NYT: White House Asks Congress to Define War Crimes

[DeepModem Mom]

White House Asks Congress to Define War Crimes
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales pressed Congress on Wednesday to refine the definition of war crimes prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, as the Bush administration and lawmakers continued to debate the rules for treatment and trials of terror suspects.

Administration proposals on how to bring suspects to trial had moved closer to what key senators have said they will demand, but two hearings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday foreshadowed a fight over the definition of coercive interrogation tactics.

And administration lawyers and senators continued to clash over evidence obtained through coercion or hearsay and how to deal with classified evidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in late June that terror suspects must be extended the protections outlined in a provision of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, and in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Mr. Gonzales argued that the language of the provision was too vague. And because the federal War Crimes Act passed a decade ago makes it a felony to violate that provision, he said that troops could be prosecuted for interrogation tactics considered too harsh. Congress, he said, could “help by defining our obligations” under the provision, known as Common Article Three....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/washington/03detain.html

[Phredicles]

1. "You want a definition? You know all the stuff you've been doing?

Those are war crimes."

[Journeyman]

7. LOL . . .

Classic. To the point, no bullshit.

[Rageneau]

14. Why aren't national Democrats SCREAMING about this?

Probably because they don't want to make Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh mad at them.

[saigon68]

24. DINOs Like Joementum Limpmann (Dino Conn) love this shit

In Order for the DINOS to stay in power,

they have to jail and imprison anyone deemed to be a challenge to good order and to their authority to RULE THE WORLD.

[Norquist Nemesis]

41. Because they'll get Durbined

It will be 24/7 outrage with calls for censure until apologies are made.

[Thoreau-Ly]

54. Perhaps

But this is just too egregious to not speak out on. Way too egregious.

There is no "debate" over torture. It is an evil at all times and all places. It is also a crime under international and national law. That makes two groups: those against torture and criminals. ---Dinah Shelton, George Washington University Law School

[IndianaGreen]

2. Headline should read: Bush asks Reichstag for Enabling Act

Bush regime is asking Congress to give him a blank check on crimes that we prosecuted Germans and Japanese at the end of World War II.

[pokercat999]

22. ANYONE with a D after his title that allows this to go

forward should be publicly drummed out of the party. The Bush regime must be held accountable or America will pay in the future.

[global1]

3. Are They Looking For A Way Out......

redefine war crimes to include those things that they were doing so that they will not be in violation of.

[hootinholler]

52. Exactly!

Now everyone sign my petition, link in sig.

-Hoot

[katty]

55. Speedy Gonzales! Pull out that Thesaurus!

[Webster Green]

4. Worst President ever...

..and a war criminal.

Each day brings a new outrage from these fucking fascist mutherfuckers.

[adarling]

5. omfg!!!!

headache...bad headache

[Solly Mack]

6. "help by defining our obligations"?????? Our obligation is to follow the

law - both federal and international

What Gonzales wants is a free pass to torture. He wants Congress to give him a legal out under US laws

And he's not worried about the troops - he's just spinning it that way so they can claim those in Congress who oppose Bush's torture policy just want to harm the troops.

[Journeyman]

10. Gonzales doesn't want to tortue. . .

He's only looking to "coercively interrogate."

Whew. Growing up, who knew the other side of the looking glass would be so similar to the land in which we were born (only more twisted, Dadaesque and Kafkian).

[Solly Mack]

12. I woke up screaming a few months ago

...I had been dreaming about everything going on - my entire dream was a replay of every surreal event, justification, speech and comment made by the Bush Regime about the economy, the environment,Iraq, Afghanistan, 911, Katrina, women, gays, terror and democracy, etc.

When I realized I was in Bush's head, I started screaming. All of it was being played out inside Bush's head. We were all trapped inside Bush's head.

[wtmusic]

8. Heh, heh. This has nothing to do with trials of terror suspects.

It has to do with AG realizing the admin is on the hook, and setting the stage for a defense. I wouldn't be surprised if Rove is waist-deep in this.

[havocmom]

37. Yep. Alberto trying to line up Congress v Geneva

for a grudge match that will have Americans so mesmerized they will be rooting for the war criminals and shouting 'U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.' so loud any voice of reason won't stand a chance.

