!! House Committee Approves Bill to SHIELD BUSH FROM WAR CRIMES!!

[The Cleaner]

House Judiciary Committee passed this according to PBS News Hour w/Jim Leherer.

H. R. 6054

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement.


SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.

(b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that--

(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section;

(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.


SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including--

(1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and

(2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109Sq6eeV

[Avalux]

1. OMFG.

That's about all I can say. :mad:

[oncall247]

35. This is what the debate on torture is really all about. Protecting US war

criminals from international law.

[oncall247]

39. All bets are off to bring anyone, including Saddam, to justice around

the world. Based on this shit, Saddam should be released since he was for most of the period his alleged crimes occured an agent-ally of the US.

[EVDebs]

100. It didn't do Noriega any good being on the payroll either. nt

[katinmn]

44. According to Thomas the bill is in International Relations

Maybe it hasn't been updated yet today.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.06054:
H.R.6054
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

Latest Major Action: 9/18/2006 House Committee on International Relations Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 22, 2006.

Check out sponsor and co-sponsors. All the top Pukes are there!
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan

COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Boehner, John A. - 9/12/2006
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/12/2006
Rep Chocola, Chris - 9/12/2006
Rep Franks, Trent - 9/12/2006
Rep Granger, Kay - 9/19/2006
Rep Hayes, Robin - 9/12/2006
Rep Hefley, Joel - 9/12/2006
Rep Kline, John - 9/12/2006
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. - 9/12/2006
Rep Miller, Candice S. - 9/12/2006
Rep Miller, Jeff - 9/12/2006
Rep Porter, Jon C. - 9/12/2006
Rep Renzi, Rick - 9/13/2006
Rep Saxton, Jim - 9/12/2006
Rep Schmidt, Jean - 9/19/2006
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 9/12/2006
Rep Shuster, Bill - 9/12/2006
Rep Sweeney, John E. - 9/12/2006
Rep Wilson, Joe - 9/12/2006

Related Bills: S.3861, S.3886, S.3901

[smirkymonkey]

56. You Bastards!

I think we should send them ALL off to the Hague to be tried for aiding and abetting a War Criminal.

[elehhhhna]

61. What? Was Holy Joe sick that day?

[jmowreader]

97. Holy Joe's a Senator; this was in the House

[dapper]

66. Chris Chocola

I just went to his website and among other things, he voted in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska's ANWR.

This dude will definately not get my vote. It's funny too that in my brief time I could not find his party affiliation (although I know he is a repug)

Dap

[Occulus]

67. I work for USPS

I sort letters and full trays of letters.

NONE of the Republican ads I've seen going through the mail refer to the candidate as a Repug.

The label 'republican' has become a word for them to fear.

Let's shove it down their throats and watch them choke to death on it.

[Canuckistanian]

72. Hunter. It figures.

He was the author of the famous (and infamous) fake "Murtha Resolution" that was defeated in the House.

A true Bushbot. To the end.

[katinmn]

78. uber-bitch Jean Schmidt is a co-sponsor, naturally

[exlrrp]

80. They have to hurry

After the election, they won't be able to pass this

[Red Right and BLUE]

2. I have so little faith left some days.

This is some backward-ass bullshit.

[Gregorian]

3. Retro.

This is not even how law works, is it? Retro? How is this not ex post facto? Any more retro and we'll be putting people on the rack, and lighting witches on fire.

Stop this madness now!

[Avalux]

5. Yep; retroactive since 9/11/2001.

"Everything changed after 9/11" - I guess they did, and for the worst. What has our country become??

[whistle]

14. A fascist terror state

[Cobalt Violet]

48. A fascist terror state

[Kurovski]

95. A fascist terror state

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

99. The United Police States of America

George W. Bush, Jr. Founder.

[Canuckistanian]

7. They can pass all the bills they want

They'll never get around "ex post facto" without a constitutional amendment.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

18. ^^^ agreed

'ex post facto' will nullify that bogus legislation.


We KNOW the House is practically wall to wall Bozos ... I'm skeptical that it will actually make it through the Senate ... but ... they've proved me naive before.

