George Bush has finally created a Constitutional crisis...

[kentuck]

He has created turmoil and confusion in the rubberstamp Congress. Even after the Supreme Court laid down the law about military tribunals and such, Mr Bush wants to find a way around the law. He's always been successful in the past. The House, including the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, did not challenge his proposal. They were unwitting fools, ready to lead us all over the cliff. Why they are even in Congress is beyond me??

Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham stood up to the President. In effect, they told him that we could not "legalize" torture or change the rules of the Geneva Convvention. The House Republicans have decided they will go along with whatever the Senate comes up with because they don't have the knowledge or the good sense to do the right thing on their own. It interferes with their political agenda. Democrats are mostly sitting back and watching the Republicans self-destruct.

Mr Bush is in a real pickle. He says he wants to keep our young men from being tried as "war criminals". Chances are that if our "young men" are tried as war criminals, so will their leaders. The Geneva Convention is an agreement between nations that cannot be changed by the US Congress. It would not be Constitutional. And the Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners or "detainees" still retain certain rights. Mr Bush, on the sly, has transferred 14 prisoners from "secret prisons" in Europe, which in itself is in violation of the Geneva Convention rules, and put them down in the island of Cuba.

The Senate wants to prevent Mr Bush and his friends from being tried as "war criminals", pure and simple. They must find away around this mess that we call laws and treaties. Is it too late to call Poppy and Jim Baker? Can they save him one more time?

[calimary]

1. I don't know if they can save him one more time. I hope not, of course.

But somehow he's always weaseled out, up til now.

Yet there is such a thing as the Peter Principle, wherein you rise to the level of your incompetence. He certainly has. Perhaps his corner-cutting and cheating will also finally have risen to its outer limit.

[Beausoleil]

14. The Peter Principle

applied to Mr. Bush decades ago. He has risen so far above his level of incompetence, he is the exception to the rule.

[sutz12]

2. George Bush IS a Constitutional crisis. nt

[indepat]

11. Repuke senate is a constitutional crisis when they attempt to subvert

the Constitution, international treaty, statutory law, the rule of law and the laws of humanity. Each and every senator and congressmen who try to subvert should be impeached and removed for office IMO, but what do I know? Besides almost every senator standing for re-election and every congressman who attempts to subvert will almost surely be returned to office by the electorate.

[Finder]

3. It truly is but it is being spun as "politics" to the average joe...

thanks to talk radio bringing up "Lincoln did it" to make it seem like it is acceptable. Lincoln did it in a state of rebellion. We are not in the midst of a rebellion, nor have we been invaded which is what the Constitution states are the prerequisites for suspension.

[formercia]

19. The Merryman Case re Habeas Corpus

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/lincoln/html/chapter_05.html

[Finder]

20. Interesting site...

and very easy to understand.

[Totallybushed]

4. Actually, and this is a question,

can't nations withdraw from treaties on their own? I'm just trying to get a proper understanding of what 'sovereignty' means in international relations. In other words, doesn't the United States have the right to withdraw from any treaty it has signed by informing the other countries of it? And when the treaty is somewhat ambiguously constructed, as the Geneva Conventions are, doesn't that leave a lot of room for disagreement between well-intentioned people?

Please don't flame me. I'm not trying to justify what GWB is trying to do. The word 'despicable' leaps to mind. What I'm trying to do is find out what, exactly, are the legal ramifications of defining what the Geneva Conventions mean. If it means one thing to the Europeans, does that mean that it can't legally mean something else to the USA? In "illegal" non-combatants, hostage-takers, guerrillas, and terrorists were meant to be included, shouldn't they have said so instead of limiting the protection to 'civilians' and 'uniformed' military? The fact that they were deliberately excluded tends to make me thing that they were not supposed to be protected by the treaties, as written.

Which is not to say that they shouldn't be, but wouldn't it be better to get a new treaty that specifically protects these people? Otherwise, logically, I can't see why Congress can't re-interpret the treaties at any time. It shouldn't be done, of course, but I can't see why they can't.

So, if someone could explain it to me, I would be grateful.

[CJCRANE]

6. Surely there needs

to be a mechanism for re-interpreting them?

Not just ignoring them, then at a later date trying to figure out a way round them.

[Totallybushed]

7. I agree, but

does this lie with the legislative or the execcutive branch?

What I'm calling for is legal clarification. does it need to go to court?

[kentuck]

10. You explained the "constitutional" crisis quite well...

thank you.

What would be the ramifications if the US withdrew from the Geneva Convention agreement? Surely they could do that, but what would it mean? What would it say to the rest of the world.

[Totallybushed]

16. I don't know.

But the US government needs to look out of the interests of its citizens first, then the rest of the world's. Just like every other government. The thing that makes people think that the US government is different is the enormous power that it wields, but that doesn't afffect the principle.

What does it say to the rest of the world? As I said, I don't know. except that it probably says, "this does not serve our interests and concerns properly", as least as interpreted by the current regime. One more reason, wouldn't you say, to change administrations?

But the point is, as I understand it, countries do have the right to withdraw from treaties. This doesn't change just because to do so would not only be wrong, but also a blunder.

I think the best arguments that can be made against this decision must be made from the standpoint of what's best for the USA, because, in my observation, most Americans don't give a rat's behind for what the rest of the world thinks about them, especially the "Euroweenies", as I have heard it expressed. This too is a blunder, but I think it is a fact.

