The reason why we are even debating H 6166 and S 3930 is the result of

[rumpel]

the Bush administration's refusal to accept the International Criminal Court, which is now jeopardizing the foundation of this country and democracy.

Fighting terrorism is not a "war", as per legal definition. "A new kind of War", they say - to justify something they legally can not.

The "terrorists" are a lose group of people of multi-national origin and affiliation. It is a border-less crime. What gives the US sole jurisdiction over a terror act against US interests, i.e. embassy, installations, businesses or it's citizens that are "guests" of a sovereign country, to try those that commit an act of terror when such act is committed in that sovereign country? It does not, and Clinton wisely supported the International Criminal Court.

In contrast, the current administration resorts to pre-historic methods of a de facto "retaliation" and unilaterally asserting absolute dominance, in violation of negotiated and accepted International standards of conduct, by secretly abducting citizens of other nations from their domicile, by pre-emptily attacking sovereign countries as the "president" solely deems proper? " I am the decider, and I will interpret any law congress passes as I see fit." At what cost?

I believe, the only unbiased way to try such crimes is by either a third party or better yet, a tribunal consisting of many nations. The latter is and has been in place: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 & 1999. By utilizing such tribunal the US would never be a target of "increased" hatred around the globe.

The attack on US soil had elicited a solid unified condemnation by the International community. Had this government acted to bring Bin Laden et. al to the International Court, when there was universal approval to do so, whether ultimately it ended in utilizing military force, this would have provided true justice, acceptable and agreeable throughout the entire global community. No questions asked or debated anywhere in the World, and the terrorists would have been diminished in it's power.

In short, the recent NIE estimate of having created more radicals against US policies, thus increasing the threat to this country and it's citizens could have been prevented.

The administration and the GOP talk as if there only exists Geneva Article 3. None of these bills are necessary - the interpretations and clarifications are already spelled out. It is a matter of adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

One can only conclude that the true intent of this government is not to fight terrorism or bring justice to the victims of the crimes of terrorism.

reference:

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 5Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

Article 8 War crimes
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.


(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.


(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.


(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:


(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;


(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.
3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

in it's entirety:
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

Definitions of Terrorism (UN)

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

[uppityperson]

1. k&r

[kaneko]

2. The reason why

K&R

[brazil]

3. Not H6166... but H666

Or should be, at least.

[Kurovski]

4. K&R(nt)

[sarahlee]

6. A must read

Monkey's Paw

by Hunter

Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 04:02:47 PM CDT

This started as an email, sidled towards an essay, and meandered towards a post.

The torture bill is pernicious. That much is true; that much is undeniable. But we should not make the mistake of presuming it more than it is. It is not a Reichstag Fire. It is not. It is pernicious not for its scope, but for its hollowness, its complete legislative emptiness, dressed up in bloody bow. It is pernicious because it is simply a slapdash fiasco of commonplace Republican incompetence paired with commonplace Republican dismissal of law -- it is not going to create more torture than we have now, it simply attempts to legalize it (which it cannot do), give amnesty for it (which will last only as long as the first lawsuit), justify it (which will matter not a bit, in international law) and use it as a "toughness" stick (for election pandering to those sick and hollow voices among us that defend, support, and enjoy the thought that the United States does indeed torture people.) But it does not even solve the problem that the CIA allegedly needed solved -- clear enough rules on torture that their own people do not face war crimes for following Bush orders. They didn't get it. They're still on the hook, because this law cannot grant them closure, there. No law can.

So this is a merely another slide down the Devil's gullet, not a hard swallow. Do we think the torture would not continue, if this were defeated? Do we think it will get "worse", if it is passed? Hardly. It is a sick, cruel game by political children. Republicans know that "torture" seems "tough". Republicans know that a thrown rock will draw more blood than a good law. The Republicans want the fight on terror to be all about fear, all about toughness, all about the laws that need to be broken. Authoritarianism -- that is why these frames are chosen. To appeal to the unique, bluster-filled cowardice of the casual American conservative, and to those that can only measure their patriotism in other mens' blood.

The bill was instigated as slapdash buffoonery, and we will all pretend to take it as serious policy matter. It seeks to strip even more American rights, and invalidate more American laws. It seeks to remove Constitutional protections. And, of course, it seeks to provide mealy-mouthed, "compromising" wording to allow the United States of America to engage in the torture of prisoners under their control. No abandonment of Abu Ghraib, here; just acceptance. That was the Republican lesson learned from Abu Ghraib, from the capture, torture, and eventual exoneration and release of individuals from CIA-provided secret prisons. Not that we needed none of it, but that America needed some of it, a healthy dose, and that a healthy compromise would be one that authorized the deeds in advance, so long as, you know, the torture did not get out of control...

