Bush is trying to get the War Crimes Act of 1996 rewritten, eliminating the parts of it that prohibit certain violations of the Geneva Conventions*. Is he finally beginning to fear that he may actually have to abide by the Law of the Land, and needs to try and legalize these actions that are being taken around the world in Our Name? Lots of news on this topic today. He's speaking about it right this minute. Interesting to see what ultimately shakes out of all this.
*Here's what I'm talking about:
[full article] Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act, from The Nation, Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith
Points argued and discussed in the article:
1. Commitment to the Geneva Conventions protects US service people from future retaliation.
2. The War Crimes Act will prohibit "torture-lite" in the future.
3. The War Crimes Act will prohibit future Abu Ghraib-type outrages.
4. Gutting the War Crimes Act will promote the perception of the United States as an outlaw country.
5. The Bush legislation unfairly exempts high government officials from the very war crimes charges they are leveling against lowly "grunts."
6. Preserving the War Crimes Act is part of reasserting the rule of law in America.
Some quotes:
[...] In the wake of World War II, Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, observed that "the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Making statesmen responsible to law is what the War Crimes Act is all about.
[...] Ed Markey, senior member of the House Committee for Homeland Security, told The Nation, "The Bush Administration and the GOP leadership in Congress is trying to quietly excuse and even codify cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody, at secret CIA prisons abroad and even the abhorrent practice of extraordinary rendition [the outsourcing of torture and other cruel treatment to other countries]."
[...] Markey adds, "Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."
Curious to read what Bush said today. Can't stand to listen to him or watch him.
- Bush - Dubya - torture - Geneva -
5 comments:
he basically said we have done nothing wrong and now it's up to congress to take care of all the stuff and make what we have done okay. Yes, it made about that much sense.
He told about all the secret things they have been doing to keep boogie men from harming our fair little heads. Seems according to what he said today we would have had a terror attack every 15 minutes if he had not been able to (not) torture and listen to wire taps. How much of it was bs? Who knows?
How much of it was bs?
If you add one cup clean water to one cup of shit, how much shit is there? Two cups. If there's even an iota of truth in what he's bringin', it's pretty well soiled from using it for the neocon agenda and mixing with lies. [snort]
C'mon, Blue! You know full well that the Geneva Convention, just like the Constitution, is just a piece or paper! Can a piece of paper keep you safe from the islamo-fascists? Heck no!
Besides, had you read the "Divine Rights of Kings" chapter of the Patriot Act, you'd know that our Fearless Leader is not bound by man-made, paper-written law!
Does this mean we're going to end up with Queen Jenna?
I'm still trying to figure out what "islamo-fascist" means. I think it's a faux term from Faux News.
I think yer absolutely right.
Dub's more of a Christo-Fascist - because he's an actual fascist. Not because he's a fundamentalist religious whack-job like bin Laden & Co.
Different ideological methodologies. And Bush has at his disposal the largest Military Ind Comp in the History of our species. Osama uses whatever's available to him.
al Qaeda would only be fascist if it had Corporate Sponsorship. It's too "traditional" for that though.
Post a Comment