[flyarm]

9. i fing hate these people ..if you can call them people..

to me they are scum,, monsters..criminals in the worst kind..

i just hateeee..them!!!!!!!!!!..teeth clenched!

fly

[Akoto]

11. That they would even asked for a "refined definition" is insane.

Here's a clue: if you need to ask whether or not what you're doing is a war crime, it's probably something you shouldn't be doing.

[PSPS]

13. This is the real thing they're worried about

These goons know that the hangman's noose is waiting for them. Their time may be growing short, and they are seriously worried about paying the price for their heinous acts.

Watch for more of this sort of thing over the coming months. The media isn't playing up this angle, of course. Their orders are to never being up the subject. But believe me, these guys know that if their shield of protection (the media, rove, the criminal congress) ever fails, their very lives will be in jeopardy. Instead of mocking Carla Faye Tucker, bush will be speaking for himself when he squeaks, "Please don't kill me!"

[KT2000]

17. that was my thought too

they are just preparing their defense for the coming court dates.

[NEOBuckeye]

19. Congress' opinion cannot trump WORLD opinion about Bush

The Conservative Congress can say Bush and Co are free and in the clear as much as they want. Doesn't matter. Ultimately, it will be global opinion that determines the fate of these Bush buffoons.

If the world says that Bush and Co must stand trial at the ICC, then that is exactly what will happen. Ironically, Bush has ensured that the US will not be in a position to defend him or his cronies from international prosecution. The US is both financially and militarily in shambles, thanks to Iraq and Neoconservatism. We are on our way to an economic crash and depression with the bursting of the housing bubble. We will eventually require economic assistance from the world, including China, Russia and Europe. Before helping us, they can stipuate that Bush, Cheney and Co must resign and turn themselves over to ICC authorities in The Hague, or else face the wrath of the American People.

[Phrogman]

20. Desperate times for desperate people, expect anything at any time now

I've had the premonition that something big will happen this week. I think the US is going to get involved somehow with this Israeli fighting. Its going to be soon and its already been planned.

And you probably wont believe me but its true, Carla Faye Tucker was my neighbor and close acquaintance of mine growing up in Houston. I used to hang out with her and her husband Steve on our street.
Steve, Carla and I hung out in the same group in Genoa Texas. And Carla would of never, ever begged anybody for anything. Me and everybody else that knew her knows thats a fabrication. Carla didn't beg anything from anybody.
Bush most likely made that up to sound tough.
I bet he did.
I know what she did was awful, but she had left us and was hanging out with some real scumbag people. And everybody knows she was out of her mind on drugs that night but I feel she changed in the joint, and did repent.
She had a chance for a deserved miracle, and * took it away from her.

Like George never had a break in his life, thats all he's had in his life is breaks and fixes from other people. The world condemned him and he still wouldn't give her a fucking break.

Murdering motherfucker, thats what he is.

[Mnemosyne]

25. Carla was one of the first times everyone could truly see

*'s "compassionate conservatism" in action.

She was only 17 when the crime occurred. I never heard she was married.

* is a fiend.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mnemosyne]

31. It was said that her mother got her addicted at a

very young age. Do you know how true this is?

I wouldn't be surprised if * did know her mother. Prostitutes in the same area tend to know each other to some degree and * is a whore.

I seem to recall the name of a co-defendant as Steve. Is this the husband?

re: Mel Gibson-

MR. SNOW: "The President believes in the forgiveness of sins for all who seek forgiveness."

What a hypocrite.

[Phrogman]

32. No, she left Steve G. about a year before the murders took place.

She went to live with some dudes connected to the Banditos motorcycle gang, bad bunch of misfits that sold chiba and quayludes, we used to laugh about it because they sold their ludes out of the "Quay Point" apartments, (get it?)

Even though I left the states, I still stay in touch with her ex-husband, he's a good guy.

[Mnemosyne]

44. Wasn't there a report of

killings in a border town with * involved, not committing the killings, but dragged out by his family before it happened? I'll see if I can find a link.

Why do the Banditos sound so familiar? Aye, yi yi yi!

[Phrogman]

56. Banditos are a Texas motorcycle gang

Real bad motherfcukers, real bad.

[Felinity]

34. Thanks for your post

The day Carla Faye Tucker was executed, I said to myself, "Surely this means this idiot will never become President." Unfortunately, I had it backwards. For this guy, the blood on his hands was his ticket to power. The more blood is shed, the thicker the polyurethane veneer that protects him from recompense.

