War Crimes Protection Act -- "opposition" IGNORES most destructive part

[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).

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. This is so blatantly unconstitutional

even if it passes it will never be enacted.

Add another log to the war crimes evidence pile.

[pat_k]

5. Yup -- more evidence of consciousness of guilt and malice aforethought

This bill, the actions described in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=503566&mesg_id=503566">Alberto Mora's memo (outgoing outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy) -- over and over, they acknowledge their actions are crimes. They look for cover in their fascist fantasies, but their words and actions make it crystal clear that they do not expect those fantasies to hold.

Like the felonious five did in Bush v. Gore (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call it Treason), these people, "left their incriminating fingerprints everywhere, showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt on their part."

malice aforethought
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.

[glitch]

6. They all need to be indicted for war crimes and cover up of war crimes.

I am glad they are doing this, hopefully it exposes them legally as well.

No statute of limitations on war crimes either suckers.

[pat_k]

13. Two Step Plan: (1) Impeach and Remove (2) Turn over to the Haig

The two step plan to redeem the soul of the nation.

[glitch]

16. Step (3) Conviction (4) Imprisonment (5) Seizure of all assets.

After we get our soul back, we're going to need to recover physically.

[pat_k]

18. . . (6) Impeach the felonious five for Bush v. Gore (yes. even posthumous

(6) Impeach the felonious five for Bush v. Gore (Yes. We can impeach Rehnquist posthumously.)

Recovery requires coming to terms with the horror of that stolen election, and the many failures that made it possible (Congress on January 6th, allowing fascist appeals to "complexity" and legal technicality to trump reality . . .).

And (7) purging Our Government of their cronies and co-conspirators will require a concerted effort.

[glitch]

21. Completely agree, and add Step(8) break up the corporate media and

prosecute collaborators. Step(9) prosecute the war profiteers. Step(10)Apologize to the World and pay reparations.

[pat_k]

25. Step-by-step, we will redeem the nation and form a more perfect union!

[cool user name]

49. Step 10 is extremely important ...

... as it will demonstrate that we are a nation of civilized people.

Step 11 (equally as important) ... unmerge this unholy union of corporation and government.

[cool user name]

48. Let's make it happen. n/t

[cool user name]

47. Your "None Dare Call It Treason" link doesn't work.

Can you provide the link please as I am interested? Thanks.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Because you say so, or will we have to wait for it to go to the SCOTUS?

...and you know what they will decide....

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. It takes years to get to the SCOTUS

that's why I'm willing to say it won't be enacted. There will be numerous constitutional challenges launched if this abomination every gets signed into law.

[mom cat]

19. I am worried that SCOTUS will be so packed with Bush appointees

that SCOTUS won't recognize any rights except the rights of corporations to screw us and the rights of the government to disappear us for complaining. Where the Fuck are the Dems?

[pat_k]

24. As part of our national redemption, we must impeach Scalia, Thomas,

. . . Kennedy, O'Coonor & Rehnquist for the criminal Bush v. Gore edict. (However long it takes to make a reality, the House can bring charges and call on Senate to pass judgment, whether or not they are still on the court, even posthumously.)

As the nation comes to terms with the horror of Bush v. Gore, it will become clear that both Roberts and Alito were unlawfully appointed by an unlawful President. Perhaps they will see the writing on the wall and step down. If not, Alito must be Impeached and removed for advocating the treasonous, unconstitutional, and Un-American fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive.

We don't need to worry about a stacked court. We just need to fight to make the first step in our redemption a reality and Impeach Bush and Cheney. Once that is accomplished, we move to the next step -- turning them, and their co-conspirators, over to the international criminal court.

So, we take it step-by-step. However long it takes, we will see that the felonious five face the judgment of the nation for Bush v. Gore and the horrors that crime precipitated.

[Wretched Refuse]

45. AND NEVER EVER FORGET

Albert (VO5) GONZALEZ.
IMPEACH, TRY, HANG., And not neccessarily in that order.
The ONLY question that will be asked is:
Hemp or Nylon?
What kind of rope for your hanging.
The list is long, I am lusting at the increased demand for rope frmo this cause.

[cool user name]

50. Why kill them?

So we can lower ourselves to their standards?

I think not.

Let them rot.

Besides, The Hague doesn't give death sentences and rightfully so.

[elehhhhna]

51. The BA's retirement compound:

[pat_k]

58. Alberto Mora's memo provides a good list to start from. . .

See the "Summary of Key Players" section of this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=503566

[chill_wind]

2. Kicking and nominating! nt

[Solly Mack]

3. Sure does

recommended...drive the point home and keep driving it home

[pat_k]

8. Even the phrase "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE". . .

. . .is abhorrent in a constitutional democracy.

