Bush is in a big sweat to rewrite history

[BarnOwl]

Yesterday, on his Countdown show, Keith Olbermann asked if Bush is trying to cover his ass by pressuring Congress into rewriting General Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.

It certainly seems that way, opined Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University. The problem, says Turley, is that the 14 guys recently transferred from CIA prison(s) to Gtmo, will, or have already talked to Red Cross representatives and have probably told them they were water boarded – which is torture, pure and simple.

So Bush is trying to get Congress to rewrite Article 4 to make these abuses retroactively legal. Ortherwise he’s looking at 14 more very serious violations of international law against him – felonies - that he (Bush) could be charged with. And Georgie already has 30 other felonies pending for his warrantless phone tapping activity, says Turley.

In an editorial yesterday the Washington Post outlined what Bush wants in the rewrite of General Article 4:

“It wants authorization for the CIA to hide detainees in overseas prisons where even the International Committee of the Red Cross won’t have access.”

“It wants permission to interrogate those detainees with abusive practices that in the past included induced hypothermia, and “waterboarding” or simulated drowning. And it wants the right to try such detainees and perhaps sentence them to death on the basis of evidence that the defendants cannot see and that may have been extracted during those abusive interrogation methods”

I’m no lawyer, so I don’t see how this strategy will cover Bush’s ass. We signed the Geneva Convention and changing the laws retroactively doesn’t seem to hold water.

I suppose the US wouldn’t allow Bush to go on trial, (dammit) but if he gets his way, won’t we be the rogue nation the terrorists say we are? Olbermann thinks we will, so does Turley, and so does your intrepid Reporter…

BarnOwl, Fearless Defender of His Back Yard Birds and the US Constitution

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

How can the US Congress unilaterally change the Geneva Convention? How would changing the law now retroactively exempt Bush from any crimes that were committed beforehand?

The proposed changes are completely evil and reprehensible either way, of course.

[Frank]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How can the US Congress unilaterally change the Geneva Convention?

The proposed law would change the interpretation of Article 3 in U.S. law. Here is the opinion of a couple of prominent American former officers:

McCain said after Bush’s speech that he respected the president’s position. But, he said, "The protection our personnel require is not limited to freedom from lawsuits and unjust criminal prosecutions. They also need – and deserve – the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions.

“For this reason, I oppose unilaterally reinterpreting in law Geneva Common Article 3,” McCain said.

Article 3 prohibits nations engaged in combat from “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” (Read the full text of Article 3)

Powell, a retired four-star Army general, wrote a letter to McCain that was released Wednesday in which he stated, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

“To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts,” Powell wrote. “Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Fortunately, led by McCain, a number of Republican Senators are showing signs of having grown a backbone, and are resisting this latest outrage.

[Squink]

@Frank

Fortunately, led by McCain, a number of Republican Senators are showing signs of having grown a backbone, and are resisting this latest outrage.

Of course the situation in the House is different, with that chamber on track to approve the Bush-backed measure. "We’ll do what the president wants,‘’ said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

This’ll probably end up as one of those conference committee rewrites where the senators lack the balls to vote against a specious ‘compromise’.

[Frank]

@Squink

Of course the situation in the House is different, with that chamber on track to approve the Bush-backed measure. "We’ll do what the president wants,‘’ said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

This’ll probably end up as one of those conference committee rewrites where the senators lack the balls to vote against a specious ‘compromise’.

Well, they don’t have much time left, and a filibuster would drag it out even further. (And I would consider this worthy of a filibuster, much more than I consider Supreme Court appointments to be.)

[BrainGlutton]

@BarnOwl

Yesterday, on his Countdown show, Keith Olbermann asked if Bush is trying to cover his ass by pressuring Congress into rewriting General Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.

CYA != rewriting history.

[Bricker]

@BarnOwl

Ortherwise he’s looking at 14 more very serious violations of international law against him – felonies - that he (Bush) could be charged with. And Georgie already has 30 other felonies pending for his warrantless phone tapping activity, says Turley.

Where, exactly, are these international law felonies defined? What is the penalty for each of them? What court has jurisdiction to try them? What rules of evidence will be used?

[John_Mace]

@BarnOwl

Yesterday, on his Countdown show, Keith Olbermann asked if Bush is trying to cover his ass by pressuring Congress into rewriting General Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.

Just to be clear, it’s General Article 3, not 4.

