War Crimes Protection Act -- "opposition" IGNORES most destructive part [View All]

[pat_k]

Their tunnel-vision once again has the pund-idiots and the "opposition" so obsessed with one provision of the War Crimes Protection Act that they are missing the other horrors that have been stuck in it.

For example, perhaps the most destructive part is found on page 79 of http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf">Bush's version:

(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United or its States or territories.

This abominable provision strips any person, American or Foreign National, from seeking to protect fundamental human rights in ANY court in the United States (or to seek redress for violation of those rights). In other words, if it had been in effect prior to July, SCOTUS would have been barred from reviewing Hamdam.

Our collective standards for civilized conduct (and therefore our collective will) are meaningless if our judges and our peers on juries are barred from determining whether or not specific acts constitute torture.

Clinton gets it, but fails to emphasize the significance.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060921/pl_nm/security_clinton_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AkmygpDutVyAhmfYOiG.P_Eb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-"> Bill Clinton warns against wide torture approval:

. . .any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review. . .

In other words, the War Crimes Protection Act EXEMPTS "harsh treatment" from court review -- an incredible subversion of our constitutional democracy.

Defining "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE" is absolutely essential to their scheme to decriminalize the War Crimes they have committed (and continue to commit).

They can "clarify" (nullify) the prohibition against "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" to their heart's content, but unless they forbid our courts from weighing in, they know they could still be prosecuted.

Clinton, and others, may "get it," but unless this subversive provision is attacked by someone with enough clout to get noticed by the beltway boobs, we will be losing, and losing big, regardless of what they do about Bush's "clarifications."

Like all other fascist attempts to bury simple truths in complexity, this bill is a labyrinth of references to, and modification of, selected aspects of many other statutes. But it doesn't take must detangling to expose the simple truth, which is that:

The War Crimes Protection Act of 2006 has one goal: to protect themselves from prosecution for the war crimes they have committed. To that end, the bill seeks to gut U.S. Code of any avenue through which they could be prosecuted, even going so far as to strip our courts of the ability to examine their actions. It is a transparent attempt to escape the consequences that their actions would demand in any civilized society. Their attempt to escape prosecution demonstrates their consciousness of guilt.

Instead of their current tunnel vision, defenders of our Constitution need a different kind of "single-minded" focus -- a focus on the contemptible goal they seek to achieve with this bill.

(The distinction between "single-minded" tunnel vision and "single-minded" focus on an overarching principle is an important one. To be effective you need to avoid the former, and do at lot more of the latter. For example, all Bush and Co. actions should be connected to the moral imperative to Impeach Bush and Cheney. Even this bill (they are war criminals, they demonstrate their consciousness of guilt in this bill; we cannot leave the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of war criminals).