voiceofsandiego.org: People... The Legal Avenger
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

The Legal Avenger

Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Marjorie Cohn believes members of the Bush Administration should be prosecuted for war crimes. Photo: Sam Hodgson



Friday, Sept. 25, 2009 | On the legal front, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have few bigger enemies than Marjorie Cohn, a professor at San Diego's Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Cohn, president of the liberal National Lawyers Guild, is a leading voice demanding that members of the Bush Administration be prosecuted for war crimes. She also condemns the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as illegal under international law, which she says the United States. It's a debate that hinges on whether the wars were launched in self defense.

In a new book, "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent," she and a co-author write about members of the military who have resisted service in the current two wars on legal grounds. She's also written a book about the Bush Administration called "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law."

So far, Cohn's opinions aren't gaining much traction in Washington D.C., although the Obama Administration is slowly making strides toward some torture prosecutions.

So Cohn fights on. In an interview, she talked about the responsibility of soldiers to disobey wrongful orders, the prosecution of government lawyers and the country's ability to withstand the distraction of putting a former president and vice president on trial.

What are your biggest recent successes on the war-crimes front?
I have testified as an expert witness in courts martial and military hearings for servicemembers who have refused orders to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have argued that those wars are illegal. My testimony has corroborated those beliefs by citing the U.N. charter, which is part of U.S. law, which says one country cannot invade another country unless it's in self defense or the U.N. Security Council agrees. And neither of those wars is lawful under the U.N. charter.

Under our law, there's a duty to obey lawful orders, but there's also a duty to disobey unlawful orders. The order to deploy to an unlawful war is an unlawful order.

My testimony has corroborated the reasonableness of the belief of some service members that it would be illegal for them to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had some success with that testimony.

How so?


In one case, the servicemember was given no time in custody. In another case, he was separated from the military under very favorable conditions.

I also testified in front of Congress last year on the Bush Administration's policy of torture and abuse, and that testimony has been useful in the move to bring to justice the people who set the policies and the lawyers who wrote the torture memos to justify the policies.

Can someone be prosecuted for merely having a legal opinion?
They would be prosecuted for advising the president on how he can break the law and get away with it. There were lawyers who were prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity after World War II advising Hitler on how to deport people to secret camps "legally" and get away with it.

What do you think should happen to the lawyers in this case?
They should be investigated and prosecuted under U.S. statutes.

Should they go to prison?
If convicted, yes, they should go to prison.

How far up would you extend the prosecutions for war crimes?
All the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief.

So you would have Bush and Cheney prosecuted?
Absolutely. And there's tremendous evidence to support prosecutions for torture, which is a war crime, and for leading us into an illegal war under false pretenses which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

When you look at these issues, is it purely from a legal perspective or do you also think about how trials like these might affect the nation?Both. My legal training makes it very clear to me that they have broken laws, and we are a nation of laws. The Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws.

It's also clear to me that if we don't bring people who have committed these high crimes to justice, then future administrations will think they can get away with war crimes. People in other countries will hate us even more because we let our leaders get away with murder and torture.

What do you think will be the negative consequences if Bush and Cheney are prosecuted? Will the country be torn apart, and does that worry you?
The Republicans will oppose it. The country is divided on many issues; it's divided on health care and the war in Afghanistan.

The fact that some people, especially Republicans, might be upset if members of the Bush Administration are brought to justice should not prevent the president and attorney general from doing the right thing.

What about the issue of distraction? A trial would be all the country would think about for months or years when there are other issues out there.
There are all kinds of distractions. We are capable as a country of taking care of business in many different areas at the same time. That's a red herring.

What do you think President Obama should do now regarding the wars abroad?
He should pull out and use diplomacy and foreign aid and more peaceful means of resolving problems than escalating the military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Is there anything that will change the tide in your favor?
What could change the tide is a strong and vigorous anti-war movement. We don't have that now. We did during Vietnam, and one of the reasons was that we had a draft, and college students protested.

What is your vision of humanity? Some people look at war and conflict and think that humans fight, this is inevitable. Then there are the peace activists who say we can work things out through diplomacy instead of violence.
I'm not a pacifist. There are times when people have to act in self defense. But the United States government has not been acting in self defense.

Most problems between countries and within countries can be handled with peaceful means. Violence and fighting is a last resort. But unfortunately, the U.S. has used it as a first resort too often.

