BUSH PARDON's HIMSELF !!!

[FOTD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

Should congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for war crimes?

 You can try him all you like, hang him or lock him up and throw away the key, but you'll never get him to feel remorse.

And what else was in the bill? What made it a bi-partisan sweep? Was this another one of those 598 page behemoths that are delivered on Friday afternoon with a vote scheduled for Monday morning? With all the talking points sugar-frosted? That's been the Thugs' MO with these nasty little bits. Tucked way down in the middle of the reams of paper, in a one paragraph clause and usually in indirect language. Obviously, we must prevent this from passing the Senate in this session, 'cause even if it's baldly unconstitutional, we have a Republican-stacked Supreme Court.....
And as Cafferty points out, this would never have passed and won't pass in a strongly Democratic Congress. It's time to sweep out the Republican scum and their blue running dogs.

[Hometown]

We now know why Bush prevented the U.S. from joining the International War Crimes court.  

He and his friends should take a close look at what happened to Pinochet.  Memories are long in matters like this.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

We now know why Bush prevented the U.S. from joining the International War Crimes court.  

He and his friends should take a close look at what happened to Pinochet.  Memories are long in matters like this.

I know who Pinochet was, but how does that tie into the current "President" ?

[Hometown]

He and his cronies faced war crimes charges many years after the fact.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

He and his cronies faced war crimes charges many years after the fact.

Keep dreaming HT, just like your idol Slick Willie who fell asleep at a MLK service yesterday...

[cannon_fodder]

Yawn...

Explain to me what war-crimes Bush committed, ordered, or enabled?  Are we still talking about forcing prisoners to wear panties on their heads?  I agree, we should hang that bastard for that.

Elected and sitting President while a small snippet of the army and the CIA put panties on heads or even dunk people in pools / directly lead and directed a military overthrow of his government, incarceration of 27,000 citizens, disappearance of thousands more, assassination, embezzlement, and generally expelled all notions of civil rights.

Can we cast Dick Cheney as Eichmann?  Can Hillary be Patton?  Surely we have to be mere moments away from someone calling him a Nazi.

[spoonbill]

I've always wanted "cronies."  All I have is friends, buddies, and acquaintances.

Cronies would be fun, or better yet. . . MINIONS!

Yes, that's it, I want MINIONS.

[guido911]

Sounds like Cafferty is reporting on a "hit and run" piece of legislation. He of course is a well known expert in the area of hit and run.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

He and his cronies faced war crimes charges many years after the fact.

The crimes for which Pinochet and Co. were charged with were for human rights violations within his own country, and I think also with an assasination of a Chilean dissident in the US. What war crimes, or more appropriately, which war?

And IPLAW, good to see you on the board!

[Hometown]

Mr. Jaynes, Close enough to make my point.  Don't you bet Pinochet thought he had gotten away with murder for decades.

Now, do I really think this is going to happen?  Not necessarily, given the power of the United States, but on the other hand I've been surprised by the actions of our government that have been described by experts as defensive moves against possible war crimes charges.

Hey Folks, remember this:

May 15, 2002

On May 6 the United States government delivered a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations giving formal notice that the US has no intention of becoming a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The letter also requested that the US declaration be reflected in the Rome treaty's official status list – effectively canceling out the US signature to the treaty that was entered by the Clinton administration on December 31, 2001. This measure – popularly referred to as "unsigning" – sets the United States in outright opposition to the court, which will come into existence on July 1 of this year.

The move confirmed that the Bush administration will not submit the Rome treaty establishing the court to the Senate for ratification, and that it will refuse to cooperate with the court once it is up and running. The administration also announced that it would attempt to negotiate bilateral agreements with as many other countries as possible to prevent them from surrendering US agents to the court.

In this document, we attempt to answer some of the questions raised by the administration's action, and examine the substance of the charges that government officials have leveled at the court.

What does 'unsigning' mean?

