OMFG. Under "The War Crimes Act of 1996" Bush is TOAST

I have never heard of this before. Signed into law during Clinton, it makes violations of Geneva punishable by life imprisonment or death.

War Crimes Act of 1996 (as amended)

18 U.S.C. � 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

<>

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term war crime means any conduct--

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

No wonder they were jumping through hoops to explain why Geneva didn't apply...

http://www2.uakron.edu/low/War%20Crimes%20Act%20of%201996.doc

Well, Asscrap and Speedy Gonzales had * opt out of the Geneva accords. So it's possible that technically this law no longer applies to them.

I'm no Constitutional authority, but is it true that * has exceeded his authority by opting out of a treaty ratified by the Senate?

Couldn't this form an article of impeachment for violating his oath?

and Article IV makes legally "opting out" of any treaty impossible

then the President does not have the power to unilaterally rescind the US obligations to that treaty. If I am right about this, then * can be impeached for abuse of power and failure to uphold his oath of office. In addition, he is subject to prosecution under the "War Crimes Act of 1996" if he is held in violation of the Geneva Accords.

If this is all true, I agree. He's toast. It's only a matter of time before he may have to pay the piper about the excesses of his administration. Since there is no statute of limitations on this, he can run, but he can't hide. Furthermore, a subsequent President may give him clemency, but that would not hold in the Intl Court at the Hague.

Gawd, I hate these people for what they've done to my country.

The problem is that no Republican will draft articles and as the minority, Dems can't either.

He would have been impeached along with his puppetmaster a hell of a long time ago had we been able to.

It's nice to note that this one is a big impeachable offense but it isn't going to get him impeached, unfortunately.

Impeachment is not going to happen. But with this law all that is required to (at least) send him to prison is an Attorney General who is:

1) Willing to press charges;
2) Capable of proving the policy of torture was approved at the top

That won't happen either--in this administration. But without a statute of limitations...

coffers and favors for the sake of his nation and the safety of the world?

If they totally renounced the accords, then maybe. But I don't think you can agree to a treaty then say you're going to ignore 1 or 2 parts.

But then I don't know how the Geneva Accords were agreed to. Is it considered a treaty, or just an "international agreement?"

a documentary on the "Patriot Act" on the Sundance channel and they talked about the Geneva Conventions and how Bush opted out of it. Apparently they got to opt out of it with Gitmo because it was outside of US boarders and we're paying money to use the land and all that. It isn't orginially a US law. So this is a US law so I would think they were bound by it. I'm not sure though about the people at Gitmo since they aren't on US land. I'm not a lawyer either so I could be wrong. But where it concerns Gitmo that's not on US land so the law doesn't subscribe to Gitmo. :shrug: Now with Bush himself I'm not sure. Cause it's on Gitmo and not on US land. :shrug:

The law absolutely applies at Gitmo. We have violated Geneva in so many ways it's ridiculous.

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria..."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

from revealing evidence of torture.

So typical.

exploded some time ago. I haven't bothered to get it fixed because really, what is the point?

I could be wrong, but I think the Geneva Conventions cover international wars, where you have uniformed soldiers fighting, and civil, or intrastate wars, wherein you have combatants on at least two sides, but by defining these guys as "unlawful combatants", they don't qualify.

See, they weren't really FIGHTING. They were TERRORIZING.

They're TERRORISTS. So they're not combatants.

:sarcasm:

it's a part of our constitution. Any treaty signed by the United States is a part of the constitution. It would take an act of congress to change it...*, Rummy, Gonzales, Gen. Miller, Sanchez, etal are all toast.
Now if we could just get an independent investigation and indictments.

by not declaring them prisoners of war, but rather enemy combatants. Don't ask me why that makes a difference. But it was their justification for not being bound by it.

Then the gonzales papers make clear that there is more "flexibility" in interrogation techniques if they are not on US soil, regarding our own law on treating those captured in war. I'm too lazy to look it up but it was to avoid some "over zealous" prosecutor from pressing charges.

Though one of my favorite parts was worries that our own soldiers taken prisoner would be at more risk if we didn't follow geneva accord was dismissed, gonzales explained that wouldn't be a danger because we are known for treating prisoners well.

before a judge. And it's a myth that Geneva even requires them to be called "prisoners":

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely..."

"the following acts are prohibited...with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

...Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" etc etc

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

i.e. it had no legal force

that won't get anyone out of a contract

how does this d***head keep getting to screw the pooch and get away with it every time?

Hold the monkey man accountable Sept 24, 2005. Many from DU will be there!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1975674

In Washington DC, you can go stand at his front door - of his temporary residence that is.

AND there are protests going on many other places that day. Heck get together with friends in a park or go out and put poo flags out...

get them at http://www.madeyouthink.org/home.htm

if it wasn't my wife's 50th birthday.

I'll have to settle for poo flags. :-)

Have a birthday protest. And have her party the week before or the week after.

:think:

No free press and a majority party that works outside of laws and the constitution.

Um, not really possible.

And calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" doesn't count.