Perhaps we can lobby Keith to put the spotlight on this bit.

I dropped him an email, but it would be great if there were more volume.

[Solly Mack]

10. And Senators are bragging on the news

-bragging-

about the "compromise" with Bush that allows his "program" to continue.

[pat_k]

12. . .and thus they become accessories after the fact. . .

Since "Bush's tribunals" constitute international war crimes, those who enable those crimes to be committed are accessories.

The co-conpirators in the White House may think they have successfully avoided prosecution "in any court of the United or its States or territories," but they can't save themselves from being turned over to the Haig.

Members of Congress -- both Democratic and Republican -- need to give this some hard thought. Do they really want to enable Bush, and thus make themselves eligible for prosecution in the international court??

[Realityhack]

4. Kick.

[countryjake]

7. Looks like they are just protecting themselves, all of them!

I think we need an intervention, badly. Is anybody out there?

[pat_k]

35. And now Congress is enabling them -- and becoming accessories. . .

. . .I wonder when it will occur to them that, try as they might to nullify our prohibitions against acts of torture in U.S. Code, they are still subject to judgement in the international court.

Each and every supporter of the War Criminals Protection Act, are themselves condoning and enabling international crime, and therefore open themselves up to prosecution. (I suppose they figure they can hide within the borders of the U.S. like Kissinger.)

[mmonk]

9. Opposition? Where in the hell is any opposition

other than civil rights lawyers and the people? NO DAMN WHERE AND I'M SICK OF IT. They're too busy saying they'll do security "right", fight "the war on terror" "right", and would have done Iraq "right". Just shadow politics with no substance. It's up to us. It's our fight.

[pat_k]

14. It's tragic. Members of Congress willing . . .

. . .to do what they must to fulfill their sworn duty to support and defend the constitution are AWOL.

It is mystifying -- what can they be thinking? The silence on Impeachment is insanity.

What the heck do they think they can accomplish with an Executive that rules by signing statement? Winning the House or Senate is meaningless when the laws passed aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

What "business of the nation" do can they think they can make progress on?

And, what are they afraid of? That the right will get get riled because the Dems will impeach? The right already IS riled because they believe the Dems will impeach -- they just think Dems are too weak and hypocritical to admit it (and they are right -- except that unless we push them, most are too wimpy to do it). If Dems stood up and demanded impeachment, they would probably get some of the folks on the right, just for showing they have the spine to stand on principle!

Treason is defined as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign." In the United States, it is the collective will of the people that is sovereign.

The occupants of the White House not only terrorized us into war with baseless threats of mushroom clouds, they are violating countless laws; invoking a fictional right to do so (e.g. claiming authority to continue criminal surveillance of Americans without warrants). Bush and Cheney are leading a conspiracy to violate our collective will. Their actions constitute treason against our constitutional democracy.

Bush and Cheney have made it crystal clear that nothing short of Impeachment will put an end to their treasonous exercise of unrestrained power.

[gully]

40. What members of congress?

eom

[Wretched Refuse]

53. I really think

that even when we do impeach, they will fick a perverbial booger in our face, and say FUCK YOU, MAKE ME GET OUT OF OFFICE.

[jazzjunkysue]

17. Can someone give us the bottom line on this, in english?

What's changed?

[chill_wind]

20. kicking! nt

[Beelzebud]

22. Par for the course.

I'm starting to wonder why I even give a shit. No one in Washington seems to.

Oh they give a shit. They give a shit about destroying everything that made America what it once was.

[file83]

23. So that's what all those Million man detention camps are for...

...http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html

I wonder how much more time we have left.

[pat_k]

26. Enough time to kick some Democratic ass. . .

. . .and keep chipping away at the wall of rationalization that is silencing them.

They are trapped in a bubble -- heaven knows what they think they are accomplishing by "laying low," but as long as we have freedom of movement and a voice we can go to their offices and ASK, "What are you thinking??" We can challenge their answers. We can shame them and show them how insane they sound when they try to tip toe around the moral imperative to Impeach.

We can break through their rationalizations -- but the walls are thick. Demanding action is critical, but as long as they are allowed to hang onto their baseless rationalizations, our demands will roll off like water off a duck's back.

Face-to-face, back and forth dialog with staffers and members of Congress is absolutely essential if we are to elicit and challenge their screwed up beliefs.

[elehhhhna]

52. I think the 2001 Anthrax mailings and subsequent wiretaps have

kept many of them quiet.

[pat_k]

56. As we lobbied Senators to reject the Ohio electors on Jan 6th, and . . .

. . . to filibuster Alito, it became clear that they are victims of a host of wrong-headed "everybody knows" rationalizations and "conventional wisdom."

The thing is, within the DC bubble, their idiocy is rarely, if ever, directly challenged. (And gets reinforced day in and day out.)