-- Interview by RANDY DOTINGA




30 Comments so far on this story...

Fortunately, the National Lawyers Guild enjoys the freedom of speech that so many of the rest of us have worked to guarantee. Beyond that the organization's positions over since I've known the group starting in the mid-60s has been so liberal that the members put Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to shame. I enjoyed reading the interview as it once again confirmed my judgment of the group.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 25, 2009 3:41 pm

Bruce, you've got it backwards. It's the NLG that's been protecting YOUR freedom to speak your mind. For more than 70 years they've defended unpopular people and unpopular ideas, in other words, defended the principles of the Bill of Rights. I don't know in what way you believe you've worked to guarantee our freedoms, but imperialist wars to protect multinational corporations do not constitute defense of freedom.

Posted by Sarah Forth | reply to this comment
September 25, 2009 8:01 pm

Well sarah if one looked at your statement from just a singular angle it holds water, but a more objective view reveals a few leaks springing out. I don't think more than about 1,000 out of 300 million Americans have successfully established lives bereft of the consumer comforts provided by your hated corporations. (the unibomber?) Notably petroleum powers our transportation that delivers us and cargo to many destinations. Almost 2/3 of the world's conventional proven reserves are in Iraq and just 4 countries surrounding it. Coincidentally we also need to import 2/3 of our daily usage, currently over 20 million barrels of freedom providing oil a day. Yep, freedom to commute to work, make ridiculously numerous choices of a variety of foods and consumer goods, etc. Yes the corporations often earn large profits, but their operations provide for the "national interests" of all Americans, including often our "natonal security".

Posted by john | reply to this comment
September 30, 2009 1:57 pm

Glad to see you are also exercising your freedom of speech, that so many of us fought to guarantee. Help me out Bruce, you claim to be a defender of freedom in your first sentence. Then you use the word liberal in a derogatory manner in your second. The dictionary defines liberal as, "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." So why would you beat your chest for "guaranteeing" the freedom of speech and then use the word liberal as a means of attacking someones character?

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 1:43 pm

Keep on smirking, Bruce. History is on our side.

Posted by Realist | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 2:59 am

Honorable Sir, How does your reference of liberalism enter into the equation? A crime is a crime, period! Those responsible are the American equivalent of the 1930's Brown Shirts and worse. These so-called American Patriots are abject and rank cowards of the first degree. They are a disgrace to every American and ought to be sent to the middle of Chad where they may stew in all their immorality.

Posted by Daniel J. Smiechowski | reply to this comment
September 28, 2009 11:53 am

So Bruce, presidents, vice presidents, etc. should be able to break the law with impunity without any accountability just because they hold office? Why is that liberal or conservative? If you are conservative you are for them being able to break the law with no accountability, just because they hold office. Ok I get it. Mike

Posted by mikesd | reply to this comment
September 25, 2009 6:41 pm

Where was the copy editor?

Posted by Jackie Kim | reply to this comment
September 25, 2009 8:44 pm

So shouldn't the current administration be prosecuted for war crimes as well? The Obama administration is overseeing the same exact war Cohn feels the Bush administration illegally led. How about join an effort to end the war? Use your platform and speak out against the current administartion's policies. What is the point in prosecuting Bush unless you intend to prosecute Obama? Maybe that is her intention, however she failed to mention that in her responses which leads me to believe her actions are solely based upon politics.

Posted by Marc Godbold | reply to this comment
September 25, 2009 11:24 pm

I applaud Marjorie Cohn for her principled stand. It seems a rare occasion anymore when someone of stature and position in our society takes a stand on such an important issue. I wish her luck in getting perpetrators of our illegal wars brought to trial. As it stands now, our country can initiate indignities anywhere with impunity and I wouldn't put it past our present administration, which I consider to be reasonably ethical.

Posted by Wallace Danielson | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 7:28 am

Prosecuting one administration by another is a bad idea. I guarantee that if done, when the Presidents office goes back to a Republican there would be Democrats to investigate and charge. Presidents will have to give blanket pardons for everyone in their administration, another bad idea. This group is nuts and should not be given any space .

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 11:12 am

I believe Marjorie Cohn is right in her thinking regarding what should be done about the last administration's breaking the law. What good are laws if the people who are suppose to obey them fail to do so and get away with it?