[kentuck]

21. So, the question is:

What is in the interest of the United States and our troops abroad? If they get captured, would this be in their best interests? Would we lost any respect and credibility we may have gained with our allies. Then, it is left to define why it wouod be in our "best interests"?

[Totallybushed]

22. I guess that's the question,

alright.

Although, I don't think the Geneva Convention is protecting us much right now. If American troops are captured, expect them to be treated like others that have been captured by the terrorists.

It's more of a moral question to me.

[kentuck]

23. They rode into town, an immoral gang of lawbreaking bullies...

..headed for the bar to drink up all the power. They would make their own rules and obey their own laws. The Sheriff was out of town. They had no qualms of punishing anyone that got in their way. Rules were made for other people. No one would dare question their motives. They were right. They would make decisions for everyone else so long as the decisions benefitted themselves. They robbed the bank in broad daylight. Everybody turned the other way. They were only emboldened in their arrogance and greed.

[happyslug]

13. The problem is multi-state treaties become evidence of general rule of War

At the end of WWII, the US had a problem when it came to trying Japanese War Criminals, Japan had NEVER signed the Geneva Convention. The US solution was to rule the Convention was evidence of what was a war crime under International law AND JAPAN WAS BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL LAW EVEN IF JAPAN NEVER SIGNED THE TREATIES.

Thus, while it is consider normal for one state in a two state treaty to break the treaty, multi-national Treaties can still bind a country that has withdrawn from it or never signed the treaty.

Thus Bush just can not withdraw from the Geneva Convention, to do so means nothing under International law. In fact the situation for Bush and the people around him merely withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions would make their positions worse. Under the Geneva Conventions ALL OTHER NATIONS must give preference for trying War Criminals to the War Criminal's Country (i.e. the nation he is a Citizen of) OR to the Country where the crime occurred. In affect, if the US withdrew from the Geneva Conventions, that would be clear evidence that the US would NOT try American War Criminals and as such any country could (and under the Treaty Must).

Thus Bush does NOT want to withdraw, he wants the protection that he can only be tried in US courts (and subject to US laws including the right of getting a Presidential pardon). If Bush withdraw from the Conventions, bush then can be tried by ANY COUNTRY Bush may happen to be in, as opposed to only by the US under the Terms of the Geneva Conventions.

Thus Bush does NOT want to withdraw from the treaties, he wants to narrow them so much that anything he does is legal under them.

[Totallybushed]

17. Thanks for the info. n/t

[CJCRANE]

5. Something's gotta give...

either the Shrubster or the Constitution.

They can't both hold out.

[Supersedeas]

8. I wonder if the SC Justices watch the House Committee meeting to see how

viciously they are attacked for merely interpreting the law?

[elehhhhna]

9. I love the smell of mutiny in the morning.

[w4rma]

12. It isn't like he hasn't tried hard enough to create one. (nt)

[savemefromdumbya]

15. Tailoring laws to suit themselves!

lawbreaker Bush - you just have to look at his past drunken driving etc.

However, Cheney is the one determined to push his Nazi agenda through. They are tailoring laws to suit themselves

[Gregorian]

18. Their War on Democracy will fail.

And it will fail for precisely the reason that the attempt to revise the law to retroactively protect the perpetrators will. The international community has been through hell. America has been comfortable. And it's from the outside that we will be saved. I believe the continuation of American democracy will be delivered by Cesarian. Pulled into the 21st century by those who recognize fascism. By those who have lived through wars.

I believe all animals including the human want to live in a state of comfort. There really is no doubt. As the world grows, that objective can best be met through comprimise. Democracy is the world's way of achieving what most of us want anyways. The emperor has no place in the world today.

America is all business. It utterly fails in it's void where there should otherwise be something human. They chide us on our lattes, and our bleeding hearts. But they can't see they are not even human. They value money so highly that they let the corporations bait us with their false comforts. Now the entire planet is dying, along with our souls. This country is barren.

We rely on the maturity of the common denominator of humanity to set us on the right path. No more Hiroshimas. No more McDonald's. No more wars of aggression. And it boils down to a less aggressive lifestyle, and learning how to be human. We must learn from the old societies on earth, how to behave like a society. How to be human. Diversity is not something to be avoided. No more Hitlers.

Well, now I'm just rambling.

[oldboy101]

24. A few decent Republican senators...

McCain, Warner, Graham, are the ones being acknowledged as objecting to scraping the Geneva Convention, Article 3 and allowing torture. Not so widely publicized is the fact that Collins, Snowe, Spector, Chafee, have also come out against it.

To be sure this would be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court would rule it so. But it is appalling to realize that there are Bushistas so bent on covering their criminal asses that they are willing to promote legislation legalizing torture. Whatever happened to morality in this country? Have we really sunk this low?

I would hope that the electorate will wake up and send many of these folks packing this November. Then we should impeach Bush, Cheney, and Company and turn them over to the Hague for trial as war criminals! This is the only way that America can cleanse itself IMO.

[bvar22]

25. Does anyone have a list of the Democrats on the Armes services Committee

who voted with the Republicans FOR Torture, Secret Prisons, and Secret Trials?

This is a list of Ranking Democratic Members from the website.
I cannot find a list of individual votes.

Carl Levin (Michigan)

Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Dayton (Minnesota)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)