The administration's repudiation of the treaty has been condemned by many human rights groups and numerous foreign observers, including the European Union. Whatever one thinks of it as a policy matter, however, the action of withdrawing from a treaty prior to ratification is explicitly sanctioned by international law. Under Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty...until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty."

According to James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge University, and Chairman of the International Law Commission working group that produced the first draft statute for the court in 1994, it was "probably appropriate, given their intentions toward the court" that the United States make a formal announcement that it was not going to become a party to the treaty. Crawford said that he thought it was "very unfortunate" that the United States took the attitude toward the court that it did, but that under those circumstances, it was entitled to say "We're not going to be a party to this."

For the United States, withdrawal from the treaty gives it a freer hand to launch a diplomatic offensive to minimize the chances that US military, governmental or other official personnel might ever appear before the court. On the same day that the withdrawal was announced, the government said that it was designating an official named Marisa Lino to negotiate bilateral agreements with countries to prevent them surrendering US agents to the court's jurisdiction.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-us-icc.html

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

He and his cronies faced war crimes charges many years after the fact.

The crimes for which Pinochet and Co. were charged with were for human rights violations within his own country, and I think also with an assasination of a Chilean dissident in the US. What war crimes, or more appropriately, which war?

And IPLAW, good to see you on the board!

Thanks...everytime I get back work drags me away again.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Mr. Jaynes, Close enough to make my point.  Don't you bet Pinochet thought he had gotten away with murder for decades.

Now, do I really think this is going to happen?  Not necessarily, given the power of the United States, but on the other hand I've been surprised by the actions of our government that have been described by experts as defensive moves against possible war crimes charges.

Hey Folks, remember this:

May 15, 2002

On May 6 the United States government delivered a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations giving formal notice that the US has no intention of becoming a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The letter also requested that the US declaration be reflected in the Rome treaty's official status list – effectively canceling out the US signature to the treaty that was entered by the Clinton administration on December 31, 2001. This measure – popularly referred to as "unsigning" – sets the United States in outright opposition to the court, which will come into existence on July 1 of this year.

The move confirmed that the Bush administration will not submit the Rome treaty establishing the court to the Senate for ratification, and that it will refuse to cooperate with the court once it is up and running. The administration also announced that it would attempt to negotiate bilateral agreements with as many other countries as possible to prevent them from surrendering US agents to the court.

In this document, we attempt to answer some of the questions raised by the administration's action, and examine the substance of the charges that government officials have leveled at the court.

What does 'unsigning' mean?

The administration's repudiation of the treaty has been condemned by many human rights groups and numerous foreign observers, including the European Union. Whatever one thinks of it as a policy matter, however, the action of withdrawing from a treaty prior to ratification is explicitly sanctioned by international law. Under Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty...until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty."

According to James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge University, and Chairman of the International Law Commission working group that produced the first draft statute for the court in 1994, it was "probably appropriate, given their intentions toward the court" that the United States make a formal announcement that it was not going to become a party to the treaty. Crawford said that he thought it was "very unfortunate" that the United States took the attitude toward the court that it did, but that under those circumstances, it was entitled to say "We're not going to be a party to this."

For the United States, withdrawal from the treaty gives it a freer hand to launch a diplomatic offensive to minimize the chances that US military, governmental or other official personnel might ever appear before the court. On the same day that the withdrawal was announced, the government said that it was designating an official named Marisa Lino to negotiate bilateral agreements with countries to prevent them surrendering US agents to the court's jurisdiction.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-us-icc.html

Like CF asked you earlier, what war crimes is he likely to be charged with?

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

M

Like CF asked you earlier, what war crimes is he likely to be charged with?

Short answer would be violation of GCIII (third Geneva Conventions), concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.  

As signatories to GCIII, the US is legally bound to follow its procedures and abide by its tenets.  Failure to do so is a violation of international law, and hence prosecutable in the Hague.

The obvious violation would be the unilateral creation of a third category for a party captured during wartime, the "unlawful enemy combatant."  GCIII states -- and from what I've found, case law supports -- that a captured party is either a civilian or a prisoner of war, and cannot be outside the law.  In other words, there is no lawful third designation.