:kick:

these assholes are the political equivalent of the Teflon Don. Especially if we don't take back the senate in '06. I have honestly begun to lose hope, I would like to be put into a medically induced coma and have someone wake me up when the good guys are back in charge!:banghead:

I am optimistic. Until now I was not aware of a US law which made breaking Geneva illegal, other than the Article IV "international treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land"/UN Charter angle. :D

Who is gonna bring him to justice? Concerning '06, they stole the election in '00 and in '02 and in '04, it is widely documented. I repeat, who is gonna stop them, let alone prosecute them? Nice dream though.

Wonderful things can happen when people don't give up.

this interesting tidbit on why Bush thinks he's above the law. Kay Griggs talked about that and how Bush is "in" with this special society that helps him stay above the law. It's quite scary. You can download her interview at: http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/6867/Kay_Griggs_Entire_interview_8hrs_on_Military_Black_Ops_Underground

Bush has been forgiven of his sins even before he was born and nothing he does can change that. He was an elect of God. Either you are, or you aren't. He believes he is. Some of his statements point to that. God wanted him to be president. God wanted him to invade Iraq.

He's a born-againer. A fundie freak.

He may not be a card carrying Calvinist, but the sense of entitlement fits him well.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_5_120/ai_98754711



Recalling the former Texas governor's religious background with evangelical United Methodist churches, ex-Dallas journalist Deborah Caldwell wrote that Bush's newly public faith echoes Calvinist thinking about divine providence and plans for America. Writing for Beliefnet, an Internet site where she is senior religion producer, Caldwell said that by 1999 Bush believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans."

Caldwell quoted Robin Lovin, an ethicist at Southern Methodist University, as saying, "All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation." In addition, Lovin said that Bush seems to lack an awareness of moral ambiguity. All to the better, according to Southern Baptist leader Richard Land of Nashville, who argued that Bush has a "moral clarity" befitting a wartime leader, in contrast to the "relativist universe" inhabited by European leaders.


Read this:

http://alternet.org/election04/20499/”

all that the nay-sayers will do is harp on Rick Strawcutter's background.

He doesn't have long to live and no amount of his family's money will save him. He might want to dump a lot of research money into Alzheimers right about now. Even then, it's likely too late for him.

The sucky thing is he will die oblivious. I would prefer he have a slow and painful death in the Hague. I'm vindictive that way.

that the "winners are never prosecuted." Now, whether or not the US will win in the end is still in the air, but if the US does, NO ONE will get touched. And probably in a loss, no one important would get touched anyway.

Impossible.

It's just like Vietnam. And look at their constiution as well. Oy! And the reason why they fight each other is because of religion and culture. To think "democracy" can change it is silly.

i.e. kill them all if any resist

Self-respect isn't necessary: it can be a consolation prize, as it seems.

What constitutes winning? I don't see any winning scenario here.

Avoiding this indictment.

-Hoot

does anyone know why this amendment to the war crimes act took place in 1996?

"Heh, heh, better call my lawyers." Nobody exists to prosecute the man who is the ultimate law enforcement officer in the US. Nobody is going to save us from our idiocy in electing him by prosecuting him.

I've resigned myself that nothing is going bring the Boy King down because 1)his evil minions in high places are too many, and 2)the American populace is too stupid to care, or even connect the dots when facts are laid at their feet.

I think your rose-colored glasses may have a a few cracks.

I'm not. I'm just pointing out another avenue to pursue, and it's probably the most likely avenue where Bush could actually be prosecuted. Won't happen in the next four years. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

and sums the argument up in a nutshell:

"There is nothing appropriate about evading or violating the law, nor anything necessary in abusing a prisoner who is hors de combat. There is nothing new here: the value of intelligence and the infliction of atrocities on ones enemies are as old as war itself. The President might plausibly suppose there was some advantage to be had by roasting a few of these “detainees” alive over an open fire, thinking it might lead others to cooperate – such “timehonored” practices are as common in history as wars are. Would the Fourth Circuit defer to that as well? And if not, why not? Are we to understand that some of our laws are better than others, and our judges and elected officials are at liberty to choose which to obey according to their personal sensibilities?"

"The government has gone to great lengths to avoid any accountability to the law here, and all their arguments reduce to a single theme: that in a war the President may do whatever he pleases as long as the Congress is willing to go along with him. But the Congress is not the Roman Senate, the President is not a Roman Imperator, and it is precisely this sort of arbitrary and absolute exercise of power unrestrained by the rule of law that our Constitution, our laws, and the Geneva Conventions are intended to prohibit and prevent. The Geneva Conventions ARE the law of war, and they ARE the law of the United States. Their only purpose is to protect both combatants and civilians in order to ameliorate suffering in war. No just resolution of this or any other detainee case is possible without strictly observing the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and 18 U.S.C. § 2441..."

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-6696/03-6696.mer.ami.gittings.pdf

The SCOTUS has slapped the administration several times, now, with respect to BushCo/neoCON abuse of power.

Fitz could go all the way on this one. I hope, for the integrity of this country, that he does go all the way.

and because Gonzales is Fitz's boss, there's no chance of him getting involved in torture cases against this administration.

I would love to see a future DOJ sic Fitz on the Bush crime cabal. One can always hope...

Laws are meaningless if no one enforces them.