A June ruling by the Supreme Court defied President Bush in the Hamden case, and ruled that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba violated the Geneva Conventions, U.S. and International standards. President Bush, confident that the Republican Party would easily keep both houses of Congress after the November elections, was unconcerned about either house bringing up charges or investigating.
In an act that can only be described as arrogance, Bush moved to personally redefine the Geneva Conventions to suit his purposes by having both houses of the Republican controlled Congress in effect change the rules for him.
The legislation should’ve sailed through Congress easily, but was delayed when several from the president's own party objected to his trying to re-write the Geneva Conventions, endangering U.S. soldiers as other countries might well follow Bush’s lead and rewrite their own rules too. With urgency, the President agreed to allow the Geneva Convention to stand as is, quickly settling to simply redefine the severity of the rules for questioning detainees.
However, now that the balance of power in both houses of Congress is uncertain, President Bush must now worry about The War Crimes Act, which states that it is a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. What that means is that the Bush Administration could potentially be in real trouble unless that legislation is passed before the November elections, should a hostile committee initiate a Congressional investigation into his actions.
While watching Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room on CNN on Wednesday, off-hand comments during a conversation with Jack Cafferty took me by surprise:
Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001.
At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford to do his dirty work. President Bush is trying to pardon himself.
... Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet In Columbus
Thanks E.O. much appreciated sir
Jet
2 - JustOneMan
You report as fact words uttered by Jack Cafferty on CNN?
Wheres the proof..this is a public document why cant you quote the page and paragraph...because it may it exist...
3 - Dave Nalle
1. Why does President Bush so urgently need pardon/blanket immunity for crimes dating back to September 11th 2001 that no one has proven that he’s committed yet?
Well duh. Because the Dems are on the warpath and some of them are crazy enough to try to impeach him AND try him for war crimes. But it's interesting to note that it doesn't include a pardon going back fatther than 9/11, suggesting that there's nothing to the conspiracy theories about Bush being behind the WTC attack.
Dave
4 - JustOneMan
A simpe internet search would have debunked this story. Heres the link to NPR - Heres what the bill actually states
War Crimes Act
The legislation would narrow the range of offenses prohibited under the War Crimes Act. This would protect civilians (such as CIA interrogators and White House officials) from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition. The change is retroactive to 1997, which means any crimes committed since 1997 would be prosecuted under the new standard, not the old one.
5 - Bliffle
I'm flabbergasted. Sounds like the end of The Third Reich. Or maybe the Nixon administration.
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
What exactly does this have to do with the Beaver Brown Band?
7 - Donnie Marler
Thank's for bringing this up for thought and discussion. I still find it problematic personally that any court in America would grant the protections of the Geneva Convention to terrorists. I suppose I'm waxing nostalgic for the day's when gentlemen waged war in a civilized fashion. I wonder when that was?
8 - Jet In Columbus
Actually Dave I found one article/source that has it retroactive to 1997
DesMoinesRegister.com
one paragraph of an artlcle reads
A little-discussed provision of the legislation President Bush wants from Congress would preclude anyone from ever being held accountable for possible violations of the law in the treatment of detainees. No one could be held liable, criminally or civilly, retroactive to 1997.
It's sort of like issuing a preemptive pardon to everyone in the Bush administration, even though no one has yet been charged with any crime.
I could only find one source for this so I went with the 9/11 date.
Thanks for keeping me honest
JEt
9 - Jet In Columbus
So am I Bliff, so am I.
10 - Jet In Columbus
Thanks Suss, I knew I could count on you...
Love hugs and kisses
Jet
11 - Jet In Columbus
Donnie, certainly before this President
12 - Jet In Columbus
Thanks Dave Nalle, I re-researched it and the date is 1997
13 - Jet In Columbus
From Newsweek-May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.
The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes"and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves" is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002,memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes"defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions"such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners"was "undefined."
One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.
"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote.
The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision"then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell" to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.
"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.
The memo"and strong dissents by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his chief legal advisor, William Howard Taft IV"are among hundreds of pages of internal administration documents on the Geneva Convention and related issues that have been obtained by NEWSWEEK and are reported for the first time in this week's magazine. Newsweek made some of them available online today.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004
14 - JustOneMan
what is this a history class -- May 19, 2004??
I bet someone in here has had a copy of the May 19, 2004 Newsweek hidden between their matress since May of 2004...and every single night before they go to bed they reread the Michael Isikoff article while they fantasize and pleasure themselves.....but guess what..it aint never gonna happen in real life...
15 - JustOneMan
Too bad
Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill
The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House
16 - Peter J
Jet,
I'm sorry man, but you're acting like we're talking about any old president of the United States here.
You best straighten up (not that way) here and watch where you step. "W"s boys are gonna start commin out of the wordwork for you. I don't know where you get off tryin to muddy up the "Man's" life, like he hasn't got enough things to worry about already.
Do you know how long it's been since the "Big Guy's" been down to Crawford? That brush don't clear itself y'know!
All you damn lefty's think being a dic,,,I mean a president is easy stuff, well, he just don't have time to be checkin all them little laws about a bunch of towel,,I mean, terrorist low lifes.
We need to step aside and leave ole George alone, he's got a heap on his plate.
And of course he wasn't guilty of conspiracy in the 9-11 fiasco, unless you count clueless and reckless as crimes.
Lighten up you guys, willya? The man's doin a lot of work, hard work, he's rootin em out, trackin'em down.
17 - Dave Nalle
Having now looked at the text I don't see how this has anything to do with the president. The protections seem to apply specificcally to lower-level government agents who actually do the torturing - if that's even what you can call these activities.
Dave
18 - Michael J. West
Is this even possible? The president has absolute pardon power. Does Congress even have the authority to work pardons into legislation?
19 - Jet In Columbus
Peter J... head 'em up and move 'em out?
20 - Jet In Columbus
Michael... Apparently two of the best minds in news and their sources seem to think so, who am I to argue?
21 - Michael J. West
Their knowledge may trump yours and mine, Jet (certainly mine), but they're not exactly constitutional law experts. I WOULD like to hear from someone who really does know his stuff before I make a judgement on this one.
22 - JustOneMan
"best minds in news" Wolf Blitzer and Cafferty
What about Katie Couric?
23 - Jet In Columbus
Fair enough Michael, Do you know of wone? I'm man enough to admit if I'm wrong, or in this case my sources are wrong.
I've never claimed to be infalable...
24 - Jet In Columbus
SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Counsel and Investigations- Section 1004(b) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking `may provide' and inserting `shall provide';
(2) by inserting `or investigation' after `criminal prosecution'; and
(3) by inserting `whether before United States courts or agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or agencies,' after `described in that subsection'.
(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.
25 - Jet In Columbus
H.R.6054
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Therefore the president, his administration, any military personel etc are immune from prosecution concerning their actions.
Or at least that's how I read it...