Bush Tries to Pardon Himself from War Crimes

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:09 pm

Hes a piece of work alright..... A weasel, and a disgrace.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:28 pm

I really wish that I could say that I am surprised. But I am not.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:42 pm

This will cover him for any Americans he disposes of also. And serve as a role model for future presidents to cover themselves. Great idea. He represents the end of decency, and morals, and everything we as a people supposedly stand for. Oh God, I wish a revolution would rise up before its too late.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:33 pm

Words fail me.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:27 am

Sickening.

Isn't this what General Pinochet tried? It nearly worked for him.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:46 am

Congress let him away with it. Are they not equally liable? Just as our MP's are responsible for letting Tony Blair get away with lying.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:35 pm

As the "Leader of the Free (Heavily Discounted?) World", should he not be held to a higher standard than the the normal man (or woman) in the street?

I may be a bit idealistic, but I hold my representatives to a higher standard than this.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:50 pm

They all have their money invested or sit on the boards of the same corporations. The whole idea is for them to Help Each Other, get away with anything and everything. Just like Ted Kennedy got away with leaving a young girl alone, to die, in the back seat of a car so many years ago. But then, I guess he was through with her. It was afterall at the END of the evening. That must have made her parents feel better.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:11 pm

I can't find this anywhere other than this video. I'm not putting it past him, understand. I just find it really weird that there is only one source. I would think everybody would jump on this.

Can anybody find another source for this information?

Santanico · Post by **Santanico** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:12 pm

LilacDragon;760861 wrote: I really wish that I could say that I am surprised. But I am not.

You took the words right....um......off my keyboard?

I don't think there's anything underhanded that man could do that would surprise me.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:40 pm

Like ... OMG .... Britney Spears just showed up at the courthouse then left!!!! Like that is totally crazzyy!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... index.html

What, Bush is trying to pardon himself? ... naw I haven't seen anything about that on CNN online. :wah: .... :-1

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:59 pm

The american government has refused to sign up to the international court of justice one of seven countries that refuse to do so. The others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm

It's not international courts he's worried about it's american ones. Does this mean that an american president is above american law safe from prosecution? Also surely the law can be changed to make prosecution possible in the future if there is enough public sentiment in it's favour..

grh · Post by **grh** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:42 pm

here we go:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCTOBER 17, 2006

3:07 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/1017-03.htm

You kinda have to wonder why no one made a big deal about this before, don't ya?

I mean seriously, a year and a third later??? Where was Spot? Where was Scrat?

I'm sorely disappointed in the lot of you!:p

Bush.... not so much.. pretty much what one expects from him and his, sadly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:45 am

grh;765108 wrote: here we go:

You kinda have to wonder why no one made a big deal about this before, don't ya?

I mean seriously, a year and a third later??? Where was Spot? Where was Scrat?

I'm sorely disappointed in the lot of you!:p

Bush.... not so much.. pretty much what one expects from him and his, sadly.

Surely the question is why have the legislators let him do this? The idea that anyone should be above the law is surely unamerican? I'm not american remember so don't assume I am trying to wind you up. I'm curious to see what you think, why is there no anger at the lawmakers doing something like this?

Just for the record IMO our MP's are more to blame than TB for our involvement in Iraq. He lied to the house and they haven't yet taken him to task. They could have stopped it all cold at any time.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:23 am

gmc;765352 wrote: Surely the question is why have the legislators let him do this? The idea that anyone should be above the law is surely unamerican? I'm not american remember so don't assume I am trying to wind you up. I'm curious to see what you think, why is there no anger at the lawmakers doing something like this?

Just for the record IMO our MP's are more to blame than TB for our involvement in Iraq. He lied to the house and they haven't yet taken him to task. They could have stopped it all cold at any time.
Which is why I'm wondering why there's only a single source for this in all of Internetdom. I would think something this inflammatory would be supported if true and challenged if false, but there's nothing! :-2

ETA: Even snops.com doesn't have it!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:00 am

Accountable;765390 wrote: Which is why I'm wondering why there's only a single source for this in all of Internetdom. I would think something this inflammatory would be supported if true and challenged if false, but there's nothing! :-2

ETA: Even snops.com doesn't have it!!

Good point. But then the american media didn't seem too bothered about the acceptance of torture in the first place. Not that I actually read or see much of the us media to make any kind of realistic assessment. I suspect CNN doesn't really qualify as being representative and I only watch that occasionally because the number of adverts is really irritating.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:56 am

You guys have no idea how totally and deliberately unreadable your legislation is - it's obfustication for the sake of it. I'm used to reading UK legislation which is a model of clarity by comparison. Seriously, this stuff is written in this style just to disguise its effect from public scrutiny.

The video clip was recorded on 28th September 2006.

The legislation was finally passed on October 17, 2006: "Military Commission Act Becomes Law; Authorizes Torture, Restricts Fundamental Legal Rights". It's discussed at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/enti ... is_hastert (floppy and I both ended up near the same discussion since it's got a lot of detail and it bubbles high on Google) Retroactive Immunity - The administration added a provision to the MCA that rewrote the War Crimes Act retroactively to November 26, 1997, making any offenses considered war crimes before the MCA is adopted no longer punishable under US law. Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean will write in 2007 that the only reason he can fathom for the change is to protect administration officials — perhaps including President Bush himself — from any future prosecutions as war criminals. Dean will note that if the administration actually believes in the inherent and indisputable powers of the presidency, as it has long averred, then it would not worry about any such criminal liability.

So you can see the opacity of the text, here's the clause:(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made

by this subsection, except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E)

of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take

effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately

after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law

105–118 (as amended by section 4002(e)(7) of Public Law 107–273).

and the larger component referred to as "this subsection" starts with the words(b) REVISION TO WAR CRIMES OFFENSE UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(A) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and

inserting the following new paragraph (3):

‘‘(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article

3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context

of and in association with an armed conflict not of an inter-

national character; or’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(d) COMMON ARTICLE 3 VIOLATIONS.—

‘‘(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.—In subsection (c)(3), the term

‘grave breach of common Article 3’ means any conduct (such

conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of

the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949),

as follows:

I've attached a PDF of the entire Military Commission Act 2006 - you'll find it has a lot of definitions of what's considered torture, together with the immunity from foreign courts and the backdated provisions for US courts.

As a bonus, here's a subsequent attempt at revoking the immunity provisions which never got further than being tabled for discussion:

109th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6381

To repeal Public Law No: 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law October 17, 2006.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 6, 2006

Ms. MCKINNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL To repeal Public Law No: 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law October 17, 2006.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Congress hereby fully repeals Public Law 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed into law October 17, 2006 and any appropriations approved to implement it, or changes to other statutes related to its adoption into law.I doubt whether it was even mentioned in session. At least someone tried.

Attached files mca2006.pdf (129.4 KB)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:22 am

You guys have no idea how totally and deliberately unreadable your legislation is - it's obfustication for the sake of it. I'm used to reading UK legislation which is a model of clarity by comparison. Seriously, this stuff is written in this style just to disguise its effect from public scrutiny.

Which is why lawyers should be prevented from being in the legislature, imo.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:15 pm

No, acc. We have lawyers in ours and they do a fine job. What you have is a systemic culture of "we know how and you don't, so we will and you can't". It's not healthy and it has nothing to do with lawyers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:54 am

I'd love to know when that trend started. My gut says round about the time of the New Deal, but I could easily be wrong.