And it exists, all of it, because the administration is so devoid of competence, of strategy, of moral boundary, and of basic plan, in the war on terror, that legislation like this is literally all they can come up with.


It sounds horrific to say, and it is, but: allowing for the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody was intended as a distraction from weightier things. No, you should allow that to sink in. It is the truth. There is no pressing need for new torture-authorizing legislation. There is no value in taking up the pro-torture banner now, as opposed to during the next session of Congress. The Bush administration had made it clear that they believe they themselves have the right to authorize the torture of U.S. prisoners. The Congress has, in a fit of very balanced, very sensible, very moderate pique, decided that they wanted to play a role too, in authenticating the U.S. positions on torture, rather than leaving those positions merely dangling, like stray veins and sinews, from the administration's stained teeth.

The anti-torture choice was abandoned long ago. The "moderate" Republicans could have chosen to block any authorization for torturing U.S. prisoners right from the bat; they refused.

This legislation is political salve; it is not required law. The Constitution and existing law, presuming for the faintest half-shadow of a moment that the administration could be expected to follow it, speak clearly and decisively on the issues of habeus corpus, and trial, and on torture. This legislation is simply a show trial against the Constitution, done for the expediency of displaying Republican toughness, where toughness is defined as having no moral, ethical, or legal boundary that cannot be moved, if a poll number sticks up against it.

This legislation, allowing torture, is meant to distract from Iraq, where torture is now more commonplace than under Saddam Hussein, terrorism thrives in a swamp of resentment, hatred, and despair, and the country itself has lost all cohesiveness. It is meant to distract from the very real failures of a war on terror that sees the Taliban resurgent, Pakistan playing both sides of the fence, and American attention shifting between the waning and the sporadic.

So torture, then, even torture, is considered a suitable salve. Instead of foreign policy competence, we are told that a haphazard grab bag of law-busting measures is the closest thing Republicans will ever have to a "strategy." Instead of a plan in Iraq, we are told that torturing U.S. prisoners is the more necessary thing. Instead of bringing international terrorism to heel through a foreign policy plan that drains those swamps, we are told that our own American laws are the problem, and that we must abandon them.

And torture becomes the salve for the war. Torture becomes, of all abominable things, the distraction away from the worse things we have done, the even less competent things. Torture is easy. Torture is just another way to retaliate against the unknown brown face, possibly one full of malice, possibly not, perhaps picked up on a battlefield, perhaps arrested off an airplane, perhaps turned in by a rival tribe seeking quick cash rewards for finding "terrorists" in whatever taxi cab or faded hut is most convenient.

Quick and dirty retaliation, as opposed to basic competence. Feel-good brutality, as opposed to a recognizable and consistent foreign policy. An issue to rally the stupid around, while the smart preen and titter and shed a little more law, a little more humanity, and pick at the politics of the thing without quite tasting the meat of it.

If we find enough faces to torture, we allow for the most Republican solution available. Do not think about the Iraq; think about the evil men. Do not think about incompetence; think about the evil men. Do not think about Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iran, or Shock and Awe, or of men before us, greater men, men of higher caliber, who knew not to do such things, who felt their country above such things.

Do not think, merely hate, and you will be a conservative, and our country will bleed as salve for your wounded pride.


There is one thing and only one thing that I am most worried about here. We've known for a little while now that this appears to be the first post-9/11 national election in which questions about (and failures of) Iraq are now cutting as a clearly Democratic issue; that is, the blind, frothing inanity of the administration and Congress no longer seems like wisdom, to most Americans, but simply like blind, frothing inanity. If those that want America in a better place can move the national public argument to the place we want it to be -- that Iraq is a failure, has made us less safe, has been handled with incompetency, and is creating a more global and pernicious terrorism problem, and that this administration has not gotten close even to the shadow of a whisper of a plan -- then the entire sphere of foreign policy opinion starts to benefit the Democrats, not the Republicans.

All that is needed in order to take advantage of that is to simply take advantage of that. And despite our blustering over what the Democrats in Congress are or are not doing, I don't see any particular brilliance on our parts on maintaining our frame either. Clinton's Fox slam was an expertly done bit of cannonfire getting that Democratic theme out -- that we are the ones who are responsible leaders in the fight against terrorism. The media didn't give a rat's ass about it, but it made quite a bit of impact, nonetheless, by simply reminding people of presidencies that were not George Bush, and competencies based on something other than five-word, doe-eyed soundbites.

