
somehow perhaps irrelevant. Well, I guess Paul Revere was considered at 
one point irrelevant, when he called for the alarm against the red coats.

I know very well that at the beginning, Dr. Martin Luther King was 
considered irrelevant. I know that there are so many that have called 
for the awakening of our citizens to look at what is happening to us and 
to seize our rights to put us back into democratic governance. Always in 
the beginning, we are minimalized, marginalized and relegated to the 
dustbins of history. We have prevailed before and we will prevail again. 
I am honored to be a part of this process, and anything I can do to help 
broaden its base, to help broaden it's inquiry, and to help save the 
soul of our nation, I welcome the opportunity and I will so serve. Thank 
you.


TOMORROW IS TODAY:
THE FIERCE URGENCY OF INDICTING
– AND DRIVING OUT –
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

By Michael Ratner

When Clark Kissinger called me yesterday and said, I’ll be sharing a 
platform with Harry Belafonte, I said, “well, maybe you want to put me 
on for tomorrow.” But here I am, and of course I’m proud to be even in 
any kind of association with Harry Belafonte. And I’m sure you’re all 
familiar with Harry Belafonte’s comments that he made to President 
Chavez in Venezuela a few days ago. And if you don’t remember them, I’ll 
repeat them. “No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the 
greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says, we’re here to 
tell you that not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American 
people support your revolution.” Now what’s remarkable about that, and 
of course Harry Belafonte was heavily attacked for that. But, as he has 
never been willing to do, he did not retreat from the statement. And if 
you go on the net you come to what he said, at the Children’s Defense 
Fund, a few days later, and what he says was, “so I made my remarks, 
they may stir up controversy, but then it’s time to talk about new 
definitions, new points of view.” And that’s what Harry Belafonte was 
doing, and that is what we are doing here today, and over the next two 
days, at these Commissions.

The other important point about being here, at Riverside of course, is 
that in April 1967, this is the place, this church, where Martin Luther 
King openly, and notoriously I should say, opposed the war in Vietnam. 
The speech was called “Beyond Vietnam: A time to break the silence.” 
It’s a historic place for that reason, and he began that speech with 
these words: “A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come 
for us, in relation to Vietnam.” And then in that speech, he lays out a 
5-point program. But the ultimate point of that program was: remove all 
foreign troops from Vietnam. Incredibly, even though it was Martin 
Luther King saying that, in 1967, it took 9 more years, millions of 
Vietnamese deaths, and thousands of American deaths, to do so. We today 
model our conduct on that of Dr. Martin Luther King. As he said then, we 
say today, a time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for 
us, in relationship to the war in Iraq. It is time for us to bring the 
troops home now.

A people’s trial, a people’s commission, is not without important 
precedents. Almost 40 years ago, in 1968, there was another people’s 
trial. It was held in Sweden and Denmark. Originally it was to be held 
in France. But the French wouldn’t allow it; they prohibited it, because 
it was about Vietnam, and of course the French had been very deeply 
involved in the subjugation of Vietnam. The witnesses at that people’s 
trial were well-known progressives, including Jean-Paul Sartre. They 
gathered in Stockholm and Copenhagen, and they were there to judge 
another human outrage in our history, the brutal and inhuman Vietnam 
War. Bertrand Russell, the famous English philosopher, was one of the 
key participants in that trial. In fact, it was called the Russell War 
Crimes Tribunal. Russell opened that trial, and here is what he said: 
“We meet at an alarming time. Overwhelming evidence besieges us daily of 
crimes without precedent. We investigate in order to expose; we document 
in order to indict; we arouse consciousness in order to create mass 
resistance.” And so, as Russell said then, we say today: we are putting 
the Bush administration on trial. We investigate in order to expose; we 
document in order to indict; we arouse consciousness in order to create 
mass resistance. We want this trial to be a step in the building of mass 
resistance to war, to torture, to the destruction of earth and its 
people. It’s a serious moment. Our country and our world are at a 
tipping point. Tipping toward permanent war, the end of human rights, 
and the impoverishment and death of millions. We still have a chance, an 
opportunity to stop this slide into chaos. But it is up to us. We must 
not sit with our arms folded, and we must be as radical as the reality 
we are facing.

