this provision does not get much coverage: Retroactive protection for Bush

[rodeodance]

http://insomnia.livejournal.com/

Date: Sat. Sep. 16th, 2006 - 12:53 am
Subject: Factchecking the President's press conference.


......Essentially, Bush is saying that the CIA has indicated a desire to stop interrogating prisoners in ways that arguably violate the Geneva Conventions and which provide questionable intelligence. To me, this seems like a good decision on their part.

"what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal."

The changes that Bush favors seem to indicate that protecting "our professionals" is not his only concern. If it was, he wouldn't be including legislation that retroactively protects himself and his administration against prosecution for war crimes too.

Note too, that exemption from prosecution does not apply to active duty soldiers. If a public scandal happens in the future where soldiers are shown to be abusing prisoners, those soldiers can be tried and convicted as scapegoats to appease the public's anger, even it is found that policymakers directly issued the orders for them to violate the Geneva Conventions. Again, policymakers would be entirely exempt from prosecution. ...............

[rodeodance]

1. does anyone know if the McCai et all bill gives this protection? I heard

once that it did not---but I am looking for a link/crediable source please.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Laws do not apply retroactively

that is the basis of our judicial system.

You cannot convict someone based on a law that was not in effect at the time of the crime.

Likewise, you cannot exonerate the crime once the law is repealed.

All you can do is pardon.

And that requires a new President.

[rodeodance]

5. if true--Why does WH make and issue of this?

[Xipe Totec]

7. That's a good question

If it actually went to trial, they'd be screwed.

But without a court filing, there is no case.

Their only hope is to convince everyone not to file charges since it's a moot point.

Except that it isn't.

[AndyTiedye]

9. In Case of Pardon

Send them to the Hague. pResidential Pardons not accepted.

[msongs]

3. 'new president' - boy that sounds good :-) nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skidmore]

6. Also see this over at C&L

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/17/specter-misrepresents-his-own-bill/




"Specter misrepresents his own bill…
By: John Amato on Sunday, September 17th, 2006 at 11:56 AM - PDT
Greenwald

In June, both the ACLU and The Washington Post’s Walter Pincus reported that the FISA bill proposed by Arlen Specter would expressly immunize Bush officials from any legal consequences arising out of their illegal eavesdropping — giving them what Pincus called "blanket amnesty" — by retroactively legalizing warrantless eavesdropping going back to 1978. But that weekend, Specter went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and categorically denied that his bill contained any such provision, stating…read on
"

[flamin lib]

8. US Constitution, Article I, section 9, paragraph 3:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This means that no law can be passed to make a thing previously illegal legal. The best they can hope for is to buy time as it works it's way through the Judiciary all the way to the Supreme Court.

No way any federal judge would uphold such a law.