Demands to do X or do Y are lobbed in, and sometimes the volume is sufficient to move them to action, but their belief system is rarely, if ever, directly challenged in one-on-one dialog. For example, they tend to focus 100% on risks and 0% on potential benefits or moral imperatives ("We'll be crushed by the backlash beast and be labeled 'obstructionists' if we filibuster.") Or they can't imagine violating conventions that are exclusive to their insular world, not realizing that when they are stopped by that type of peer pressure, their failure to act looks insane to the people "out here." ("Presidential power includes nominating -- it would violate Senate "rules" of decorum to block a vote.")

Dialog is the only way to get through when you are dealing with a tangled web of belief. It needs to be one-on-one because if you clobber one thing, they usually find another to retreat behind. You have to boil things down to simple truths and moral principles, and figure out the questions that leave no escape.

For example, the key question on January 6th was this:

Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you?

On January 6th, 2005, will you uphold the objection to electors from a state where this is the documented reality, or become complicit with the perpetrators of this condition?

Each "Yeah, but", that a staffer tries to escape behind is an opportunity to challenge another baseless, irrational beltway belief. (And I have yet to hear a valid reason for inaction when their oath demands action.)

Before we can effectively challenge their rationalizations, we need to find out what they are. The most effective way to do that is to ask. Members and staffers really are just people. We can seek meetings as citizen lobbyists and talk to them. We need to learn to spend more time eliciting their reasons for not acting, and challenging those reasons. If we are doing all the talking, we probably aren't making much of a dent.

Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch with each effort to push them into action through dialog. Many of the same screwed up, deeply ingrained, rationalizations underlie their failure to act in many, many, instances, so when we challenge those beliefs, we are clearing away road blocks and making it more likely they will act in the future, even if they fail to stand up in a given situation. (In case you are interested, for the Jan 6th effort, we pulled together some counter-arguments -- both specific to Jan 6 and more general -- in http://thedeanpeople.org/jan6points.html.)

Anyway, my point is that, in my experience, it is not a fear of death in another attack of some sort that is keeping them silent. Their fears and rationalizations for silence are of a different sort -- and can be challenged. They really are just people.

But, if it were fear for their lives that is keeping them silent, we can challenge them by pointing out that we expect the men and women of our armed services to risk their lives to fulfill their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less of them? Why should they expect less of themselves?

[elehhhhna]

57. They are all about Politics and nothing about Governance.

Time to clean House. And Senate.

[jazzjunkysue]

27. K&R. Can someone give us the bottom line on what has changed?

Thanks.

[pat_k]

28. Text of the so-called "compromise" isn't out of Senate committee. . .

. . and it sounds like they are now talking about a "framework for a compromise" -- so they probably haven't nailed much down and I doubt they have done the markup required prior to taking a vote.

Sorry I missed your earlier query.

Warner's comment, "Once the president puts signature to paper, that's when we'll have a deal." is probably a good assessment of how close they really are to a "deal." The only "deal" that may have been struck today may be to shut up about their differences in public.

Each committee does it's own markup For example, see the http://www.house.gov/hasc/pressreleases/9-13-06HunterOpeningStatement.pdf">press release following the House Armed Services Committee vote (it only provides a generalized description of the changes they supposely recommended).

There may be easy ways to get the text of the recommended changes that come out of committee, but when there is nothing specific on the committee's site, I'm not sure where to find it.

So, we don't know what has changed. Since I haven't heard any direct attacks on the "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE" items, I wouldn't expect to see that abominable section deleted or changed.

[jazzjunkysue]

44. Thankyou. It's more a list of what to worry about than eliminate.

"First, in Section 3, Congress authorizes the establishment of military commissions for alien unlawful enemy combatants, which is the legal term we use to define international terrorists and those who aid and support them, in a new separate chapter of Title 10 of the USC Code, Chapter 47A. While this new chapter is based upon the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it creates an entirely new structure for these trials.
In this mark we provide standards for the admission of evidence, including hearsay evidence and other statements, that are adapted to military exigencies and provide the military judge the necessary discretion to determine if the evidence is reliable and probative."


So, we have prisoners of war, and we have enemy combatants, which receive different levels of protection. Now, we have a third, and a whole new set of rules for them.

I can just hear the defense: "But, your honor, our poor uneducated soldiers can't keep track of all the specific details, and they just couldn't be expected to abide by all these confusing regulation."

[pat_k]

29. Better label *** War CRIMINALS Protection Act **

War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 is a better name for this bill than War Crimes Protection Act.

"Criminals" personalizes it a way that is more effective.

We spend way too much time tying to "make sure it doesn't hapeen again" or on fixing systems that allow wrongs to be committed. We need to get better at going after the Wrong-Doers.