[wtmusic]

29. "Ex post facto" only applies to the creation of new crimes

not the decriminalization of old ones. If it's not a crime now, you can't be prosecuted for it. Period.

[Canuckistanian]

58. Here's what wiki says about ex post facto

"A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto

[wtmusic]

62. All to the point that

if this law passes (unless the law is overturned on Constitutional grounds) we're shit outa luck.

[Canuckistanian]

70. That's how it looks

Hopefully, those republicans with a shred of morality, dignity and a sense of history (and I believe there are some) will stop this.

[Bandit]

4. Won't fly

If there ever was a reason to filibuster anything this is it. I will never vote for any of those bums again if they don't stop this piece of crap.

[proud patriot]

6. Then They Are Complicit in his Crimes

:mad:

[mmonk]

8. So these enemies of the United States have to send this

to the Senate, right? The vote probably is a formality.

[Pharaoh]

9. Whaaaaaaaaaaa??

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[OzarkDem]

49. It only passed in committee

It still has to be voted on by the House. Not to say that won't happen, but, even if enacted, it doesn't seem likely that it will be supported in court.

[mmonk]

68. I know, but we tend to get run over in the House.

That's why I said the vote was probably a formality (but I hope not).

[Bandit]

10. I would venture a bet Keith Olberman will have something to say

about this one....

[gkhouston]

28. ya think?

This is damning, and the OP's title is spot-on. They are trying to cover up war crimes for this administration. Just when you think * can't damage our country's reputation anymore he finds another sack of shit... :banghead:

[rodeodance]

85. see Keith with Turley here on this issue:

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

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

—US Constitution, Article I

That means that Bush cannot commit crimes, possibly including having ordered summary executions and brutal tortures, only to have them made legal later on. The Constitution flatly states that it doesn't work that way! I've been screaming about this for a long time now. Maybe the time has come to be vindicated:

George Washington University Professor and Countdown resident Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley joined Keith tonight to discuss the legal implications of President Bush’s proposed changes to Article III of the Geneva Conventions. Keith raises an obvious yet seldom mentioned point: Is the Bush administration trying to retroactively legalize crimes it very well may have already committed? Wouldn’t be the first time.

—John Amato, Crooks and Liars

[Keepontruking]

11. Bush safe

Then in that case all Americans and others who were in Iran or Afghanistan should have not be punished of any crimes! Bush is no better than those he sent to do his dirty work!!!!
Circus Girl

[Solly Mack]

12. so, will those held for Abu Ghraib get a clean record?

when all is said and done?

Afterall, that happened after September 11, 2001 and it involved treatment of detainees...and SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY does say...any aspect of the detention, treatment... of any person detained

So, what's to stop the lawyers for those jailed/sentenced for Abu Ghraib from now appealing their sentences should this abomination pass?

And if they aren't allowed to, doesn't that just further expose the hypocrisy of it all?

How can the soldiers of Abu Ghraib be guilty if others who have done, are doing, and will do, the exact same kinds of things not be guilty as well?

[Canuckistanian]

25. It's meant to shield the ones who gave the orders

NOT the ones who actually did it.

Also, it means that the Charles Graners and Lynndie Englands are free to go back to their former jobs.

If this passes, you'll have a different country than the one the founders envisioned.

[Solly Mack]

41. I'm well aware what it's meant for

but Bush has also used the tired line that without this protection, "troops can be charged" (like they haven't been already)

Naturally he was hiding behind the "for the troops" lie to protect his own ass...

but it does further expose the hypocrisy of it all.

[Canuckistanian]

75. Agreed

So obvious, isn't it? Since when did he ever care about "the troops"?

Like his dad taught him, they're only "cannon fodder" for his own political ends.

[yy4me]

13. Every day in every way, they put the screws to us.

After a point, all I can do is shake my head. How much more of this madness. Please, some legal mind, can this be done? Tell me they just made all the evil **** deeds legal? Could that be? If this is so then we are lost.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. mass detentions and executions should now follow

for those who support and endorse this bill-

Because each and every one of them are TERRORISTS to humanity

Fuck this -

I'm sorry for the vulgar language, but FUCK this-

america is necrotic, we died when * gained control.

