Bush Seeks Retroactive Laws To Protect Himself From War Crimes Prosecution

[jAZ]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts169.html

Bush Seeks Retroactive Laws To Protect Himself From War Crimes Prosecution
by Paul Craig Roberts

DIGG THIS

When I was a kid John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain. Alas, today the US and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today the US and Israel are seen throughout the world as war criminal states.

On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an "integral part" of Israel’s strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.

Israel claims that its aggression was "self-defense" to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.

United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel’s attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon’s development: "Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month."

Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended "collateral damage."

President Bush maintains that Israel has "a right to protect itself" by destroying Lebanon.

Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel’s aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration’s military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

One of Bush’s changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.

Bush’s other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain’s amendment against torture.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice says that Bush’s changes "immunize past crimes."

Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President’s attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?

Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American "Christian" public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush’s changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.

Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.

Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.

According to President Bush, the US will lose the "war on terror" unless the US succeeds in defeating "the Iraqi terrorists" by establishing "democracy in Iraq." Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.

Bush’s unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.

Bush and the neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.

August 29, 2006

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[patteeu]

It's sad that such a strong traitorous streak runs through so many Americans that such legislation might be necessary.

[redbrian]

Jaz if you want to be taken seriously you should find creditable op-ed writers and post reasoned and insightful articles.

This newest piece of drivel is full of outright mistruths and opinions stated as facts.

I love the outrage over Israel bombing civilian sites with no reason but to destroy Lebanon, yet does not place any blame or outrage over the fact that Hezbollah was using those sites to launch rockets (loaded with ball bearings to inflict maximum damage on humans) blindly aimed at civilian targets.

The piece funny enough does not specify what war crimes Bush has commited.

[HC_Chief]

The piece funny enough does not specify what war crimes Bush has commited.

Sure it does... he didn't put a muzzle on his pet, Israel.

Next the UN will call for a pit bull, errr Israel ban in the ME.

[patteeu]

And the author, who is smart enough to know better but apparently rabid enough to not care, is being disingenuous when he says:

Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible.

It's impermissible to make something illegal retroactively but it's not impermissible to make it legal (or to clarify the legality as in this case).

[banyon]

The piece funny enough does not specify what war crimes Bush has commited.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=145321

[Brock]

The piece funny enough does not specify what war crimes Bush has commited.

They spoke harshly to some of the detainees at Guantanamo and made them feel bad about themselves. And those instructions came from the "highest level".

[Cochise]

Well, if lew rockwell says it... ROFL

[Mr. Kotter]

Jaz if you want to be taken seriously you should find creditable op-ed writers and post reasoned and insightful articles...

Nice thought, but with jAZ it's...a pipe dream....:shake:

[redbrian]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=145321

So Bush was an active participate in the interrogations, or he gave direct orders to perform illegal interrogations?

Try a little harder and give me specific war crimes Bush is culpable for.

[HC_Chief]

So Bush was an active participate in the interrogations, or he gave direct orders to perform illegal interrogations?

Try a little harder and give me specific war crimes Bush is culpable for.

he stole da ellekshons!

[banyon]

So Bush was an active participate in the interrogations, or he gave direct orders to perform illegal interrogations?

Try a little harder and give me specific war crimes Bush is culpable for.

Are you familiar with Nuremberg? Do you believe that they were prosecuted under such a definition as you offer?

[Mr. Kotter]

Are you familiar with Nuremberg? Do you believe that they were prosecuted under such a definition as you offer?Are you suggesting that Bush is guilty of authorizing behavior and crimes which even remotely resemble those crimes for which the Nazis were actually prosecuted for (not just those things they were accused of, but actually prosecuted for) at Nurhemberg? :spock:

[banyon]

Are you suggesting that Bush is guilty of authorizing behavior and crimes which even remotely resemble those crimes for which the Nazis were actually prosecuted for (not just those things they were accused of, but actually prosecuted for) at Nurhemberg? :spock:

don't be daft, it's the principle of being responsible for your actions that I am comparing, not the actions themselves.