As a fellow Texan I share the shame of our state sponsored murdering judiciary system. As an American, I share the guilt of wanton destruction and bloodshed perpetrated in our name.

But Bush, he shares . . . roast pig!

[gulliver]

15. The current Congress interprets the laws...

... as long as it is Republican. The Bushies have no respect whatsoever for the American form of government. It's all just a power game for them. Whatever it takes. They are wrecking everything.

[Writer]

16. They better do this now before the Dems take over...

they see the storm coming...

[Dover]

18. What's wrong with these >

Geneva Conventions

Chapter I. General Provisions
Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Art. 4. Neutral Powers shall apply by analogy the provisions of the present Convention to the wounded and sick, and to members of the medical personnel and to chaplains of the armed forces of the Parties to the conflict, received or interned in their territory, as well as to dead persons found.

cont'd

http://www.spj.org/gc-text1.asp?#49

[Felinity]

36. The KISS method

Let's keep it simple.

Have mini-mind Gonzales come before the Senate and have the various methods that have been rationalized under his contrived justifications used upon himself, and/or perhaps a close friend or relative.

Then just ask them if anyone feels humiliated, degraded, or physically harmed in any way. If the answer is no, then it's not torture.

Let's start with waterboarding. It's been a while since there has been any good theater in a Senate hearing.

[annabanana]

51. yeah - let them use their own personal experience. . .

Then, if they think it's been excessive, we'll ban it.

Welcome to DU - I like how you think!

[leesa]

38. Too quaint.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. Here is a very workable premise to start from

War Crimes could be any method, practice, technique, setting, action or inaction that would provoke outrage if the same were used on any American civilian or soldier.

[eShirl]

23. HMMM WHY WOULD HE WANT THEM TO DO THAT I WONDER

[ixion]

26. uh, in order to 'redefine' the Geneva Conventions, you'd have to ratify

a whole new treaty, no? :shrug:

I mean, you can't just decide to 'redefine' a 60 year-old treaty, now, can you?

:grr:

[peacebird]

27. CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY - tell them Geneva doesn't NEED definition

PLEASE CALL!!!

For folks in Va - Warner is 202-224-2023
Allen is 202-224-4024

[underpants]

28. Could they also tell them retroactively what flight and seat number ...

the hijackers would be in?

[Eurobabe]

30. LOL, good one!

[warrens]

33. Heavy decision time for the White House

Stand and fight or catch the next flight to someplace like Uganda, where a few million bucks in the right hands means no extradition, ever.

[jfkraus]

35. Clueless

I don't care about man's interpretation of words written by another. It seems to me that there are some things civilized people just don't do to each other. If you don't know what those are, you truly have lost your soul.

[MrPrax]

39. Another useless divergence...

for the GOP to kick around, score a report vote and waddle back to Possum Trot telling the good old boys how, 'they ain't gonna let no foreigner tell them what to do' as a thousand arms go stiff.

Doesn't Congress have a lot of domestic things they should be doing. Like perhaps cast a weary eye towards stuff like this:

Report: Real U.S. deficit in trillions

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The United States' true deficit is $2.9 trillion, more than three times the $729 billion the government claims, USA Today reported Thursday.

The report said the federal government keeps two sets of accounting books, and generally publicizes the most favorable one, which doesn't take into account future obligations for Social Security and Medicare costs.

As an example of how disparate the sets of books are, last year, the government said it ran a deficit of $2,800 for every household. But the audited statement placed the deficit per home at $6,700, the report said.

....

This year, Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a former investment banker, issued a proposal to ask the president to include the audited numbers in his budgets, but the Senate did not take up the measure, the report said.
UPI

Since the US administrations (all of them) don't really follow this definition of war crime (or accounting) because it is too restrictive (!!), then any dumb version the Congress is likely to 'define' is either going to be so lax as to be useless or will prove equally restrictive at some point.

BushCo currently ignores the Constitution for the same reasons; too restrictive. It's like election law; too restrictive as there is a potential that a democrat might be elected.

[ckramer]

40. War crime = Invasion of Iraq

War crime = killing civilians.

"But the terrorists are hiding among them!"

[MrCoffee]

42. Do we really want the authors of the AUMF

defining what a war crime is????