Posted by Paul R. Marsh | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 11:42 am

It is people like Marjorie Cohn that weaken our country. This attitude of live and let live or simply "be nice" and everyone will get along is childish and naive. Cohn has a hidden agenda here. Although she claims not to be a pacifist, I would love to hear her explanation of what a "just" war is. I don't believe there is a scenario that exist to justify her war, furthermore I believe she feels people have a right to self-defense and that is all. There is a UN mandate to authorize the invasion of Iraq and there is a UN coalition of troops in Afganistan. Military members cannot disobey orders that are currently held as legal. Until the 2 invasions are deemed illegal, military members must obey lawful orders. Because Cohn belives the wars are illegal does not make them illegal

Posted by Clueless | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 12:40 pm

Sometimes lawyers for public officials do more than advise; they actually instruct and direct their clients. The clients should not take all the blame when their lawyers instruct them to violate the law.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 2:38 pm

As an attorney who has studied this issue at length, Professor Cohn's legal assessments are 100% accurate. The Bush/Cheney regime violated U.S. and international law by invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S.'s repeated use of torture and our claims that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to individuals captured on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan are not only wrong, they're ludicrous. She is also correct about the complicity of lawyers such as David Addington, John Yoo and (now Judge) Jay Bybee. Each of them counseled their clients to break the law. When non-government lawyers do that, it is called conspiracy or aiding and abetting. The fact that Addington, Yoo and Bybee were advising government officials to break the law should not prevent them from being prosecuted.

Posted by Gerald Singleton | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 3:46 pm

How wonderful to read that a strong supporter of this nation's laws lives in our area. I was afraid merely those who marched lock-step were the vast majority. Vince Bugliosi, the Republican prosecutor of Charles Manson, wrote the book, " Why George Bush Should Be Prosecuted For Murder" and it has been sent to every prosecutor in the US where a service member is located. It is thrilling to find out about Ms. Cohn. Also, I met another service member last night who was just released from service and preparing to fight the military to stay released. The Bush administration damaged the entire world.

Posted by Lee | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 4:14 pm

I enjoyed reading the interview as it once again confirmed my judgment that Marjorie's morality is far superior to Bruce's. ab

Posted by A. Brock | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 7:51 pm

How refreshing that someone is upholding the idea that no person is above the law. For too long America has behaved like a banana republic, where the powerful are allowed to get a away with murder. It started with the Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon - even for crimes he might commit in the future - in order to allow the "nation to heal." What America needed to heal after Nixon was to see justice done: a trial. Nixon's "Imperial Presidency" allowed Reagan to sell weapons to our enemies and paved the way for the Bush II "shadow government" and the kinder, gentler fascist republic that we now live in. Should Bush II be put on trial? Absolutely. If he has not committed war crimes then give him the opportunity to clear his name, because history will not.

Posted by Charles | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 9:06 pm

"If he has not committed war crimes then give him the opportunity to clear his name, because history will not." Perhaps we'll dunk him under water, if he sinks he's innocent, and if he floats to the surface, he's a war criminal! The constitution will remind you it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as you clearly imply. In your version of history starting with Nixon, all the villains wore the "R" badge... don't suppose you were around a newspaper while "Beijing" Bill Clinton sold our economic future up the river to the Chinese for DNC campaign contributions? See "Loral/Bernard Schwartz" or "The Cox Report" or ask yourself how pecuiliar it is that the two people who would really know what happened to Ron Brown's Gov't jet that slammed into a Bosnian mountain- the tower controller and the radar tech- both committed suicide days later for unrelated reasons.

Posted by John in OB | reply to this comment
October 2, 2009 10:43 pm

"Fortunately, the National Lawyers Guild enjoys the freedom of speech that so many of the rest of us have worked to guarantee." What a self-serving ego-stroke... and probably from a fake who never did wear the uniform in the service of this country. I'll put my MCPO and 30 years Navy service up against your empty nonsense all day long. Furthermore, most of the other senior NCO's that I've served with agree with this law professor. Enforcing the law -- particularly those laws against torture and war crime -- is not a partisan political issue, any more than arresting murderers, rapists and armed robbers for those crimes is partisan or political. We -- myself and the numerous other Senior and Master Chiefs I've served with -- want the stain of dishonor cleansed by prosecution and punishment of those who took us to "the Dark Side."

Posted by PJBurke | reply to this comment
September 26, 2009 9:16 pm

Good for Marjorie Cohn. There has probably never been more despicable, law breaking men than Cheney and Bush. These two people were hate mongering, vermin who lied us into two illegal and illicit wars. I've always had the impression that they enjoyed their murderous spree way too much in addition to all the laws and oaths of office that they broke. They along with Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and others devoted to this fraudulent & thuggish administration should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They should be convicted & imprisoned for life without parole. They have been brazen with their crimes and we should be brazen with their prosecution. Perhaps they should be tried in the Hague where they will receive a fair trial & immediate imprisonment.

Posted by Magginkat | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 5:54 am

Congratulations on your straightforward and necessary stand on this crucial issue, Professor Cohn. All the arguments against prosecution are indeed red herrings that invoke short-term advantages ("It will tear the country apart!") while leading to the long-term dissolution of the republic or its transformation into a dictatorship.

