Whoa CRAP...Bush Really Is Trying to Avoid War Crimes!!

[The Cleaner]

I didn't really pick this up at first, but during his speech Bush basically said we must reinterpret Article III of the Geneva Conventions so that our CIA agents and others will not be prosecuted for WAR CRIMES IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

Note IN OTHER COUNTRIES. What's going on that we don't know about? Is it any coincidence that Bush had this surprise speech while Chaves, Amedinajad (sp.), and the Castro bro were railing against Western Imperialism, this very day? What other countries are considering war crimes against the U.S.?

I think Bush is scared out of his wits. I think war crime tribunals are coming soon, and Bush is hurriedly trying to reinterpret Geneva to cover his heinous crimes.

[sendero]

1. Ex post facto..

... interpretations of the conventions are unlikely to do him any good IMHO. But he can try, since that's the only thread he can pull at this time.

[Eric J in MN]

2. I don't see how changing US law would stop other countries...

...from prosecuting Americans who illegally degrade their citizens.

Other countries would interpret the Geneva Conventions the same way, unless they follow Bush's lead and change their own interpretation.

[baldingrockwarlord2]

3. Bingo!!!!!

You hit the nail right on the head. If he didn't already know he has committed war crimes and didn't fear prosecution from it, there would be no reason for what he is doing right now. He's trying to re-write the laws to justify his actions. what a sorry excuse for a leader.

[Guy_Montag]

4. The Europe Union

Well the Spanish tried to extradite Pinochet from the UK, every so often an Israeli general or politician decides not to get off a plane & Belgium had to change it's laws so that most of the Israeli cabinete wouldn't be arrested on entering the country.

What makes it even more fun is pan-EU arrest warrents. That's right now more extradition treaties, just issue an EU arrest warrent & sit back & wait. :)

edited to add: there are half a dozen CIA agents wanted in Italy already.

[lonestarnot]

5. I am hoping like hell you are right.

[sable302]

6. So, I'm guessing

that this is about extradition.

In the future, he could then argue that countries disagree on interpretations of international law and the law of war and so forth, and pull rank that as the leader of the US he had to make tough choices to keep America safe. It would all come down to intent, and a good attorney could help out on the 'I didn't MEAN to break Geneva' front.

Total ass covering, in my opinion, and I'm surprised I actually think that congress ain't goin' for it. But, I don't think they can peg him on war crimes in any case. There's just too many layers between him and what's went on in those secret prisons.

On edit: that doesn't mean, however, that we can't kick Republican ass over it all. The most likely outcome is that we the people see the current crowd for just what they are, a mockery of everything out nation stands for, and vote them out this November and keep them out.

[baldingrockwarlord2]

8. But....

We(He) never formally declared war on anyone. It's one thing to say we're at war, but this is a war against an ideal, not a nation(s). There should be no allowance for secret prisons and illegal torture methods because shrubco says we're at war (with an ideal). That has to play against him somehow, shouldn't it?

[sable302]

11. One would think, but we're in bizarro world

I think it's obvious to everyone that these things are crimes. The fallout for that will all happen in due course.

I just don't think any court will peg the prez on it. Too many layers of management and too much opportunity to cover ones ass.

But there's always hope.....

[Frustratedlady]

7. That's what I had mentioned earlier, as...

all of a sudden, they are changing their thinking on torturing prisoners, admitting to having secret CIA prisons, concerned about the wording and their interpretation of the Geneva Convention, etc. It just seems that there are suddenly a lot of things coming down from this group that they had sneered at before. Something is in the wind.

[tularetom]

9. Encouraging unilateral interpretations of international law doesn't seem

like a real good idea. I sure as hell don't want to read about more American soldiers mutilated or turned into crispy critters because some asshole decided to interpret the Geneva conventions the same way * did.

[sweetheart]

10. whoever has the nukes makes the rules

Do you really belive that there are any rules or laws? Its been 6 years of absolute bollocks,
a total debasing of the entire system of constitutional government, for government by the whim of
a ruthless posturing bully.

There has never been any pretense that these repukes were bent on killing at least 10,000 civilians
before they were out, the question was just whether people who saw them coming were adept enough to
prevent those numbers from being higher. Now, its too late, time for just the cryin'.

[Marie26]

12. Universal jurisdiction

means any country can enforce violations of international law. In addition, Geneva Convention specifically gives each signatory country the right to search for & try individuals who violate the treaty - regardless of that person's nationality. Also, they can extradite a violator to another country for trial. So, Bush gives a speech in Belgium to Exxon/Mobil, & oops, he's hauled before the Belgian courts on war crime charges. Or, Belgium could hand him over to Iraq (another Geneva Convention country) for trial. It really could happen & that's what he's so terrified of.

Here's the relevant section of the Geneva Convention:

"Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case" (Articles 49 I, 50 II, 129 III, 146 IV). The Hague Convention of 14 May 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, ratified by 88 States, includes a similar provision (Art. 28).

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList320/F4607C74CA18E5F5C1256B66005C27D5

[babylonsister]

13. He's running scared, and trying to amend acts as he goes:

Bush confesses to war crimes

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1185.sh ...

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.

His profession of concern for military and intelligence personnel was utterly misleading. Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Universal Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.

more...

[sable302]

14. So is Congress going along with this or what?

If not, then I think it's time to sit back and watch the show. For once, the Republican party comes out to 'eat their own.'

[texpatriot2004]

15. May the Cover-up Congress turn over a new leaf so as not to be

complicit in his crimes. May * fail miserably in his attempt to circumvent the consequences for his heinous actions.

[AntiFascist]

16. Not only has he turned the world against our policies....

he has turned our nation into a criminal empire that may be hunted down, unless something is done soon!