[Up2Late]

43. Hey AL! How about you try READING the Geneva Conventions!

Reading them in whole, NOT the way you Jerks usually read them (as little bits of a law that can be challenged)! :banghead: :grr:

[Sherman A1]

50. Absolutely

It pretty much answers Mr. G's questions if he would spend any time reading it. Yes, he and * , Rummy and Cheney along with the rest of the cast, need to spend some quality time in a town in the Netherlands defending their actions.

[kwolf68]

45. The problem with this crap

They know that if they do stuff that is simply too absurd to believe that...well no one will really believe it and they can keep on keeping on.

[mom cat]

46. If Gonzales thinks that the wording is too vague, let me show him

what the tactics he advocates for feel like. An hour should be enough to add some clarity to his thinking.:grr:

[KansDem]

48. I suspect Gonzales is a pussy. 3 minutes would be enough...

http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/etatsunis/2005/11/index.html



Et vous, vous êtes pour ou contre le "waterboarding" ?
J'exagère à peine. C'est le débat du jour.
Le "waterboarding" a un nom de sport de loisirs mais c'est une technique de torture.
On attache le détenu à une planche. On lui bande les yeux. L'interrogateur lui verse de l'eau sur le visage et dans la bouche.
Il a l'impression qu'il se noie.
Le camp du vice-président Dick Cheney estime que ce n'est qu'une technique d'interrogatoire.
- "And there won't be good intelligence without aggressive interrogations".
L'ancien prisonnier de guerre John McCain appelle cela de la torture ni plus ni moins.
- "Very exquisite torture".
Après avoir discuté en termes généraux de la torture, on est entré dans un débat extraordinaire sur les méthodes.
Non aux chiens, oui au "waterboarding".
Le Wall Street Journal a résumé le débat d'une bonne blague.
- "A 'tortured' debate".
Ouaf, ouaf, voilà un débat torturé.

My loose trnaslation--"And you, are you for or against "waterboarding"? I hardly exaggerate. It is the debate of the day. "Waterboarding" has the name of a sport of leisure but it is a technique of torture. One attaches the prisoner to a board. The eyes are taped shut. The interrogator pours water on the face and in the mouth. It creates the impression of drowing. The office of Vice-president Dick Cheney claims that it is only one technique for interrogation. - "And there won't be good aggressive intelligence without interrogations". The former POW John McCain more or less calls that torture - "Very exquisite torture". After having discussed torture in general terms, one entered an extraordinary debate on the methods. Not with dogs, but with "waterboarding". Wall Street Journal summarized the debate as a good joke. - "A 'tortured' debate". Ha, ha, here is a tortured debate."

[KansDem]

47. I wonder if this all came about due to "Hamden v. Rumsfeld?"

The Supreme Court decided Bush did break the law. Now it's up to the Repub Congress to save his butt again.

[VP505]

49. What's all the

fuss about, Bu$hCo's definition of war crime is " Just ask us we'll tell you if it's a crime or not, trust us or your enabling terrorists". Now, see how simple that was, why bother congress, their heading off on their 5 week vacation?:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[rocktivity]

53. Why bother?

The Bush white house will simply nullify it with a signing statement, anyway.

:shrug:
rocknation

[Critters2]

57. If ya gotta ask....eom

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. Definition...

War Crimes (n): You know that shit you've been pulling in Iraq? Yeah. That's pretty much it.

[Anakin Skywalker]

59. If You Go With Geneva

you are anti-American! Why do you hate America? You want the terrarists to win? LOL!

[jwirr]

60. Why are they asking Congress - war crimes were defined at the

Hague years ago. They need to go back and read the Geneva Conventions and other International items they have been neglecting.

[whistle]

61. Here is a starting list Alberto Gonzales

<snip>
Body of laws

At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers.

Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte visits a mass grave in Kosovo
Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes. Genocide is the most severe of these crimes.

The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).

Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:


Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
Plunder of public or private property.
The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

Murder
Extermination
Enslavement
Deportation
Imprisonment
Torture
Rape

Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.
Genocide is defined by the tribunal as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

But the law on war crimes is continually evolving.

In February 2001, the tribunal in The Hague delivered a ruling that made mass systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war a crime against humanity.

Mass rape, or rape used as a tool of war, was then elevated from being a violation of the customs of war to one of the most heinous war crimes of all - second only to genocide. <more>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm