Congress Is POWERLESS To Absolve Bush Of Capital Crimes & Torture Charges

[kpete]

Congress is powerless to absolve Bush of capital crimes and torture charges

Bush is in a heap of trouble. Whatever torture compromise may work its way through an intimidated Congress, it cannot help Bush. The US Constitution requires nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to relieve US obligations under the Geneva convention; and, at least one Constitutional provision means that nothing legal can get Bush off the hook for the crimes that he has already committed.

Bush is beyond help from a mere act of Congress at this point. It'll take either the second coming or a constitutional amendment to change any US treaty obligation; the chances of that happening are very, very slim.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html —US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art6toc_user.html Annotations

Therefore, the Geneva Convention is the supreme law of the land and Bush is subject to it even if Congress should pass a measure that attempts to pardon him or, in any other way, absolve him of the capital crimes that he has already committed.

Even US Codes, Title 18, § 2441. War crimes bind the US to the those international treaties which address the issue of war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity. The case can be made that Bush has deliberately violated all of them. There is probable cause to bring severe criminal charges against Bush now. If the US government had not been hijacked by a handful of crooked corporations, Bush would already have been impeached, tried, and removed from office to stand trial in ordinary criminal courts. Only partisan politics has kept him in office.

more at:
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/congress-is-powerless-to-absolve-bush.html

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd! Music to my ears, though I remain wary of the slimes in office. nt

[mmonk]

2. The congress is technically engaged

in a conspiracy (against the constitution).

[madokie]

3. And when the dust clears we'll have a brand new Congress, imo

[mmonk]

7. Why couldn't we seek an injunction

once they've done this?

[tbyg52]

30. But don' cha know....

It's just a @#$%#@#$ piece of paper..... :sarcasm:

[bunny planet]

4. this should be forwarded to Olbermann

He'll put the bold text right up on the teevee.

[babylonsister]

6. Done! nt

[bunny planet]

11. Good on you Babylonsister.

:hi:
My mail server is all screwy on this computer otherwise I would have done it myself.
Thanks.

[kpete]

13. You are a treasure

I always love seeing you on my posts -

You are not just a DU'er - You are a Do-er!

[woodsprite]

5. Well, he's working on the 2nd coming. n/t

[negativenihil]

8. k&r! n/t

[dogday]

9. One can only hope

Karma is a bitch sometimes....

[midnight]

10. Judges being bound to the Law of The Land......

I want to see how this plays out. Should be real educational for people like me with little understanding of just how this will be framed.

[ThomCat]

15. It doesn't matter how many different laws he's broken

or how many ways he's broken them. If he never gets charged then he's never going to be held accountable.

I don't see the landscape changing enough for him to be charged in any American court. The governments of the entire rest of the world would have to demand it before he would ever be held responsible

[leveymg]

19. At some point, if we don't charge him, they will be obligated to convene

a hearing to determine whether the matter should be handed over for international prosecution. That obligation is in the Convention Against Torture. All it takes is for one signatory country -- let's say Venezuela -- to call for a hearing, and the process begins.

[Maraya1969]

40. What are they waiting for? Are these countries afraid of the US if

they press charges against Bush. Most of us here would be thrilled to see another country press charges while our Congress sits with its collective thumb up their collective a**. Maybe it would be the shot they need to grow the balls they seem to be missing!

[Selatius]

48. It would be little more than a symbolic act

Even if somebody like Venezuela did call for a formal investigation, what would happen if a sovereign ruler of the US was found guilty? Nobody would be in a position to arrest him, especially if that ruler chooses not to leave home soil. Henry Kissinger is wanted for questioning in France, Spain, Portugal, and Chile over the Sept. 11, 1973, coup that toppled Allende in Chile and put into power Augusto Pinochet, but Kissinger is still living large to this day.

Kissinger has never been in a courtroom over US involvement in Chile, and as long as he stays out of those countries, he stands a good chance of never seeing the inside of a prison either.

[Demeter]

12. That Doesn't Mean They Aren't Going To Try

which will lead to more crime, and more indictments--lie down with dogs, get up with fleas!

[leveymg]

14. That will implicate their Congressional allies as co-conspirators

If you wonder why McCain and John Warner aren't lined up behind their President in "clarifying" Common Article III, it's because they understand that Bush and his lieutenants will face trial under The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) if the US amends the War Crimes Act -- they do not want to face charges at The Hague as confederates after the fact.

[Demeter]

18. May That Day Come Soon, and May Justice Be Swift and Thorough!

[BootinUp]

16. The treaty does not specify specific penalties

though. At least that is my understanding.