The witnesses you will hear over the next few days are the 
truth-tellers: the witnesses to the carnage this country and this 
administration has wrought. This truth challenges us — challenges us all 
to act. We, particularly the American people, have not heard or seen the 
truth. And if some do, in their comfort and complacency, they often turn 
away. The truth is hidden. It is hidden through cover-up language, 
euphemisms, legalisms, obfuscations, false investigations, the blaming 
of low-level individuals: all meant to hide the reality of the criminal 
involvement of high officials of this administration. The criminal 
involvement in war, torture, global and human destruction.

Let’s take a look at a few of these examples, and there are many. The 
failure in this country, and the media, my pundits everywhere we look, 
to look at the reality- a reality this commission will examine. I’m sure 
most of you are familiar with the first example: the war in Iraq. 
Supposedly, the war was to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. 
Now it is said: that was a mistake. It was bad intelligence. The 
administration says it, and much of Congress says, the Press says it, 
“Had we only known — but we thought they had weapons of mass 
destruction. So we must in the future get better intelligence.” As if 
that explains or excuses why we went to war. But of course, that 
explanation — the failure of intelligence — and still the current 
explanation of today, by the elites, hides the real reasons for war. It 
blames some negligent officials, individuals, at the CIA, for leading us 
into war. All we need to do according to them is correct that, and we 
won’t be in mistaken wars any longer. Mistaken wars will come to an end. 
If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy. We all know that is 
not the truth. In fact, in 1967, Martin Luther King predicted it. He 
said we will be marching and protesting wars for the rest of our lives 
as long as we are on the wrong side of history. And we are on the wrong 
side of history.

Sometimes I ask myself: why did we progressives know the weapons of mass 
destruction story was a cover for war? But Congress and the media 
claimed they could not? Because they — all of them, Democrats, 
Republicans, the media — they were all reading from the same page. And 
that page is U.S. world exploitation and domination. And of course what 
does the truth tell us about the war in Iraq? It tells us that it’s an 
aggressive war, a crime against peace, and according to the judgment at 
Nuremberg, that kind of war is the most heinous of all war crimes. I can 
give you other examples: Clark had referred to one. For example, the 
fact that they say that we do not torture. All of a sudden in this 
country, torture is not torture. Or at worst it is abuse. And even that 
abuse, it is no worse than a fraternity prank. Or if it was abuse, it 
was because abusive techniques were only for use in Guantánamo. What 
sense does that make? Used in Guantánamo — and somehow they migrated to 
Iraq? But what does “migrated to Iraq” mean? Are they birds, like a bird 
migrates? Without any human agent, torture techniques move from one 
place to another? Or we are told that it is a few bad apples, but no 
responsibilities for the higher-ups. And yet the media has gone along 
with this, with these lies and these cover-ups. Even worse, serious 
media discussion and respectability is given to the legal justifiers. 
For example, John Yoo, a lawyer for the administration, who wrote that 
you could torture in the name of national security — much like the 
Pinochet defense, torture in the name of national security. I was 
utterly shocked the other day when I picked up the New York Times and 
there on the back page they had asked half a dozen people what questions 
would you ask the potential new Supreme Court Judge Alito? And there 
they asked John Yoo, ‘what question would he ask him’. They are giving 
credibility to a man who should not be on the back of the New York Times 
but should be in the docks but who should be in the docks facing justice.

Let there be no doubt this administration is engaged in massive 
violations of the law. Torture is an international crime. It is a grave 
breech of the Geneva conventions. And almost no one is telling you that. 
And in this country it is anathema to do so.