[jazzjunkysue]

16. He'd burn the entire constitution if he could.

If this isn't a case for impeachment, I really don't know what is.

Imagine Clinton trying something like this!

This means they know we're taking back the house, for sure.

[DRoseDARs]

17. Doesn't matter; unconstitutional. Signed treaties have same standing...

...as laws originating in and being passed by Congress as stipulated in the US Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could overrule that part of the USC. This bill just ain't going to cut it; US Supreme Court would never allow it.

[helderheid]

20. thanks, I can breathe again.

[DRoseDARs]

40. If I recall correctly, there've been other bills that were so blatantly...

...unconstitutional that even though they survived commitee, they die looong before they reach a vote, let alone the USSC.

[Avalux]

22. I hope you're right.

I said the same thing earlier today, but I really don't know anymore if the rule of law will stand.

[DRoseDARs]

33. It doesn't pass muster but it does pass gas... so much for the smell test.

Ce la vie. :shrug:

[proud patriot]

37. Yes but that didn't stop the Iraq invasion

in which the United States are signatories to the U.N.

However I do hope it stops this dreadful thing.

[DRoseDARs]

42. Bush's Folly is what you get when you combine a loosely-worded bill...

...with an administration more than willing to stretch the language of it as far as they can get away with it... and then some when the majority party decides not to do anything about it.

[proud patriot]

51. Indeed

:patriot:

[sofa king]

55. That "notwithstanding any other law" part still sinks 'em.

Because it's not just any other law, it's treaty law.

However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the United States is in violation of more treaties than I can count--most of them with American Indian tribes. I would imagine that at this point the President could be thrown in jail just for mismanaging the Indian Trust Fund so badly.

But he won't be.

[DRoseDARs]

76. Unfortunately, some treaty violations are more invisible than others...

I doubt Amerindians will ever receive justice. Countries tradtionally turn a blind eye to minorities in other countries being abused by the majority; it's only been in the past century that people have lost their stomach for such ignorance. It still goes on, make no mistake, and will continue to do so.

Violating the Geneva Conventions, however, isn't so easily overlooked in this day and age. If all goes badly, then in that case we'll be right back where we were a century ago because everybody will be too busy dealing with their own shit or screwing with someone else's to give a rat's ass about treaties and Human rights.

[MoonRiver]

71. "US Supreme Court would never allow it."???

Sorry, but :rofl:

[DRoseDARs]

77. What's sooo funny about that? Granted, the wording is a little off, but..

...but it's pretty clear that this bill is trying to do what only a constitutional amendment can do. The USSC's responsibility here is unmistakable. This plus that stupid Constitutional Restoration bill or whatever they're calling it are clear violations of the spirit and intent of the US Constitution. That bill is trying to limit the USSC's power and role in our government. Again, only an amendment can do what they're seeking to do with this bill. And besides, you think the USSC is going to allow their importance to be reduced by anything short of an amendment?

[helderheid]

19. HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

21. Headline Dec. 2008, the Democratic Majority Congress

and Democratic president vote to repeal H.R. 6054.

[Mike03]

23. It's hard to maintain any level of hope

We are living in the new dark ages. Sanity has abandoned us.

[ThomWV]

24. Absolutly Unacceptable

Under no circumstance are those criminals to be granted immunity for the crimes they have committed. I will walk to Washington if I have to in order to demand my Congressman not support this abortion of the law.

[gully]

26. Broken link?

I was under the impression that this is going to be debated, but that the actual vote is still pending?

[Jack Rabbit]

27. This means we'll have to push for an international tribunal

Any member of Congress who votes to enact this legislation is also a war criminal.

Bush will answer for his crimes against humanity. I don't care what law Congress passes. Waterboarding is torture and invading a sovereign state without just cause by sucuring approval from a legislative body with false or deceptive information is a war crime.

Congress does not have the power to change that.

[NVMojo]

30. couldn't get the link to work BUT, how can I find out who voted for this?

[wtmusic]

32. It's been approved in committee

not by a floor vote yet.

[katinmn]

We should still get a committee vote.

[gully]

50. Right, that's what I thought.

PHEW!