[redbrian]

don't be daft, it's the principle of being responsible for your actions that I am comparing, not the actions themselves.

I don't think it will stand up in a court of law, so give me one crime committed by Bush or get off your horse.

And the lesson from Germany is that you can't plead innocent for following illegal orders.

To accuse Bush you must have proof that he gave illegal orders.

[banyon]

I don't think it will stand up in a court of law, so give me one crime committed by Bush or get off your horse.

Based on what? You do understand that the standards of evidence are quite different at a War Crimes tribunal, right?

[redbrian]

Based on what? You do understand that the standards of evidence are quite different at a War Crimes tribunal, right?

Based on what proof do you have that Bush did something illegal and what is that act specifically.

[banyon]

Also, if it were so transparently clear that Bush or his cronies could not be found guilty, why would they even bother to revise these laws?

[Laz]

Bush has opted this "don't ask, just apologize afterward" attitude from the very beginning.




too bad Clinton didn't make blowjobs legal after the fact. ;)

[redbrian]

Also, if it were so transparently clear that Bush or his cronies could not be found guilty, why would they even bother to revise these laws?

Once more what specifically are you accusing Bush of doing, and what proof is there to support your claim.

[banyon]

Based on what proof do you have that Bush did something illegal and what is that act specifically.

I'm not alleging that he is guilty, which is the position apparently you'd like me to adopt. There is plenty of evidence that suggests further investigation is warranted, but of course the lapdog Congress won't do that.

I'm alleging that his retroactively repealing his potential liability for these acts is a cowardly and morally reprehensible act.

[Brock]

Bush has opted this "don't ask, just apologize afterward" attitude from the very beginning.




too bad Clinton didn't make blowjobs legal after the fact. ;)

And perjury too. ;)

[redbrian]

I'm not alleging that he is guilty, which is the position apparently you'd like me to adopt. There is plenty of evidence that suggests further investigation is warranted, but of course the lapdog Congress won't do that.

I'm alleging that his retroactively repealing his potential liability for these acts is a cowardly and morally reprehensible act.


ROFL

So changing laws drawn up that fit a whole different world is what has you panties in a bunch, you know if we follow those old antiquated laws you love so much, we should be shooting every combatant we capture as a spy, since they are not wearing recognized military uniforms.

[banyon]

ROFL

So changing laws drawn up that fit a whole different world is what has you panties in a bunch, you know if we follow those old antiquated laws you love so much, we should be shooting every combatant we capture as a spy, since they are not wearing recognized military uniforms.

What law requires us to shoot combatants?

Seems like all we get today is excuses and apologies from this Administration.

They need to put up a giant sign on the White House Lawn that says "The Buck Never Stops".

[stevieray]

There is plenty of evidence that suggests further investigation is warranted, but of course the lapdog Congress won't do that.



Is this like the system being flawed when a certain person is President?

[banyon]

Is this like the system being flawed when a certain person is President?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

It probably works that way when either of the two current parties control both branches.

[DanT]

And the author, who is smart enough to know better but apparently rabid enough to not care, is being disingenuous when he says:



It's impermissible to make something illegal retroactively but it's not impermissible to make it legal (or to clarify the legality as in this case).

Here's part of what the author, Paul Craig Roberts said:

Bush’s other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain’s amendment against torture.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention) is part of the supreme Law of the United States (see Clause 2 of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) (http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html#art2), as it was ratified by Congress after the President (in this case, President Truman) had the United States sign it. (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html) It is illegal to violate it.

[DanT]

Here's a link to and the beginning of a Washington Post article from last month that pertains to this thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html

Detainee Abuse Charges Feared
Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 28, 2006; A01



An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

The Justice Department's top legal adviser, Steven G. Bradbury, separately testified two weeks ago that Congress must give new "definition and certainty" to captors' risk of prosecution for coercive interrogations that fall short of outright torture.