This made-up third designation is hugely important because it has been the key justification for the way we've prosecuted our GWOT justice system. Though the designation is false, creating it has allowed us the legal (and crucially, the political) gray area to create Guantanamo, as well as to wiggle around with our definitions of torture and interrogation.  

And further, waterboarding is unequivocally torture. All legitimate international legal authorities consider it so, to my knowledge.  In fact, we considered it torture up until the current administration.  We actually prosecuted people for doing it to our soldiers during WWII, and obtained convictions and stiff sentences.  However, the Bush administration has worked very very hard to create enough daylight between their own definitions and accepted legal definitions to justify their actions.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

M

Like CF asked you earlier, what war crimes is he likely to be charged with?

Short answer would be violation of GCIII (third Geneva Conventions), concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.  

As signatories to GCIII, the US is legally bound to follow its procedures and abide by its tenets.  Failure to do so is a violation of international law, and hence prosecutable in the Hague.

The obvious violation would be the unilateral creation of a third category for a party captured during wartime, the "unlawful enemy combatant."  GCIII states -- and from what I've found, case law supports -- that a captured party is either a civilian or a prisoner of war, and cannot be outside the law.  In other words, there is no lawful third designation.

This made-up third designation is hugely important because it has been the key justification for the way we've prosecuted our GWOT justice system. Though the designation is false, creating it has allowed us the legal (and crucially, the political) gray area to create Guantanamo, as well as to wiggle around with our definitions of torture and interrogation.  

And further, waterboarding is unequivocally torture. All legitimate international legal authorities consider it so, to my knowledge.  In fact, we considered it torture up until the current administration.  We actually prosecuted people for doing it to our soldiers during WWII, and obtained convictions and stiff sentences.  However, the Bush administration has worked very very hard to create enough daylight between their own definitions and accepted legal definitions to justify their actions.

Glorious. Testifying for the prosecution for waterboarding: Abu Zubaydah, ran al Qaeda's terrorist training camps; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks; and Hambali, the mastermind of the Bali bombings in 2002. Truly credible witnesses. A slam dunk case.

IP, you taking this on?

[iplaw]

Tay...I didn't know you practiced international law?

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Short answer would be violation of GCIII (third Geneva Conventions), concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.  

Oh boy...this should be good.

quote:
As signatories to GCIII, the US is legally bound to follow its procedures and abide by its tenets.  Failure to do so is a violation of international law, and hence prosecutable in the Hague.

Uh huh...

quote:
The obvious violation would be the unilateral creation of a third category for a party captured during wartime, the "unlawful enemy combatant."  GCIII states -- and from what I've found, case law supports -- that a captured party is either a civilian or a prisoner of war, and cannot be outside the law.  In other words, there is no lawful third designation.

What case law would you be referring to?  I'm guessing it's not US federal law.  

quote:
This made-up third designation is hugely important because it has been the key justification for the way we've prosecuted our GWOT justice system. Though the designation is false, creating it has allowed us the legal (and crucially, the political) gray area to create Guantanamo, as well as to wiggle around with our definitions of torture and interrogation.  

I'm sorry, how is the term "enemy combatant" false?  What uniform were these people fighting under?  By what authority, state or otherwise, did they kill our soldiers?  Are you attempting to argue that terrorists, simply because they have NO definition under the Geneva convention, are simply civilians?

quote:
And further, waterboarding is unequivocally torture. All legitimate international legal authorities consider it so, to my knowledge.  In fact, we considered it torture up until the current administration.  We actually prosecuted people for doing it to our soldiers during WWII, and obtained convictions and stiff sentences.  However, the Bush administration has worked very very hard to create enough daylight between their own definitions and accepted legal definitions to justify their actions.

Could you please point us to the international law that explicitly states that not only is waterboarding illegal, but defines a punishment for it as well?  Waterboarding is not a monolithic idea.  There are many forms of the practice which not all countries oppose.  Could you be more specific as to which ones these "laws" cover?[][][]