[leveymg]

20. The US statute calls for the death penalty for torture resulting in death

outside the country. As happened to this man:

[salib]

31. Thus, it is the US status that is to be changed

I am not an expert in constitutional law (and thus precedent in interpretation). However, unfortunately, I can see where treaties, while the supreme law of the land, could be recinded WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. Obviously, when we declared war on Japan, for example, we did not feel obligated to maintain all treaties we had with them.

IMHO

[leveymg]

49. Bi-lateral treaties can be rescinded, not int'l conventions,

except those with explicit opt-out provisions, such as the ABM and NPT Treaty, which the * Administration have abrogated. On the other hand are binding treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions and the UN Comventions on Torture and Genocide, the terms of which remain permanently binding on all signatories, regardless of changes in national law and policy.

[Lasher]

55. Thanks for that, eveymg. I was going to ask what the difference was

When I read the OP I wondered why it would take a Constitutional ammendment to get out of or change Geneva when Junior had opted out of ABM and NPT. You answered my question before I asked it.

[salib]

62. Thanks for the clarification.

I still do not fully understand, though. When you say "the terms remain binding on all signatories", aren't you referring to binding under international law, not under the consititution. THerefore, we could "legally", at least under our own constitutional framework, change the enforcement provisions in our law to "define" what is meant by the treaty, right? If so, we would be an "outlow" under international law, but we would be "legal" under our own set of constitutional law. Am I missing something?

[mmonk]

53. I've always thought that picture ought to be

made into a poster with the caption, "Welcome to the Culture of Life" and sent to the churches across America.

[TahitiNut]

17. "Only partisan politics has kept him in office."

Exactly. The abysmal blindness of partisanship is a rot in any democracy, imho. This is why I'm an independent. Partisans are typically people who cannot think for themselves - hero-worshippers and groupies incapable of assessing the issues and underlying principles for themselves.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. That's what I was trying to tell ya all.

Those international treaties mean that an international tribunal doesn't have to honor any retro-active laws enacted by the Congress. If such a tribunal were ever to take place, Bush will forever be held up in his Crawford pig farm, living the remainder of his life in fear that Cindy Sheehan will come over to ask for a cup of sugar.

[TankLV]

64. NATIONAL law - the US Constitution - also prohibit RETROACTIVE laws...

It's clearly stated in the Constitution - bunkerboy can't make his actions legal after the fact either.

They're caught both ways.

But if a REPUKE congress does NOTHING, it won't matter shit...

[redacted]

22. Thank you AGAIN Kpete!

You're a rock star around here. Extreme K&R.

[indepat]

23. Every Congressperson who votes to support a RW agenda conflicting

with the supreme law of the law and who otherwise supports other actions and policies in contradiction of the supreme law of the land should, IMNSHO, be impeached along with everyone in the administration who has done so. And what does that make tens of millions of Amerikans who still support and march to the every beat of their drummer?

[mcg]

51. It makes them traitors to our country.

What they are attempting, and for the time being actually doing, is quite literally a coup.

This act the Bushbots want to pass is unconstitutional and can be ruled so by the Supreme Court or overturned by the next Congress.

[elehhhhna]

24. bless your heart, you've made my day. K&R

[elehhhhna]

25. Rumour : Bush thinks "a trip to the Hague" means visiting his Moms

[bamacrat]

26. Yes, but they will find a way to do so before they leave office.

[redacted]

27. KICK

[dkofos]

28. They will still try

The BASTARDS

[Disturbed]

29. "Convention Against Torture.

All it takes is for one signatory country.

There are aprox. 135 countries. How many countries would sign on to this, I wonder?

[Dem2theMax]

41. Right about now,

I can only think of two that wouldn't. US and the UK.
Oh, Saudi Arabia. After all, they ARE *'s buddies. Maybe?

Oh Hugo, where ARE you? Get the ball rolling. :evilgrin:

[spanone]

32. Another K and one more R.

[southern_belle]

33. It just can't happen

soon enough! :hi:

[Divine Discontent]

34. wtg sister kpete! this is so true n/t

[upi402]

35. corporatocracy on both side of aisle keeps him protected

I need my medicine. Time for a Rx refill of my Effemall tablets...

[Joanne98]

36. YES!

[madrchsod]

37. that concept dawned on me last week...he can`t do what he wants

nor can the congress. it takes an international meeting to change the convention-google- and you`ll run across the red cross/crescent website-geneva convention website. what he will do is ignore the treaty/conventions in their entirety.

[bloom]

38. that's good. nt

[AtomicKitten]

39. best news I've heard today

eom

[bleever]

42. Fear and trembling

grips the White House these days, it would seem, and with good reason.

Thank you for this post.

