Op-ed: Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

[ProSense]

Other Views

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

September 23, 2006

BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Snip...

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Snip...

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

more...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref23b.html

[msongs]

1. not sure there is a "pardon" for war crimes against humanity

and certainly not in international law like those used at nuremburg.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[MissWaverly]

2. If the US wiggles out of this, God help us all

The Geneva Conventions were instigated for a reason, to insure humane treatment, to set
boundaries to prevent us form sinking to the levels of barbarism as a world. If we leave
that path to pursue some rhetorical spin; we will find ourselves lost to common decency
and mercy.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. But but but all those terrahists in Iraq, you know, the ones

that never would have been have vital intelligence that we need to keep the fires burning so to speak. Holy crap, our usurpers have gone bloody mad.

[MissWaverly]

5. Hitler gave us a brutal lesson in what no mercy is like

I know you are being sarcastic but how many are still using the old defense, we are fighting
them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

What a total lack of humanity can do for a country and the world, now there are those who
will break any rule just because it's there. We have accomplished nothing, we have alienated
the world, and most of those tortured have not been charged after 5 years, a significant
number have been released with no compensation. Is the policy we wish to pursue, for what
purpose, to create another 9-11 attack on us, to punish innocents for the extremism of a
few.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Someone should swab the podium at the U.N. for

sulphur just to be sure.... and like the poster said, (Forget the name) Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it....

[MissWaverly]

12. Well, I have been thinking about this/how would you stop Bush

Say he was constantly trying to manipulate your elections, create a coup to drive you out.
How would you stop a bully, embarrass him in front of the world. That way anymore dirty
tricks would be on parade in front of the world.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Recommended.

[emcguffie]

6. I think the USA is also a party to the Convention against Torture.

Isn't it?

The Convention against Torture also makes torture illegal. Plain and simple. Actually, it's the

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment

that kind of says it all. Sorry I don't have the text.

[tritsofme]

9. Yes but with the caveat that:

"nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

[emcguffie]

13. What could that be?

What could a convention against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment require that would violate our constitution? Just curious.

[tritsofme]

16. "as interpreted by the United States"

means "as interpreted by the Dick Cheney"

Those are the operative words there.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Go Liz!!!

[karynnj]

10. The 1996 date of the act may explain

the backdate to 1997 - as that may be when it came into effect.

This is a great editorial.

[Marrak]

11. See it for what it is...

"it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11."


<>

[ProSense]

14. Callous:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2844359&mesg_id=2844359

[lonestarnot]

15. Just like one of the 750 signing statements stopped any

investigation of the Pentagon for the 'disappeared' 21 billion dollars in Iraq.