[wtmusic]

31. Don't panic

The law hasn't even gone to a vote on the floor yet. Time to get to work...

[SeattleGirl]

38. You're right, wtmusic

Let's get those emails, letters and calls going. This CANNOT pass.

[katinmn]

34. Those that voted for this support sodomizing children in Abu Ghraib

This is all about covering Junior's, Cheney's, Rummy's, Gonzo's and others' asses for War Crimes against innocent adults and CHILDREN.

We shouldn't wait until 2008. We have to get these thugs out of office before they start rounding US up.

[janx]

36. There's nothing at the link!

Also Google News has nothing about it that I can find.

[Demeter]

43. Oh Goody! More War Criminals!

This will really destroy the GOP when it hits the International fan.

Really! This is good! No more hiding behind coy procedures--the guilty have just signed their confessions.

[wtmusic]

45. Here is a link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6054:

[berni_mccoy]

46. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!

AMERICANS BETTER RISE UP AND REJECT THIS FASCIST LAW AND THE PEOPLE TRYING TO CREATE IT! I WILL NOT STAND FOR SUCH BLASPHEMY AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION!

[threadkillaz]

47. They sure are hurrying. They must be about to lose the House.

And the senate.


Ain't gonna work tho.

[tblue]

52. MSNBC site says it was voted down in committee for now — Which is it?

Detainee bill loses in committee
Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:40 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mike Viqueira

The House Judiciary Committee this afternoon has voted against the terrorist detainee bill favored by President Bush and most Republicans. But this doesn't mean that the bill is dead in the House. The measure has been reported out of committee "unfavorably" -- the vote was 20 against and 17 in favor -- but it still heads to the House floor where passage by the entire body is expected next week. Recall that the same bill passed the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 52-8 last week. The Judiciary Committee, however, is much more polarized ideologically.

Still, three Republicans defied the leadership and the president in the committee vote. They are Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and Jeff Flake of Arizona (who has become a McCain-like maverick).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/20/4479.aspx

Anybody find anything else?

[clmbohdem]

54. I sent email to Voinivich and DeWine.

I told them this is disgusting and that anyone who has committed a War Crime should be held responsible

[KAZ]

53. Made my call to Jerry Weller's office (11th IL).

Very responsive responder, an RR if you will.. He asked for the bill #, and what it entails. Let him know the details, and that the least I expect Weller to do is stand up for the constitution, regardless of the party holding the whitehouse.

[Richard Steele]

57. UTTERLY, BLATANTLY IRRELEVANT. An illegal law is no law at all.

Let B*sh wave this meaningless piece of paper
as he's dragged away to the Hague to stand trial.

Hitler passed "laws" that proclaimed everything HE
ever did to be completely LEGAL as well.
The world didn't buy HIS nonsense then, and it ain't
gonna buy the Little DictatorTot's nonsense NOW.

[elehhhhna]

59. Thank Jah that the Goddamned Piece of Paper nullifies this bill.

[magellan]

63. The Goddamned Piece of Paper nullifies a lot of what BushCo have done

But the frightening reality is illegal things have been done, are still being done, and will continue to be done regardless of any law or our Constitition.

[elehhhhna]

SO we can legally waterborad Bush & Cheney if this passes? Kewl.

[elehhhhna]

60. SO we can legally waterborad Bush & Cheney if this passes? Kewl.

[rodeodance]

64. and no congressional hearings--just a committee markup!

[mom cat]

65. Every fucker who voted for this must be defeated in NOV!

[Malikshah]

69. Here's the list of the House Judiciary Committee-- Am looking for the

votes

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
Chairman
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Hyde
(R) Illinois, 6th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Jenkins
(R) Tennessee, 1st

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Bachus
(R) Alabama, 6th

Hon. Inglis
(R) South Carolina, 4th

Hon. Hostettler
(R) Indiana, 8th

Hon. Green
(R) Wisconsin, 8th

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Flake
(R) Arizona, 6th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st


Hon. Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
(D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Van Hollen
(D) Maryland, 8th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

[texpatriot2004]

73. Thank you so much for the list of those who are on the committee,

now which ones are the traitors? Which ones voted to support criminal behavior?

[mom cat]

79. Great! .... thanks.

[underpants]

87. ***All 17 Democrats today voted against this legislation***

To: National Desk

Contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn, 202-225-2492, both of the House Judiciary Committee

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House Judiciary Committee today approved two landmark bills fighting the War on Terror. The first, H.R. 6054, the "Military Commissions Act," establishes terrorist tribunals and was approved without amendment by a 20-to-19 margin. All 17 Democrats today voted against this legislation, which overwhelmingly passed the House Armed Services Committee last week by a 52-to-8 margin.


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72866

[AtomicKitten]

74. KO said two Dems were out giving a press conference and

missed the vote, two that could have defeated this in the judiciary committee.

Anyone?

[Coexist]

81. You are correct - they took advantage of two members stepping out

dirty, dirty, dirty - read about it here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/20/19237/9278

[AtomicKitten]

83. thanks for the info

This is reminiscent of the Medicare re-vote with all the arm-twisting by Delay. I wonder who the two Dems were that missed the vote. Hopefully DU'ers won't climb up their ass when they find out. This cheesy maneuver is entirely the fault of the Republicans.

[sweetheart]

82. what civil society

Now crime is a joke, officially, with the ugliest murderious criminals free to get about that business,
and everything they say is now tiresome hackery, laughable 'do as i say, not as i do', when crime is
the way they live by, excused by the treasury to steal some more, and a cowardly corporate morass is
no opposition. What a tragic day for the constitution.

[rodeodance]

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

Monday, September 18, 2006

Congress is powerless to absolve Bush of capital crimes and torture charges

Bush is in a heap of trouble. The US Congress should be impeaching Bush —NOT conspiring with him to cover his backside!

Whatever torture compromise may work its way through an intimidated Congress, it cannot help Bush. The US Constitution requires nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to relieve US obligations under the Geneva convention; and, at least one Constitutional provision means that nothing legal can get Bush off the hook for the crimes that he has already committed.

Let's take the second one first. Bush seeks an ex post facto law that will make legal —after the fact —his violations of the Geneva Convention having to do with torture.

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

—US Constitution, Article I

That means that Bush cannot commit crimes, possibly including having ordered summary executions and brutal tortures, only to have them made legal later on. The Constitution flatly states that it doesn't work that way! I've been screaming about this for a long time now. Maybe the time has come to be vindicated:

George Washington University Professor and Countdown resident Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley joined Keith tonight to discuss the legal implications of President Bush’s proposed changes to Article III of the Geneva Conventions. Keith raises an obvious yet seldom mentioned point: Is the Bush administration trying to retroactively legalize crimes it very well may have already committed? Wouldn’t be the first time.

—John Amato, Crooks and Liars......

more at website:

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

[grizmaster]

86. Can we get a working link to the source material?

that link is dead

[progressoid]

88. Golly, I'm shocked. Just shocked.

[lonestarnot]

89. unconscionable law, therefore it is no law! Constitution takes precedence

over this ass biting bullshit!

[madrchsod]

90. there will be a lot of people

who won`t be able to travel out of this country. i`m still trying to figure out why they keep backing this loser,jesus you would think they can see the ship is going bow first...

[npincus]

91. How can this be overturned?

[Supersedeas]

92. Yep, see what they are doing to our country!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

93. It's only a committee, it's only a committee, it's only a committee...

how's my denial mantra going?

*sigh* This is heart-breaking and frightening.

it's only a committee.....................

[emald]

94. I guess the constitution means nothing any more

Article 1, section 10, clause 1 specifically states that ex post facto law is something quite against the constitution.
Section. 10.

.........
Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
..........

says so quite clearly. Are no lawyers in the white house familiar with this document?

[Rex]

96. As someone pointed out the other day, they cannot do this.

It is unconstitutional and warrants ALL who support the bill as participants in war crimes.

To any lurking Congressional gofers - better tell your boss that they can be tried for war crimes if they say 'yes' to this bill. DON'T just expect America to have immunity in the world, just because. That don't fly anymore. Jus sayin...

[glitch]

98. Good, they can be indicted to. The cult can all go down together. nt