[BarnOwl]

@Bricker

Where, exactly, are these international law felonies defined? What is the penalty for each of them? What court has jurisdiction to try them? What rules of evidence will be used?

You’re the legal savant. Suppose you tell us.

[Frank]

@BarnOwl

You’re the legal savant. Suppose you tell us.

It’s a valid question, or questions, rather. You’re asserting that Bush has personally committed offenses against the Geneva Convention, and that he is attempting to have the law changed to protect himself from prosecution. Bricker has politely asked you, “what offenses?” I think that’s worthy of an answer.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How can the US Congress unilaterally change the Geneva Convention? How would changing the law now retroactively exempt Bush from any crimes that were committed beforehand?

The GC is very vague. Bush wants to clarify things. There are good arguments on both sides of this, and I think most of us would need to dig into the problem pretty deeply to make a reasoned debate happen here. I know I’m not up to snuff on this stuff.

The proposed changes are completely evil and reprehensible either way, of course.

Of course. :rolleyes: Keep in mind that Bush’s proposal is just that-- a proposal. The main thing he appears to be going after is for Congress to spell out the rules more precisely. As I said above-- I think there are good arguments on both sides of that debate right now.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

What are the good arguments on the side of waterboarding and secret prisons?

[Frank]

@John Mace

Keep in mind that Bush’s proposal is just that-- a proposal. The main thing he appears to be going after is for Congress to spell out the rules more precisely. As I said above-- I think there are good arguments on both sides of that debate right now.

What do you think of the other main thrust of the proposal - to withhold classified evidence from the defense?

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

What are the good arguments on the side of waterboarding and secret prisons?

That’s not the point. There are arguments that it’s a bad idea to get more specific than what’s already in the GC, regardless of the specific practices that are listed. As for secret prisons… well, the CIA couldn’t operate if it didn’t break the laws of other countries. You know that, right? They’re spies, after all. That might not mean they need “secret prisons” specifically, but they do play by a different set of rules.

[John_Mace]

@Frank

What do you think of the other main thrust of the proposal - to withhold classified evidence from the defense?

I think that’s an issue that our courts, both civilian and military, have to deal with all the time. I don’t see why we need to re-invent the wheel on that particular issue.

[John_Mace]

In case that last response was not clear, I was talking about how to deal with cases that involve classified information. I don’t know exactly how we’ve been doing it for the last 250 years, but I can’t believe we haven’t already solved that problem. Bush seems to be actiing like he’s the first president to have to deal with the isuse.

[BarnOwl]

@Bricker

Where, exactly, are these international law felonies defined? What is the penalty for each of them? What court has jurisdiction to try them? What rules of evidence will be used?

I don’t know. Please tell us.

[Frank]

@John Mace

That’s not the point. There are arguments that it’s a bad idea to get more specific than what’s already in the GC, regardless of the specific practices that are listed. As for secret prisons… well, the CIA couldn’t operate if it didn’t break the laws of other countries. You know that, right? They’re spies, after all. That might not mean they need “secret prisons” specifically, but they do play by a different set of rules.

The law changes (in this area) are to serve three purposes, as I understand them. To ensure that agent’s actions are legal under American law, to protect agents from being extradited and prosecuted under foreign law, and to protect agents from international trials such as Milosevic’s and Taylor’s.

My solution is more simple: they shouldn’t break American law; if they break foreign law in the course of their duties and get caught, they pay the price; they shouldn’t break international law.

I don’t recall the U.S. freeing Russian spies because their actions were legal in Russia. (The U.S.S.R., I should say.)

[Squink]

@John Mace

I think that’s an issue that our courts, both civilian and military, have to deal with all the time. I don’t see why we need to re-invent the wheel on that particular issue.

Here’s a lovely twist to the hazards of reinventing that particular wheel:

When considering legislation for military commissions, members of Congress should be careful not to open themselves to personal war crimes liability by denying the due process requirements incorporated in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

A Plea to Congress on Military Commission Procedures

[Frank]

@John Mace

In case that last response was not clear, I was talking about how to deal with cases that involve classified information. I don’t know exactly how we’ve been doing it for the last 250 years, but I can’t believe we haven’t already solved that problem. Bush seems to be actiing like he’s the first president to have to deal with the isuse.

This would be a good place for someone who knows more to chime in. I seem to recall that Moussaoui was allowed access to the classified information against him.

And, I’ve found that I am wrong on the breadth of that proposal. Access to the classified evidence would be allowed to the defense lawyers, who would not be allowed to share that information with the defendant.