Language in the administration's draft, which Bradbury helped prepare in concert with civilian officials at the Defense Department, seeks to protect U.S. personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by incorporating language making U.S. enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to U.S. -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.

The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of U.S. legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that "shocks the conscience." This phrase allows some consideration by courts of the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.

The Supreme Court, in contrast, has repeatedly said that foreign interpretations of international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions should at least be considered by U.S. courts.

Some human rights groups and independent experts say they oppose undermining the reach of the War Crimes Act, arguing that it deters government misconduct. They say any step back from the Geneva Conventions could provoke mistreatment of captured U.S. military personnel. They also contend that Bush administration anxieties about prosecutions are overblown and should not be used to gain congressional approval for rough interrogations.

"The military has lived with" the Geneva Conventions provisions "for 50 years and applied them to every conflict, even against irregular forces. Why are we suddenly afraid now about the vagueness of its terms?" asked Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch.

Since the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, hundreds of service members deployed to Iraq have been accused by the Army of mistreating detainees, and at least 35 detainees have died in military or CIA custody, according to a tally kept by Human Rights First. The military has asserted these were all aberrant acts by troops ignoring their orders.

Defense attorneys for many of those accused of involvement have alleged that their clients were pursuing policies of rough treatment set by officials in Washington. That claim is amplified in a 53-page Human Rights Watch report this week that quoted interrogators at three bases in Iraq as saying that abuse was part of regular, authorized procedures. But this argument has yet to gain traction in a military court, where U.S. policy requires that active-duty service members be tried for any maltreatment.

The War Crimes Act, in contrast, affords access to civilian courts for abuse perpetrated by former service members and by civilians. The government has not filed any charges under the law.

The law's legislative sponsor is one of the House's most conservative members, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.). He proposed it after a chance meeting with a retired Navy pilot who had spent six years in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton," a Vietnamese prison camp. The conversation left Jones angry about Washington's inability to prosecute the pilot's abusers.

Jones's legislation for the first time imposed criminal penalties in the United States for breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which protect detainees anywhere. The Defense Department's deputy general counsel at the time declared at the sole hearing on it in 1996 -- attended by just two lawmakers -- that "we fully support the purposes of the bill," and urged its expansion to cover a wider range of war crimes. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill by voice vote, and the Senate approved it by unanimous consent.

The law initially criminalized grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions but was amended without a hearing the following year to include violations of Common Article 3, the minimum standard requiring that all detainees be treated "humanely." The article bars murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." It applies to any abuse involving U.S. military personnel or "nationals."

continued at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html

[patteeu]

Here's part of what the author, Paul Craig Roberts said:


Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention) is part of the supreme Law of the United States (see Clause 2 of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) (http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html#art2), as it was ratified by Congress after the President had the United States sign it. (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html) It is illegal to violate it.

First, I don't see how that is relevant to the statement of mine that you quoted. There isn't an ex post facto problem with this legislation.

Second, while the GC is a ratified treaty and therefore the law, interpretation of what the GC means and when it applies is the key to whether or not a violation has occurred. The recent SCOTUS ruling adds significant weight to the interpretation that people like Paul Craig Roberts presumably advocate, but the fact that it was an extremely fractured opinion seems to indicate that that particular interpretation was anything but clear prior to that decision. I'd imagine that that SCOTUS decision is the reason this legislation came to be.

Edit: I see from the article that you posted that this legislation is indeed a reaction to the recent SCOTUS ruling.

[patteeu]

Based on what? You do understand that the standards of evidence are quite different at a War Crimes tribunal, right?

Are you sure about that? I'm assuming that any war crimes trial of a US official would be carried out in US courts based on some US law such as the one that this legislation is trying to blunt. If so, I'd imagine that the normal standards of evidence would apply.