So yes, we fight against this bill to authorize American torture and de-authorize American laws -- but we fight against it using our frames, not theirs. We point out the bill is a sham. We point out the bill is merely to make even supposed Christians support torture. We point out that all of this -- all of this -- is yet another case of a Republican party so incompetent, so broken, so devoid of any plan in the war on terror or on Iraq that literally all they can come up with, as a cohesive strategic foreign policy, is "dunno, maybe let's waterboard some guys?"


The Republican Party has one huge advantage here. At some point in the next month, they are going to unveil their "surprise." Their new foreign policy fiasco, their new "intelligence", their new something-or-other that attempts to rework the whole War on Terror once again into a vote-Republican-or-die framework. We know they will do it; we do not know what it is. But we've got between now and then to set up the American public with the innate, gut feeling that the Republicans are so incompetent on Iraq and on terrorism and on matters of morality and law that they simply can no longer be trusted at all.

That is what will end the torture; ending its support in the White House. Ending its support among the people. But even now, even at this late date, America has fallen farther than mere torture. We have gone to war based on false pretenses. We have killed, conservatively, tens of thousands of innocents. We have violated international laws and conventions and treaties. We have violated our own laws and our own Constitution. And amongst all of this, torture -- even torture -- is not the end-all, be-all evidence of our moral failures. If we attack Torture merely for being Torture, we will not get the support of the American people, many of whom like Torture just fine. But if we attack Torture as just another thorn in this entire crown America has fashioned for itself, crucifying its own values and humanity yet again, and show how it fits with every other Republican failure, then we will sow the seeds of doubt.

Do not think that merely being against barbarism will earn you a single vote, in America. You are dealing with a country that does not believe it is barbaric. You will have to show it, not preach to it. Show Iraq as moral failure; tactical failure; failure of competence. Show the fight against the Taliban as a collapsed and ignored effort. Pakistani double-dealing. Stovepiped Iran intelligence. And every violation of law and propriety that we have been subjected to.

This election is, as brutal as it sounds, not about torture. Not even that. We have fallen farther than that already. This is a rear-guard action, and abandoning all fights but that one will do nothing for us but swamp all our other battlements and leave us alone in this one, small tower. Those other fights; those are just as important.

We have already devolved into barbarism, by attempting to define boundaries within barbarism that are good and bad, that are moderately barbaric vs. too barbaric, and calling all of it moderation, and praising it in our press, and praising it in our politicians. We are already a broken country, made more broken by men looking for any distraction, any shred of bloody color to help hide the deeper truths of their incompetence and failure.

But this fight will not be the end, just as it was not the beginning. There will be plenty of other politicians willing to give the Devil his due. There will still be uncountably many among the press for whom matters of God and law come secondary to the tally of who may benefit politically from a rousing defense of the indefensible. There will still be those among us for whom torture is considered good form, when done against an enemy, and for whom the laws of the country that have survived this long cannot possibly survive another day, not now, at long last, when faced with the one and only one thing law cannot survive -- the petty scorn of those charged to defend it.

In our incompetence, we have done worse things, and we have killed more than a mere handful of people, and we have carved up lives with viciousness in a vain attempt to find a policy the Bush administration could find themselves even the slightest bit capable of implementing without catastrophe. Compared to the failures of this hollow group of foolish men, even torture is not the worst that we have done. This bill will not make a thin reed of difference.

In the Comments, Hunter adds:

I find it disheartening, though, that I feel I have written nothing less than an eulogy for America itself, and people are still debating whether or not it was this brick or another that killed it.

I think people have misunderstood my last line. This bill will not make a thin reed of difference because, amongst all our other failures and corruptions, even something as horrific, as abominable, as cruel, vindictive, partisan, and bloodthirsty as this will not stand out, compared to all the others. It will not be the subject of great debates in the press. It will not be revisited.

I do not mean that to diminish the perniciousness of this particular assortment of proposed carved-out laws and carved-out morals. Only to give some measure of the scope of everything else that has happened... that at long last, even torture becomes a step we will quite willingly take. We began to take it when the president declared himself to be the legal authorizer of it; we continued to take it when neither lawmakers nor press disputed the point; now we seek to codify it, president as king, president as Decider of Tortures.

Our defeat is not that this bill will likely not be stopped. Our defeat is that we have become a country that considers these acts without revulsion.
by Hunter

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/27/17247/6012

[Timbuk3]

5. K&R

As if we didn't already know, now there's no doubt why Bush refused to acknowledge the ICC.

He never had any intention of following ANY law, US or international.