BUSH AIMS TO KILL WAR CRIMES ACT

[kpete]

Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith

The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority--perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all "anti-terrorism" package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?

American prohibitions on abuse of prisoners go back to the Lieber Code promulgated by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The first international Geneva Convention dates from the following year.

After World War II, international law protecting prisoners of war and all noncombatants was codified in the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified by the US Senate and, under Article II of the Constitution, they thereby became the law of the land.

................

"Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."

much more at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher

(edited to correct title, proud patriot)

[The Cleaner]

1. K&R

:kick:

[havocmom]

2. Happy to give this the fifth R

The boyz seem to be getting twitchy. That makes them nasty dangerous.

[helderheid]

3. 7th

:mad:

[kenny blankenship]

4. We still have a War Powers Act?

[Terre]

34. No - title of post is wrong

It should be the War Crimes Act not the War Powers Act, though this is just as serious if not more so.

[AndyA]

5. They know they're getting backed into a corner, and they're taking

steps now to cover their asses. This "let's break the law now, and change the law later to suit our needs" is bullshit. The Bush Administration knows the Democrats are going to be coming after them soon, and that their dirty deeds will be exposed. They are getting backed into a corner, and they don't like it.

This makes them more dangerous than ever before.

[bryant69]

6. This certainly bears watching

We need to make sure that they can't sneak it in. If they do this they need to do it while the whole country is watching.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sinkingfeeling]

7. They're just trying to cover their a**es, so they can't be tried later for

their violations.

[earth mom]

8. Covering their A$$ES is exactly what it is...

they know they committed crimes and now they brazenly want to change the laws so they don't have to do the time! And some people don't want to Impeach these bastards?!

:wtf:

[Az_lefty]

10. yep, when the Dems take back Congress...

shrub and co. are going to get pounced on and I can't wait, it's long overdue.

[mod mom]

16. which is why they MUST steal another election! nt

[hootinholler]

15. It only matters what the law states at the time of the crime. n/t

[elehhhhna]

23. Yep. No retroactive legalization. Also: Pres's. can't pardon themselves

YAY! I just LOVE the CONSTITUTION.

[maine_raptor]

25. Sorry, but Pres's CAN pardon themselves

During his last days in office Nixon got several legal opinions that stated that he could do just that (See the book "Last Days" and others on the period for more info).

The President's pardon power is quite broad under the wording of the Constitution. In fact, a President can pardon someone for crimes they may have committed and might commit in the future.

[elehhhhna]

29. No, not true. They can TRY to self pardon, but thats of no use to Bush...

Pres can only pardon for crimes against the US. We can nail his ass for war crimes committed against other countries & he can't do JACK.



http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001641459&er=deny

[rodeodance]

9. the new WH legislation would retroactively decriminalize.......

,,,,,,Unfortunately for top Bush officials, that "solid defense" was demolished this summer when the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva Conventions were indeed the law of the land.

The Court singled out Geneva's Common Article 3, which provides a minimum standard for the treatment of all noncombatants under all circumstances. They must be "treated humanely" and must not be subjected to "cruel treatment," "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," or "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.

Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."

PAGE 1 | 2 | 3 NEXT

[elehhhhna]

30. One more time: It is unConstitutional to make retroactive law. Period.

[Generic Other]

11. What next? Re-introduce prohibition? Slavery?

Repeal women's sufferage?

We are barbarians unfit to call ourselves civilized people.

[havocmom]

12. Got a copy of their game plan, didn't you?

You are spot on. If they could take it all the way, only white, male property owners would have ANY say about anything.

[Fridays Child]

13. K&R. Even if you don't have time for the article, please go to...

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/justforeignpolicy.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4980 and sign the letter asking your representative to oppose Bush on this issue.

[MessiahRp]

31. Signed... K&R

Rp

[deek]

47. thank you for the link eom

.

[young_at_heart]

14. "Changes being made in the dead of night"???

Is this what it's come down to for these people?

[shraby]

17. Can't a senator put a hold on this bill? Seems

a Republican senator put a hold on a bill just recently and that buried it.

[davekriss]

18. When I was a kid...

...it did not matter if they changed the law in this way; while we were subject to the War Crimes act of 1996 (and the Geneva Convention), this Regime committed crimes. They can not undo that past by passing laws that make the illegal acts now "legal". I could be wrong -- usually it went the other way around -- i.e., you can't in one point of time make something illegal and then try and convict people for committing at some prior time that newly illegal act. But if the principle works in reverse, you cannot weasel out of breaking the laws of the land by, well after the act, passing legislation that says what you've done is no longer a crime, can you?

But, then, when I was a kid gerrymandering was considered unconstitutional and we were still approximating a democracy.

[maine_raptor]

19. What a minute here, isn't this talking about 2 different laws?

The headline says the War Powers Act (WPA) which was passed during the Nixon years, but the article is talking about the War Crimes Act (WCA) which was passed during Clinton.

AFAIK no president has "challenged" the WPA. Even Bush's authorization for Iraq was a response to what the WPA called for.

The WCA concerns the conduct of the military once in combat; the WPA concerns how the president can get the military into combat in the first place.

[never cry wolf]

20. You are correct, the OP headline is incorret...n/t

[William769]

21. The person who made the original post changed the headline.

[kpete]

27. You are right - BUT it is really weird -

because I cut & pasted it from "THE NATION" ???

Wish I could correct it - but it is too late

Should read "War Crimes Act"

Thanks
kpete

[TahitiNut]

28. I used 'Alert' to request that a moderator edit the Headline.

Such web-site brain-farts should be corrected, imho. :shrug:

[never cry wolf]

22. Can't any Senator put a hold on any piece of legislation?

That is my understanding anyway. If that is the case we only need one. If the Rs cry that some Dem Senator doesn't support the troops because they put a hold on a defense appropriations bill our guys can screm loudly about exactly why.