Posted by JK | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 9:49 am

She talks about republicans like they are the enemy and the terrorists like they should get hugs. Doesn't give a lot of credit to TJ law school. The 60's are long gone. Maybe she could do a cameo on "24" as one of the people trying to bring Jack Bauer to "justice."

Posted by Jared | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 10:45 am

We as a nation benefit when a few of us speak out against the tide of popular opinion in favor of a very strict reading of the Constitution and the law. Many officials highly placed in our government argued for and practiced surveillance, interrogation, detention and military action which seem to have little legitimacy and very dangerous consequences. These officials should be held accountable through our legal system. Thanks to Professor Cohn for articulating a principled position.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 11:06 am

As far as the outrageous trampling of our civil rights, the legal system indeed has spoken. In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled on a class action suit brought by 5 journalists against the NSA, and found against the defendents. This is the well known "warrantless wiretapping" case that gave Bush and Co the proper smackdown. The fight against similar transgressions should not relent, as the "fusion centers" around the country are behaving like the COINTELPRO FBI of the 60's, keeping files on Americans detailing all sorts of legal activities reported by Stasi-like snitch patrols. However what you say about the voices against the tide of public opinion has peculiarly reversed itself, IMO, as it is so trendy to speak out against wars. The majority of Americans polled now say the war was a mistake, which is not only flawed logic, it robs veterans of due gratitude for their sacrifice.

Posted by John in OB | reply to this comment
October 2, 2009 10:29 pm

Completely agree. The Constitution was, without doubt, severely abused and twisted by the Bush administration. We cannot let that precedent (warrant-less wiretapping, torture, war crimes, ect.) be set and engraved in American history. This is a terrible stain on our nation, and we need to admit that and prosecute those responsible for these illegal policies. President Obama, we need you to lead on this!

Posted by John Friend | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 7:50 pm

Thank you for a great interview. In the end the Constitution will prevail. Although, it may only come through the action of those abroad. As was mentioned the draft is key. We should ammend the law to include a mandatory draft for any military action. That draft should include the children of those in all three branches of governement. The Constitution is clear. Treaties are law. Torture is a crime. Prosecute ASAP.

Posted by Johns Adams | reply to this comment
September 27, 2009 7:55 pm

I'm not a fan of the Iraq and Afghan wars. But I'm not a fan of terrorism either. We were told that we were going after the terrorists for 9/11, acting in self-defense. Is that what happened? Bush said it would be a long war and it is. Not that I agree that that's how it should be. Terrorists are using humans as shields. They run and fight, fight and run. Should we not be following and engaging them in battles? Better there than here. How about putting terrorists on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity? The constitution is what governs us, not UN law. The US should never ever be held to or governed by UN or "world" law. It's ironic that Bush was skull and bones, for the New World Order, like his dad, and now this lady wants to use world law to try him.

Posted by Concerned Taxpayer | reply to this comment
September 28, 2009 11:01 am

I'm rather, well, for lack of a better term, gobsmacked at Professor Cohn's (and several commenters here claiming extensive research on the matter) disingenuous references about self defense being not the case in Operation Iraqi Freedom, specifically as it applies to international law and most importantly the UN charter. She must suffer from Bush hate derangement syndrome, a common affliction easily contracted from the venomous bite of the Texas Beetle "idiotus dimwiticus maximus W". In other words, I support US policy action on Iraq, have debated the war across the internet since a year before it began, and I always had a hard time keeping my lunch down watching his press conferences, especially that creepy, immature uneasy laugh he would resort to when asked an uncomfortable question. How can you NOT hate him? But the Iraq war was legal and just. (ctd)

Posted by John in OB | reply to this comment
September 30, 2009 1:17 pm

We are contractually bound to quite a few countries with powerful neighbors to provide for their defense if attacked or threatened, two of them are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In the UN charter, Chapter VII paragraph 51, member states and those cooperating with them- meaning Kuwait, along with the US and UK, are provided the right to a pre-emptive attack against another nation with intent of self defense, and need not actually be under attack for it to be just- Teddy Roosevelt's Sec'y of State in 1914: "every state has the right . . . to protect itself by preventing a condition of affairs in which it will be too late to protect itself.” Which was quoted during the Cuban missile crisis as well. UN resolution 678 was still in effect and with Saddam never meeting cease fire conditions, we were legally authorized to enforce it and subsequent resolutions.

Posted by john | reply to this comment
September 30, 2009 1:38 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
b450493



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.