Is w trying to change the torture laws to save his own ass from Jail?

[Philosoraptor]

Part of the point of bush's torture speech was to ensure that "interrogators" would not be prosecuted or sued for disregarding the Geneva Convention rules, and I assume he means that no one can be arrested for war crimes, including himself for decreeing such crimes.

He is openly defying the very supreme court that put him in office, and declaring himself above the laws prohibiting torture of prisoners of war. Is this an attempt to keep he and architects of torture and war free for life and immune to war crimes prosecutions?

[leveymg]

1. If the War Crimes Act is amended, that will trigger UN enforcement

Under the terms of the UN Convention on Torture, some 140 nations are bound to impose war crimes tribunals on any party state which will not, or can not, enforce the terms of the treaty.

No state can withdraw from the Convention retroactively or change its terms by legislation or decree.

If Bush wants to be indicted at the Hague, let him do this.

[sweetheart]

2. Of course

that has been obvious since they ditched the international criminal court, since
cheney's secret energy powwow, where they decided to 'secure' the world's fossil fuel
fields from the heathens that live on them.

[izzie]

3. I just do not think he looks at it in the same way

If this was done to his father it would be a different story. It goes to this 'born to rule' stuff I think. No way is Bush going to change his mind as he knows he is right. And I think he has talked him self into thinking he has God behind him. Why should we be really shocked. People like this have turned up all the time. Usually the American voters have keep these people in their place

[madokie]

10. only by cheating do we have to put up with this less than a man

person.

[izzie]

15. Second rate people do second rate things,. It goes with him

Can't win so cheat to win. Look how they make their money? He didn't some of his father's friends bailed him out and then he sold his name for a place on the team. That seems to be good enough for many that vote. Now we have McCain who also used his father's name and left a wife who was hurt for a younger one who was rich and the people take down Hillary for staying with a man who cheated on her. Or Rudy that never stayed with anything but for about 12 hours on 911. I think that is what Clinton said she would do when she wed. For better or worse if you believe in all that stuff. I guess some values are better than others.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Yes

[Solly Mack]

5. International law still applies....but it creates a shroud of confusion

within America when Bush speaks on "clarifying" the law.

He pretends that unless the law is "clarified", the troops and interrogators are at risk of being prosecuted - removing his own actions from the process...(the it's not me, it's the bad apples defense)

By playing to the emotions of the people (Oh no! Our troops can be charged unless Congress does something!)...Bush distorts the truth of the matter.

Our troops are already being charged..and they should be

but Bush isn't being charged...and he aims to keep it that way.

If Congress "clarifies" an already clear law, Bush will claim he had the support of Congress and the force of federal law...a complicit Congress isn't going to push the matter. Complicity means guilt.

If other nations do not level charges, and I doubt they will, then who is left to charge Bush for the war criminal he is?

[malaise]

6. Is the pope

catholic? Duh????

[Swamp Rat]

7. Hell, he can do whatever he wants.

Bushler&Co. control most of the government and the media now.

[City Lights]

8. He's a dicktator. It's what dictators do.

I not only despise him, I'm to the point where I despise people who voted for him, helping to foist his brand of evil on us and the rest of the world. I've got a number of dicktator supporters in my family. They make me sick.

[acmejack]

9. It is shocking to me that people I worshiped my entire life.

I now realize are narrow minded Republiclowns. My own beloved Mother told me she doesn't want to discuss politics,"I support the President and that's final". My Father starts yelling. They totally agree with these assholes! It is all about the money I think in their case, all these people really care about is taxes and the "Government giving their money away to those people". How sad is that?

[City Lights]

11. I'm fortunate in that my dicktator-loving relatives are not in my

immediate family. It's my aunts, and my cousins - many of whom I loved like brothers when I was growing up. We were so close. The other day I got an email petition asking "President" Bush to reinstate the Pledge in our schools. One cousin forwarded it to his brother, who forwarded it to our aunt, who forwarded it to me. All three had signed it. :rofl: Of course, these people also want to tear down the wall separating church and state, which is another reason to despise them. I'm so glad we don't get together for holidays or family reunions anymore.

I totally feel for you if you're dealing with parental chimp-lovers. :hug:

[w8liftinglady]

12. can he still be tried at the hague?

Let the world issue an outcry for justice against him.

[Toots]

13. Don't you all know by now that Laws do not apply to the "Unitary Executive

The "Unitary Executive" just signed a paper making all whistle blowers illegal. You can not inform upon a law breaker in the government any longer. It is now a criminal offense to do so..

[leesa]

14. Yes. Everything he does is for himself.

[Generic Other]

16. They should torture him into confessing by

tempting him with alcohol and then with holding it.

[KansDem]

17. Nah..."Hooch-board" him...

Like waterboarding--do to him what he is doing to innocent Iraqi civilians--but instead of water use hooch (some brand of cheap whiskey should suffice), and keep asking him, over and over, "What really happened on 9/11?" He'll confess, but his supporters will say it was because he was "tortured" so therefore his confession was "coerced" and not "credible"...:crazy:

[Junkdrawer]

18. It was covered in good detail on DemocracyNow this morning:

BARBARA OLSHANSKY: You know, there are several. The President’s speech came along with a series of documents: a Department of Defense directive, a new Army field manual that was revised, and this bill. If you put them all together, it says some very interesting things. First, there is the admission, like you said, of the existence of secret prisons, which we knew and they have categorically denied, all across Europe and all across the United States.

But this idea of the CIA program, that language that the President used, we know that that program is a codeword for the use of torture. There's just no doubt about it, because we know how badly people were tortured in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo, and we know that not just from detainees' testimony, but from the testimony of FBI officials, CIA officials. Lots of people have come forward. And the President then is asking the American public and Congress to approve a program of torture going forward.

....

Well, that one is really on the same -- in the same arena. It is retroactive immunity for everyone that engaged in torture. And the fact is that torture policy really specifically came down from the highest on the high. And in fact, the President, in his speech yesterday, admitted that, that he authorized it, that Rumsfeld put it into effect. And so now we know everyone did it. They said it. And, you know, that idea of being authorized from the top, well, we now know that that happened. And soldiers who follow a policy that violates the law, you know what, we don't exonerate them, because that idea of “they told me to do it,” you know, that principle went out in Nuremburg in the Second World War when it was used by Nazi soldiers. We don't abide by that. No one in the world does. And that's what the President is asking for now: immunity for everyone who is going to say, “My superior told me so.”

....

Yeah. And this was something that really we have had a number of conversations about, you know, with people on the Hill, some people in the White House, about the fact that an administration bill that was leaked included the word “people” instead of the word “aliens,” because the President's November 13th military order in 2001 said “non-citizens.” Well, now, the language says an unlawful enemy combatant can be any individual. And it's very clear that that means Americans. It can mean anyone in the world. There is no exclusion, you know, for Americans. And the language of who can be an enemy combatant has been tremendously expanded. So it could be, you know, not only al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, but other associated forces and just others who are unnamed. And it's any hostile act, not necessarily a military act. Am I hostile by talking about what's wrong with this, by sitting here with you? How are we going to know that? And then I end up in Guantanamo in a military commission, where the death penalty can result? This is astounding stuff.

....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/1350230

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. I have no idea what's behind it.

The cynic in me says there's a big story about to break.