[TahitiNut]

24. Who cares? After all, Steve Irwin died!

:crazy:

The fascist Bushoilini Regime is busily corrupting federal laws and regulations to 'decriminalize' predations, atrocities, and pillage. I doubt 10-20% of what they're doing in the bowels of the government ever reaches the public view in any significant way.

[Skidmore]

26. To which the House will smartly reply "Achtung!" and "Jawohl, mein

Fuhrer!"

[opihimoimoi]

32. Hawaii 5-0

:kick:

Fish and poi,

Fish and Poi,

All I want is Fish and Poi..

Nokea Tomorrow.....

[grizmaster]

33. Gonzo torture memo- they were only interested in not going to jail

If you read the torture memos it's clear that Gonzo was much more interested in how they would avoid prosecution for their crimes than they were about pursuing terrorists.

full memo at link

http://www.hereinreality.com/alberto_gonzales_torture_memo.html

Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).

That statute, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a "war crime" by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. "War crime" for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach of GPW or any violation of common Article 3 thereof (such as "outrages against personal dignity"). Some of these provisions apply (if the GPW applies) regardless of whether the individual being detained qualifies as a POW. Punishments for violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty. A determination that the GPW is not applicable to the Taliban would mean that Section 2441 would not apply to actins taken with respect to the Taliban.

Adhering to your determination that GPW does not apply would guard effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of Section 2441 for several reasons.

[StrictlyRockers]

35. This action just begs for war crimes to be committed on our troops.

If we have no respect for the rule of law, then why should our opponents?

[bear425]

36. bookmarking for later after the primary closes.

k/r

[Miss Chybil]

37. Dems should be on the news with this one... nt

[snappyturtle]

38. Is the new bill named:

"Cover for the President's,Condi's,Rummy's, and Cheney's ass"?

[DemInDistress]

39. let's call Keith Obermann nt

[mvd]

40. Recommended

There's just no limit to what this regime will do.

[fooj]

41. Accountability is a terrifying reality for these treasonous, rat bastards!

[Faux pas]

42. Immoral, amoral, inhuman, inhumane, etc, etc, A**HOLE.

We, and the rest of the world, deserve BETTER. Send him and his wild bunch of turnips to The Hague.

[w4rma]

43. You don't get rid of 150 year old laws that have been working for all of

those 150 years.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

54. all that shit's so pre-911

why do you -drum roll- hate - rimshot - America. Fireworks.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Well, you have to admit it beats lawyering up.

That Rove. If there's a way to save a buck...

[focusfan]

45. I would write my state congressman

but he is a nasty repuke and won't do nothing.i plan to vote
him out 

[deek]

48. see post #13 eom

.

[samsingh]

46. of course, get rid of the laws that could send him to jail

[sakabatou]

49. He wants to kil it because he knows he's guilty

[Independent_Liberal]

50. Kicked and recommended.

Look out folks! They're fucking out of control! Have you ever seen how cornered vicious animals act? They're like a python that's getting ready to snap.

The government is leaking like a siev and they're running out of bubble gum to plug up the holes!

:)

[Independent_Liberal]

52. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

You've seen those pythons before. And speaking of snakes, I went to the zoo yesterday and I got to pet a snake. I also went to the zoo aquarium. It was the same day that Steve Irwin was killed. :( Isn't that something?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

53. pythons don't really bite. lol. lotsa cool metaphors though

i mean pythons can bite, but they dont really get ready to snap like, oh, say a rattlesnake.

anyway. it's late.. . lol

[LuckyLib]

51. Of course it is. That's what dictatorships do. And now that

we're on record with detaining prisoners and torture ourselves, all bets are off for our soldiers.

[Seabiscuit]

55. Business as usual. Not much shocks me anymore, sad to say.

[qwertyMike]

56. Hague,Handcuffs,Life n/t

[TahitiNut]

57. "The Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of... its acts"

The arguments for preserving the War Crimes Act are conclusive (except perhaps to those who might face criminal prosecution under them). Indeed, the Administration's decision to gut the War Crimes Act is a gift to those who want to see American statesmen held accountable to national and international law. It suggests that the Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of many of its actions. And it shows in the sharpest relief why the War Crimes Act is needed.

But, at least for the moment, Bush's Republican allies still control both houses of Congress; they are in a position to slip a repeal of the War Crimes Act into any piece of legislation they choose. Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, senior member of the House Committee for Homeland Security, told The Nation, "The Bush Administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to quietly excuse and even codify cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody, at secret CIA prisons abroad and even the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition (the outsourcing of torture and other cruel treatment to other countries)."

While the Administration has been lining up its ducks, the campaign to save the War Crimes Act has just begun. The advocacy group Just Foreign Policy has started an online campaign to save the War Crimes Act. "This is not an obscure point in the law. What's at stake here is whether, for example, the abuses of prisoners by sexual humiliation that shocked us at Abu Ghraib are clearly illegal under US law," national coordinator Robert Naiman observes. "If we found these actions outrageous, we are obligated to tell our members of Congress to protect the law that bans them."

Impeach. Indict. Imprison.

[leveymg]

58. Revision of the War Crimes Act would only UN trigger enforcement action

under the UN Convention Against Torture. If any signatory state can't or won't prosecute offenses, the others are obligated to do so collectively. The treaty can't be withdrawn or amended by any state retroactively.

These guys are going to jail.

[enough]

59. k&r

[Major Hogwash]

60. Incredible - but wouldn't those crimes fall under the juris of the day

when they occurred?

In other words, they can't make legal today what they did yesterday and say it is not a crime when it was committed.