A third and last example of the hiding of reality, of the blaming of 
individuals, instead of the nature of this country and it’s leaders is 
the example of what happened in New Orleans and Katrina. It is the 
preparation for and aftermath of Katrina. What do we hear and read? It 
was an unpredictable act of god. It was the failure of FEMA. FEMA had a 
bad manger. All sorts of excuses similar to what we heard about the 
so-called intelligence failures in the Iraq war. But to blame FEMA, to 
blame the individuals, obscures what we know occurred in New Orleans. 
What we saw in New Orleans and the Superdome was something very 
different — it was the legacy of slavery, the legacy of Jim Crow, the 
legacy of separate but equal, and it was the legacy and the current 
practice and policy of our country today that human beings are seen as 
disposable particularly if they are poor and black. That is the reality 
of New Orleans, and that is the reality faced everyday in this country. 
And again, that is the reality this Commission will bring you.

The war, torture, and the effects of Katrina are not looked at as 
failures or as products of the system. The truths are hidden and by 
hiding it we are disempowered; so we are here this weekend to hear truth 
tellers to empower people. It is not just a few bad apples, it is not 
mistakes or bad choices, it is not just bad managers and getting better 
ones; but something much more fundamental. It’s that awful alchemy as 
Dr. Martin Luther King described it in this very church — the giant 
triplets of racism extreme materialism and militarism.

I want to say a few words about one aspect of the current period that is 
extremely frightening. Probably the most frightening although it does 
have roots in prior administrations. The short hand for the expression 
of this period and the scare and fear that I feel is, “The king can do 
no wrong” or the word might be tyranny, police state or dictatorship. I 
recall that after 9/11, within a few months afterwards, I wrote an 
article. It was entitled, “Moving toward a police state — or have we 
arrived?” And I remember being nervous about it because this was pretty 
aggressive to be saying a few months after 9/11. Was I gonna get trashed 
for it? Did it really reflect reality? I wasn’t sure. I had some 
evidence in front of me. I had the Patriot Act. I had internal 
detentions. I had the President’s military order that allows him to pick 
up people anywhere in the world and detain them in Guantánamo or 
elsewhere. But I still was willing to say ‘moving toward a police 
state’, not have ‘we arrived’. And a police state to me is one were 
authority is not under law, where the legislature is overridden, and 
where our courts are ignored. Where one can be jailed without a court 
proceeding or trial and where the president, king or what have you, can 
do as he pleases — wire tap, torture, and disappear people. 
Unfortunately, and dangerously that is the situation we are in today.

You are familiar with much of the evidence, some of which I have laid 
out, some of which the next two days will address. There is however one 
piece of important evidence I want to bring to your attention. In which 
the president, their president, not our president, is open and notorious 
about his aims, public if you will; and if you miss it you have to be an 
ostrich with your head in the ground. What he has done is basically lay 
the plan for what has to be called a coup-de-tat in America. And it’s a 
small (Applause) it is a small paragraph and it’s contained in what we 
call a ‘signing statement.’ It was signed on December 30th and it’s the 
signing statement to what we call the McCain amendment. You probably all 
remember the McCain amendment. That’s the amendment that prohibits 
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, or supposedly prohibits it. The 
president as you recall, resisted the McCain amendment. But in the end 
he had to sign it because it was part of a broader military 
authorization to pay for what we’re doing in Iraq. And when the 
president signs legislation, he sometimes and more recently with 
President Bush, he issues a signing statement as to what his 
understanding of the law is. The president’s statement on McCain is only 
one short paragraph. But it is historic. It is unprecedented. And if 
you’re looking for the grab for power that allows you, permits you, 
compels you to call this a tyranny it is that paragraph.

It makes three points and I’ll paraphrase. First, speaking as the 
president, ‘My authority as commander in chief allows me to do whatever 
I think is necessary in the war on terror including use torture. Second, 
the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the 
Commander in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.’ There it is. There 
you have it. That boring stuff I learned as a junior high school student 
about checks and balances or about limited law or about authority under 
law - out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy 
is over. In Germany what did they call that? They called that the 
furor’s law. Why? Because the furor was the law. That’s what George Bush 
is saying here. George Bush is the law.

This assertion of power is so blatant so open, and so notorious, that it 
is finally shocking some people like former Vice President Gore to speak 
up. And I’m sure many of you are familiar with what he said in his 
recent speech on Martin Luther King’s birthday. Quote: “The President of 
the United State has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.” 
He was referring to the NSA spying scandal. And then he went on to say, 
“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our 
government.” And then he said, “An executive who acts free of the will 
of Congress as this president says he can, or the check of the 
judiciary, as this president says he can, becomes the central threat 
that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution.” And then he 
quotes James Madison. “To the effect that what President Bush has done 
is the very definition of tyranny.” So there you have it. It’s not just 
us, its not just progressives, but even someone like former Vice 
President Gore is saying the very definition of tyranny.

I believe that the president and this grab for power will be repudiated. 
But it will not just happen. The pendulum does not swing back 
automatically. It will take an aroused public and an aroused people. And 
so the question is really - where do we go from here? One place I can 
tell you not to go is: don’t go to the Democrats in Washington. I have 
to tell you (Applause) I’ve have never in my life been kicked in the 
teeth so badly as I was on the Guantánamo cases when we took that to the 
Democrats in Washington. Now I’m just gonna say it here, there is a 
million reasons I can tell you don’t go there, but this one is called 
the Graham-Levin Bill. And after we win the right to go court for the 
detainees at Guantánamo, and we win that in the Supreme Court, 
Republican Senator Graham and Democrat Senator Levin get together - and 
what do they decide to do a few weeks ago? But strip the courts of any 
jurisdiction to hear the Guantánamo cases. That’s what they do - 
Democrats and Republicans together. And then they say you can use 
evidence from torture to keep those people in jail. Kicking us right in 
the teeth! Kicking the courts in the teeth. And so if you think that 
we’re going to get far by going there, you’ve got it wrong. Lessons of 
history teach us that we don’t move our leaders without the passion and 
the protest of the people.

I want to close with a sense of hope. It’s been a rough four years, it’s 
been a rough twenty years, it’s been a rough forty years since Dr. King 
spoke. But I want to close with a sense of hope. This administration is 
unraveling. There is a split in the elites. Gore is one of the best 
examples. Everywhere we see former administration officials speaking 
out. They realize the administration has gone too far. They want to save 
some remnant of democracy. We see indictments from Scooter Libby to 
Delay coming fast and furious. We see General Miller, responsible for 
torture in Guantánamo and Iraq, taking the 5th amendment essentially so 
he won’t have to testify. We see General Sanchez, who was head of troops 
in Iraq, retiring without that 4th star. It’s a real opening for us but 
it is not simply to go back to the normal. It’s not simply to save a 
remnant of democracy. The malady is much deeper than that. We need a 
radical transformation of our society. My hopes for today and for the 
future is that the truth will arouse resistance and with resistance 
there will be some change. I mean resistance of every sort, mobilizing, 
protesting, disobeying and disobedience. And then again, when I was 
reading Dr. King’s speech, the thought that he closed with, and that I 
want to close with, is that sometimes we can wait too long to take 
action. Or as Dr. King said, “you can be too late.” And we, unless we 
act, may be too late. So let me end with Dr. King’s directive to us all: 
“We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We 
are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. There is such a thing as 
being too late. We still have a choice today. Now let us begin. Now let 
us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful struggle 
for our new world.” Thank you. We’ll do this together.


***********

Michael Ratner is President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and 
was co-counsel in Rasul vs. Bush, the historic case of Guantánamo 
detainees, in which the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts do indeed 
have jurisdiction over Guantánamo. Ratner is an expert in international 
human rights law, and is a past President of the National Lawyers’ Guild.