[earth mom]

43. Awesome News....but!

Okay, so I'm editing my post because I just don't trust those bastards to let themselves get caught. I wanted to be positive and was for what? 10 minutes...but then I read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2172282

and now I'm feeling really uneasy again. Sorry to be the downer on this thread, but I can't help it after all the horrors we've seen the past 5+ years.... :scared:

[Imagevision]

44. This is why Bush will stoop to any level not to lose house/senate power

If Dems win back the house, legitimate investigations and over-sight iare restored and this president will be making the proverbial; "it's an on going investigation and I'm not allowed to comment on it until the investigations have been completed"

Bush will have geneva convention probs among other things! Bush goes to war under false and fabricated intel and gives slamdunl the medal of freedom award for his short comings...

November elections will dictate the direction this country will be headed!

[alfredo]

45. instant poster

They will read it and google it.

[mmonk]

57. Hope so. Good idea.

[alfredo]

58. It would be good for targeting middle class and downtown

business districts. It would be good for saturation.

We need to speak the truth, that bush and his inner circle are war criminals. By making it "legal" makes congress complicit in war crimes.

[sofa king]

46. Um, Indian affairs guy checking in.

As I write this, the United States is in violation of at least three dozen treaties with American Indian tribes, has been for a hundred and thirty-five years, and nobody is doing anything about it. Just last week I saw a Congressional leader enter a fraudulent document into the record in order to avoid meeting a treaty obligation (and no, I won't elaborate, and please don't screw me over by correctly guessing here).

The highest law of the land is being ignored because the law is unprofitable and inexpedient, and the people seeking relief are not considered worthy of relief.

That's the dark secret of America. The United States has never followed its own laws except where it was advantageous to the people who control the United States; the United States has never adhered to the Constitution when there's money to be made. Thanks to ten generations of Americans working day and night to figure out how to rip off our Native American peoples, huge rents have been torn in the fabric of our law, and the only reason those same tactics haven't been used against the people at large is because they haven't had to yet.

But maybe Bush has fucked up badly enough that he'll have to flaunt the law in our faces, and when he does, I guess we'll all know a little better what it means to be an American Indian.

[mcg]

54. It is shameful and shocking.

I learned about the United States committing genocide against and breaking treaties with American Indians in junior high (long ago) by reading 'Custer Died for Your Sins', not a perfect book but very informative. I read it for a book report. Not suprisingly, I was not assigned this book. They didn't teach any of this in schools and I suspect they still don't.

[Marr]

59. Couldn't agree more.

People who think this bunch is ever going to be criminally prosecuted by a US court are just naive. Law is not binding to the people who control the government.

[thereismore]

60. Indian tribes are screwed because they are hidden inside the US. These

guys that are being tortured have been taken into custody in other countries. The world is paying attention, believe me. Germany is ready to throw the book on *. And so are we, millions of us!

[Selatius]

47. True, but laws are dead if nobody enforces them.

Noam Chomsky's quotation is in my signature precisely for this reason. The law is meaningless if those who are tasked with carrying out the law shirk their duty. It then falls back on the people themselves, and if they don't do anything, if they don't step up, then nothing happens, which means the law may as well not exist in practice even if it still exists on paper.

[cassiepriam]

50. He will just get the amendment then. He has the power.

Good sociopaths don't break the laws, they make them.

[Chicago1]

52. Bush is getting INDICTED and MAYBE impeached

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE with all the crimes that have been committed that this CRIMINAL MAFIA will not be held accountable for the crimes that have been committed. There are TO MANY scandals for them to get away with their crimes.


START THE REVOLUTION
START THE IMPEACHMENT

[G_j]

56. Torture and Accountability, The War Crimes Act of 1996

article | posted June 28, 2005 (July 18, 2005 issue)

Torture and Accountability
Elizabeth Holtzman


<snip>
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

The War Crimes Act of 1996


No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

<snip>



The key question is not whether detainees in Iraq were subjected to inhuman treatment in violation of the War Crimes Act, but how high up the responsibility goes for those abhorrent acts. Under well-established principles of international law, officials in the chain of command who order inhuman treatment or who, knowing about it, fail to stop it are responsible. The "chain of command" doctrine is undoubtedly applicable to War Crimes Act prosecutions. But even if it weren't, higher-ups could be held responsible under the principles of conspiracy or aiding and abetting the crime under normal federal criminal law. This was surely the reason that Gonzales wanted to block future prosecutions of higher-ups by "prosecutors and independent counsels."
<snip>

[thereismore]

61. Yes, the law seems to be very clear. YOU CAN SQUIRM BUT YOU CAN'T

HIDE, mister Resident. God's mills turn slowly but surely - my grandma used to say.

[1620rock]

63. No, I am afraid that these people are 'above' the law...

...(and one step ahead of it) in every sense of the word. :mad: