Challenging the Torture Bill, through the back door

[Jeanette in FL]

One of the main reasons that Bush wanted this bill passed quickly is to be able to absolve himself, his government, his policies and the CIA from being held accountable from any torture that has happened retroactively.

Now I have read that this will be hard to challenge in the court system because anyone it will affect won't be able to contact a lawyer on his behalf to challenge the government.

What about the soldiers that have already been court marshalled and found guilty in the cases involving Abu Gharaib. Why can't their lawyers now file appeals based on the fact that this law retroactively precludes their clients from being guilty?

Why can't Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who was demoted to the rank of colonel on May 5, 2005, appeal that she was unlawfully demoted due to the new law?

Wouldn't this at least get into the court system because these people were directly affected?

[kentuck]

1. That's an interesting point..

Maybe one of them should appeal to the Supreme Court?

[rubberducky]

2. That`s just what I was thinking this morning!!

I sure hope when they make thier appeals it hits the headlines. Then everyone will realize how far we have sunk.

[JDPriestly]

3. Someone will bring an action.that is purportedly no longer allowed

The government will move to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action based on the new law. The person bringing the action will say that he or she has stated a cause of action and that the action should not be dismissed because the new law is violates the U.S. Constitution or a treaty. That is how some constitutional issues come before the Supreme Court.

[Jeanette in FL]

4. Bumping this for the night crew

for input. I just heard Randi talking to constitutional lawyers saying they do not know how they will be able to bring this new bill to the Supreme Court.

Isn't this a viable solution? If not, why not.

[Solly Mack]

5. I posed this question a week or so ago

and I think it's possible.

The immunity is retroactive to 1997.

Under the new guidelines for how torture,abuse, degrading and humiliating actions are defined - I think it can be challenged.

And wouldn't that be ironic?


Chances of it being allowed is slim though...the Abu Ghraib soldiers, guilty as they are, were the window-dressing to boost the claim that America does not tolerate torture and will punish people for it. So undoing that window-dressing would further expose America's hypocrisy. And Bush wants the illusion maintained that America does not torture

[Jeanette in FL]

6. Immunity to 1997?

I thought that the immunity only went back to Sept. 12th 2001. Now why would they want to grant immunity to 1997, that is very interesting.

[TahitiNut]

7. Goes back to enactment of "War Crimes Act of 1996"

... because, of course, they're war criminals!!

8/21/1996 Became Public Law No: 104-192

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03680:@@@R

[Jeanette in FL]

9. What war crimes were they trying to get protected

I am trying to get on the link to read.

[Solly Mack]

8. some links

retroactive to the year after the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The War Crimes Act of 1996 was what McPain, Grim and Waterboarder changed in the "compromise"


"The definition incorporates several terms that in turn have their own separate definitions, and it even has one new definition that doesn’t go into effect until the date of enactment, even though the rest of the amendments to the War Crimes Act are made retroactive to 1997."
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/09/20060928.htm




"A decade of lawbreaking wiped clean:

(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this section, except as specified in paragraph 2441(d)(2)(E) of title 10, United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002 of Public Law 107-273)."

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?cat=21