[patteeu]

I'm not alleging that he is guilty, which is the position apparently you'd like me to adopt. There is plenty of evidence that suggests further investigation is warranted, but of course the lapdog Congress won't do that.

I'm alleging that his retroactively repealing his potential liability for these acts is a cowardly and morally reprehensible act.

LOL @ "cowardly and morally reprehensible"

The Bush administration hasn't been shy about publicly stating their position on interpreting the GC all along. Their actions were, presumably, consistent with this interpretation. The SCOTUS, by a very narrow margin, saw things differently. What's wrong with the other two branches of government using their constitutional powers to weigh in on the matter?

[DanT]

First, I don't see how that is relevant to the statement of mine that you quoted. There isn't an ex post facto problem with this legislation.

Second, while the GC is a ratified treaty and therefore the law, interpretation of what the GC means and when it applies is the key to whether or not a violation has occurred. The recent SCOTUS ruling adds significant weight to the interpretation that people like Paul Craig Roberts presumably advocate, but the fact that it was an extremely fractured opinion seems to indicate that that particular interpretation was anything but clear prior to that decision. I'd imagine that that SCOTUS decision is the reason this legislation came to be.

Edit: I see from the article that you posted that this legislation is indeed a reaction to the recent SCOTUS ruling.

The relevance between what I posted and your quoted statement regarding the permissibility of clarifying retrospectively the legality of actions is that what I posted shows that violations of the 3rd article of the Geneva Convention have a clear legal status: such actions are illegal. There isn't any lack of clarity about the legal status of such actions that the Bush administration needs to remedy. The Bush Administration is trying to make something that was outlawed by earlier generations of Americans and then criminalized by a later generation into something that's hunky dory. It's a fitting example for Dr. Roberts to cite in an essay about how the United States is no longer seen as the good guy by the rest of the world.

[patteeu]

The relevance between what I posted and your quoted statement regarding the permissibility of clarifying retrospectively the legality of actions is that what I posted shows that violations of the 3rd article of the Geneva Convention have a clear legal status: such actions are illegal. There isn't any lack of clarity about the legal status of such actions that the Bush administration needs to remedy. The Bush Administration is trying to make something that was outlawed by earlier generations of Americans and then criminalized by a later generation into something that's hunky dory. It's a great example for Dr. Roberts to cite in an essay about how the United States is no longer seen as the good guy by the rest of the world.

Oh, I get you. I do agree that my "clarifying" statement was wrong. What they are doing though is fighting about an interpretation. The actions weren't clearly violations because there were competing interpretations of the GC and it's applicability which have only been marginally clarified by the intervening SCOTUS ruling.

[DanT]

Oh, I get you. I do agree that my "clarifying" statement was wrong. What they are doing though is fighting about an interpretation. The actions weren't clearly violations because there were competing interpretations of the GC and it's applicability which have only been marginally clarified by the intervening SCOTUS ruling.


The United States formed a contract and now the current Executive Branch wants to claim that the understanding of what the contract means should be based on what one party to the contract thinks it means.

[Mr. Kotter]

The United States formed a contract and now the current Executive Branch wants to claim that the understanding of what the contract means should be based on what one party to the contract thinks it means.

If there is not absolute clarity in the "governing" GC provisions, such ambiguity opens the door.

[jAZ]

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

[patteeu]

The United States formed a contract and now the current Executive Branch wants to claim that the understanding of what the contract means should be based on what one party to the contract thinks it means.

Yes, that's pretty much how it always works when it comes to international treaties that aren't subject to any review by an international dispute resolution process.

[patteeu]

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

:rolleyes:

[redbrian]

What law requires us to shoot combatants?

Since they are not a member of an organized legal military and do not wear uniforms they could all be considered spy’s and shot.

[Adept Havelock]

Since they are not a member of an organized legal military and do not wear uniforms they could all be considered franc-tireurs and shot.

FYP.

(One usually has to be engaged in espionage to be considered a spy)