It is the Criminals in the administration that we must stop. Bush rules by signing statement. Seeking to pass law to put a stop to their crimes is useless.

[ninkasi]

30. What has all of the death and destruction

In Iraq been for? Why bother to protect the way of life of our own previous democracy, when that country is being judged incompetent, and subject to more and more whims of the dictator running the show. That's you, Bush. The best way I have found of figuring out what is going on is that for every benefit of a democracy that is established in Iraq, we are asked to surrender one here. It seems as if there isn't enough freedom to go around, so Bush has decided that Iraq will now be governed under the democracy he demands that we surrender to him.

He is not only the worst president in American history, but also the worst possible person for the job. He was foisted on us by a Supreme Court which was demonstrably biased, and that was just phase one. The other phases will be inflicted on us as he sees fit, if he has his way. He apparently has decided that this undeclared war gives him powers that are completely supreme, and he will not bend to the demands of the Legislative branch, or the judicial branch, of government.

You are right, we can not afford to leave the power of the United States in the hands of this corrupt, arrogant thug.

[pat_k]

36. Not just "demonstrably biased". . .

. . .http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">treason.

And impeaching the felonious five for Bush v. Gore needs to be high on our "to do" list.

As part of our national redemption, we must impeach Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Coonor & Rehnquist for the criminal Bush v. Gore edict. (However long it takes to make a reality, the House can bring charges and call on Senate to pass judgment, whether or not they are still on the court, even posthumously.)

[Senator]

31. The whole effort is a fig leaf at best

The crimes have already been committed. 3 full years worth.

The matter has already been adjudicated by the highest court here. Geneva was and is the law.

How many more Americans will implicate themselves as accessories after the fact?

Will our once-great nation ever redeem itself by impeaching, removing, prosecuting, and binding over to the Hague the guilty parties?

If we fail to do so, the terrorists win.

==

[TrueStory]

32. the "classified" thing is scary as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/washington/21cnd-detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said the agreement had two key points. “Classified information will not be shared with the terrorists” tried before the tribunals, he said. And “the very important program of interrogation continues.”

you might end up easily charged with something "classified"

[pat_k]

34. The whole "classified evidence" bit is a big fat red herring. . .

. . .For decoades, courts-martial have been dealing with the balance between protecting classified material, protecting the rights of defendents, and seeking to find truth in the service of justice.

The ONLY purpose of Bush's War Criminals Protection Act is to protect the War Criminals in the Executive Branch from the punishment that their actions demand in any civilized society.

Any claim to any other purpose doesn't pass the smell test.

The bill itself is evidence of consciousness of guilt and malice aforethought. As they look for cover in their fascist fantasies, their words and actions make it crystal clear that they do not expect those fantasies to hold. In his memo, Alberto Mora (outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy) provides an excellent factual summary of the timeline and players in the Bush regime's War Crimes. Over and over their actions demonstrate a conspiracy to knowingly commit, and escape consequences of, crimes (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=503566&mesg_id=503566">summary of memo).

Like the felonious five did in Bush v. Gore (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi">None Dare Call it Treason), these people, "left their incriminating fingerprints everywhere, showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt on their part."

From http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060227fa_fact">the Memo

Just a few months ago, Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity. . .

. . One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s "flexibility." It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal. . .

In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that "it’s a statute. It exists—we’re not free to disregard it. We’re bound by it. It's been adopted by the Congress. And we’re not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.". . .

----------
malice aforethought
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others.

[Wretched Refuse]

54. OH, IN MY DREAMS....

"Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.". .

Pretty please, with a cherry on top.

Dear Santa,

[Joanne98]

33. We need a list of who voted for this!

[gully]

37. Has it come to a full vote yet?

eom

[Joanne98]

38. I don't know!

[gully]

41. I don't belive it has. It went through a small Republican litmus test

and we are awaiting a full vote. Unless someone shows me otherwise, I think this is much ado about nothing in terms of blaming Dems.

[rman]

39. They support this, but denounce the guy

who calls the one who is responsible for it "the devil".

What does that make them? The devil's pawns?

[Senator]

42. The Deal "Enhances" Rights: Now Both Inalienable AND UNENFORCEABLE

It poses a philosophical question:

"If a war crime is committed in a secret prison deep enough in a forest, does the screaming make a sound?"

We're now wearing our heart of darkness on our sleeve.

==

[Wretched Refuse]

55. Constitution II

Rights: Now Both Inalienable AND UNENFORCEABLE

I like that.

Hello Mr. Immovable object, meet Mr. Irrestibile force.
You two should get along mightily.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[cool user name]

46. What are we going to do about it?????

I mean every year new laws that are absolutely unAmerican are introduced and yet nothing happens.

So what is going to be done about this?