Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act

[kerrygoddess]

Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act
September 24th, 2006 @ 11:55 am

There have been few details released about what is really in the Bush “military tribunal” legislation, but we do know that it seeks to provide immunity from prosecution for war crimes for CIA interrogators. Ah, but here’s the caveat… that clause in the legislation would also protect Bush and no doubt that’s what’s been driving him to push this legislation, the desire to protect his own, morally bankrupt self.

Former New York congresswoman, Elizabeth Holtzman has an OP/ED in the Chicago Sun Times that gives a clear view of how Bush and his cohorts are seeking to cover his ass. The urgency behind Bush’s legislation has everything to do with the “possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats.” Democrats must stand against this legislation now…

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.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

MORE & LINS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4273#more-4273

[Miss Chybil]

1. Seems if he could change the law, somebody else could change it back.

So much for being a nation of laws, not men.

[MADem]

4. Precisely. They CAN do that, and on odd occasion, they do.

Prohibition was one of the biggies where that scenario happened...

[valerief]

2. Why doesn't he pardon himself? I think dictators can do that. nt

[kerrygoddess]

3. That's the point

the legislation provides the clause.

[valerief]

5. Duh. I should have read it first before replying. n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

6. but Bush HAS already broken the law why hasn't he been tried before now

[rodeodance]

8. do you think the House will call for impeachment?--or congress provide

hearings which will gather the evidence? (conners has been trying to no avail).

[savemefromdumbya]

9. but they are also be guilty of the crimes!

who is going to haul them all in?

[kerrygoddess]

13. We need to take back Congress first. N/T

[ShortnFiery]

10. If they want to be re-elected, they will impeach.

If we are fortunate enough to win The House, this should be an imperative. :grr:

Remember, THEY work for US. ;)

[rodeodance]

7. "the desire to protect his own, morally bankrupt self'---says it all.

......September 24th, 2006 @ 11:55 am

There have been few details released about what is really in the Bush “military tribunal” legislation, but we do know that it seeks to provide immunity from prosecution for war crimes for CIA interrogators. Ah, but here’s the caveat… that clause in the legislation would also protect Bush and no doubt that’s what’s been driving him to push this legislation, the desire to protect his own, morally bankrupt self.

Former New York congresswoman, Elizabeth Holtzman has an OP/ED in the Chicago Sun Times that gives a clear view of how Bush and his cohorts are seeking to cover his ass. The urgency behind Bush’s legislation has everything to do with the “possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats.” Democrats must stand against this legislation now…

[Vincardog]

11. Note to Democrats "This is why you have been keeping the damn powder dry":

[pat_k]

12. Call it what it is "War Criminals Protection Act of 2006" !!!

We can go a long way to killing this thing if we can insert the name War Criminals Protection Act into the noise machine.

Even Holtzman neglects perhaps the most abominable, and sweeping, part of their attempt to protect themselves (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.

So, now it's:

. . .We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable, UNENFORCEABLE, Rights.

The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 has ONE goal -- to protect the War Criminals in the Executive Branch from prosecution for the the war crimes they have committed (and continue to commit). This is what we need to focus on to kill this thing. No modification of provisions, no modifying definitions, can touch the contemptable goal.

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 enforce the most fundemental human rights for ANY OF US. 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.

We have EVERYTHING we need in the provisions for Courts-Martial in the Military Code of Justice and in the Geneva conventions, which are codified in our own Federal Statute under Title 18, Section 2441 (War Crimes). The War Crimainsl Protection Act does nothing but undermine our ability to go after the terrorists in our own midsts.

The War Crimainsl Protection Act CANNOT be "fixed" -- it must be killed. Seeking to "fix" it just promotes the the Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda that the Executive Branch requires unlimited power to "protect us."

I have yet to see a member of the Democratic leadership object to the "RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE" provision -- Spector is the only one to date, and he speaks in legalisms that fail to convey the true horror. {"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Sunday he "vigorously" disagrees with the habeas corpus provision of the bill." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400516.html">WP Article).

Wake up DEMS! (Where's my http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cluestick">Cluestick?)