Bush signs Torture ban law- then writes a note saying he doesn't have to follow it

Makkonnen · Mar 27, 2006

<h1><img src="http://images.democracynow.org/images/dnlogo_print.jpg" alt="Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org"></h1>



<h2>Bush Signs Statements to Bypass Torture Ban, Oversight Rules in Patriot Act</h2>
Monday, March 27th, 2006

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/1450205

When President Bush signed a law banning torture he quietly signed a statement saying he could bypass it. Earlier this month, Bush signed the USA Patriot Act but signed a statement that said he did not consider oversight rules binding. We speak with the Boston Globe reporter who broke the story. [includes rush transcript]
<hr>
The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effect, Bush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relations, national security or his duties as President.

This was not the first such statement to come from the White House. When Congress passed a bill outlawing torture of detainees last year, President Bush quietly released a signing statement in which he affirmed his right to bypass the law if he felt it jeopardized national security. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said the President"s latest effort represents "nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."
<ul>
<li>Charlie Savage, reporter with the Washington bureau of Boston Globe who has written several articles exposing Bush's signing statements.</li></ul>
Related Links:
<ul><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement?mode=PF">"Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement"</a> (Boston Globe)

<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/">"Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban"</a> (Boston Globe)</ul>
Related Democracy Now! Coverage: 
<ul><a href="http://tinyurl.com/r6xfk">An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture</a> (DN!, 1/6/06)</ul>

<hr>
<a name="transcript">RUSH TRANSCRIPT</a>
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
 Donate - <a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=25&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">$25</a>,<a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=50&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">

$50</a>, <a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=100&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">$100</a>,<a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">
more...</a>

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now in our Washington, D.C., studio by Charlie Savage, a reporter with the Boston Globe in the Washington bureau. He's written a number of pieces exposing these signing statements that don't see the light of day very much. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Charlie Savage.
CHARLIE SAVAGE: Thank you, it’s nice to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, just explain how these statements work. The President signs the law, and then someone hands him the statement?

CHARLIE SAVAGE: Essentially, someone in his office, a lawyer, drafts a statement that gets issued along with the signing of the bill. This is not a proclamation that says, "I'm really glad that I signed the bill; it's going to help us." It's a technically legal document that lays out how he's going to enforce the bill, what it is he says that he signed that day. And previous presidents have issued these, but they've never issued them the way President Bush has, both in terms of frequency and in terms of the aggression with which he says, ‘I am not bound by this, I'm not bound by that, I will take this law in bits and pieces, I'll enforce the measures I like, and I have the power as president and commander-in-chief to ignore the provisions I don't like.’
And so, in this case, in the PATRIOT Act case, all the provisions in which Congress said, ‘We'll give you these powers, we'll renew this act. But you've got to tell us how you're using them, so we make sure that they're not being abused,’ he said ‘as president and commander-in-chief and the head of the executive branch, I will decide what I tell you, if anything, and that's just what I can do under the Constitution.’
AMY GOODMAN: How often have signing statements been used?
CHARLIE SAVAGE: Well, as I said, previous presidents have done this, going way back in time. The frequency really increased under the Reagan administration. And Clinton also issued a number of them. But President Bush has taken this to an unprecedented level. I think one study showed that through the end of 2004, there were more than 500 provisions of new laws that he had said that he would not consider himself bound to obey, just through the end of his first term. And so, he's really been aggressive about this, in a new way.
AMY GOODMAN: How much attention have these signing statements gotten? The most recent one, the USA PATRIOT Act, which at first, well, there was a question -- there's a lot of controversy about it. Explain how that happened, the more recent one, then we'll go back to torture.
CHARLIE SAVAGE: How the signing statement happened or how we --?
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah, how much attention it has gotten and what it means for senators who said that they weren't going to sign off on this unless they got certain concessions, and then this eviscerating, the signing statement eviscerating these concessions.
CHARLIE SAVAGE: I understand. Well, initially, very little attention. No one is used to paying attention to these things. These are not something that's been regularly a part of the political fabric of our country. The traditional way that it happens is if a president gets a bill that he doesn't like, he either swallows the provisions he doesn't like and signs the whole thing, or he vetoes it, because he says, ‘I can't live with this,’ and then Congress can try to override the veto or not, depending on the strength. That's how traditionally it's supposed to work under the Constitution. And the Bush team has never vetoed a single bill in the five years he’s been president now. Instead, they’ve used these signing statements to say that ‘we will take, you know, the bits that we want and ignore the other parts.’ And no one has been used to looking at these things.
So, Bush issued this signing statement on the PATRIOT Act on March 9th, the same day that he signed the bill. But it went almost unnoticed. There were a few legal specialist blogs that sort of took note of it in a wry way. I wrote this article that came out in Friday's paper. And there was a huge response, as people realized what he had done again. But that was the first time in the mainstream media, at least, that it's received any kind of attention.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, the previous signing statement happened over New Year's. Can you talk about that, around torture, specifically, what the bill says, what the ban on torture is about, what's called the McCain bill, and then, what the signing statement says?

CHARLIE SAVAGE: Absolutely. Well, you may recall that there was a huge controversy in Congress last year with John McCain trying to make clear in federal law that it is illegal to torture, for a U.S. official to torture a detainee in U.S. custody, no matter where that detainee is, anywhere in the world. I think most specialists would say that was already illegal. But the Bush administration had come up with some contorted arguments about why maybe they could get around it if it was outside the U.S. border. And so, there was a long fight in Congress in which McCain was trying to get this passed. And Bush kept threatening to veto it and fought it hard. Dick Cheney personally came to Congress to say, “Don't do this, don't do this.” But Republicans came together with Democrats; they passed this overwhelmingly in both chambers. It was such a show of force in both chambers that Bush could not veto it. They had the strength to override the veto. So then, he signed the bill.
He invited McCain into the White House and said, ‘Oh, this is a good thing. It’s going to help us with our image,’ even though he had been fighting it all along. And then, after McCain had left and everyone had gone home, he again issued another one of these signing statements. This was on the Friday, late in the evening before -- on the weekend of New Year's Eve, when everyone had gone home, essentially, saying, ‘By the way, I'm commander-in-chief, and I don't really have to pay attention to this if I don’t want to. If it’s the national security is involved, I can do whatever I want.’ And again, you know, it was New Year's weekend; no one really paid attention.
And I saw in a legal blog, when I came into work the next week, that someone was taking note of this and started exploring it. And sure enough, that's what he had said, and that's what it meant. I called the White House and asked them for an explanation, and they put me on the phone with someone to serve as their spokesman, who said, ‘Yes, you know, we intend to follow this law, but a situation could arise where we don't have to.’ And so, that's what it means. And you know, there was a sense of outrage over that, including among Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and John Warner and especially John McCain: ‘We had negotiated this. This is what it means. We passed the law. You've got to follow it.’ And the question with both of the PATRIOT Act and the torture thing is, this is just a piece of paper in which he says, ‘I don't have to do this if I don't want to.’ But it's not proof that he's not going to do it, and it’s not proof that he hasn't done it.
AMY GOODMAN: Can Congress do anything about this?
CHARLIE SAVAGE: Well, that's a good question. If they have the political will, they can try to pass more, tougher legislation. They can try to withhold funding for things. They could launch investigations. Right now, Congress is, however, dominated by the same party as the President. They are not particularly willing to, or have not proven themselves particularly willing until now, with a few exceptions, to be too aggressive in conducting oversight on what he's doing.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Charlie Savage, I want to thank you for being with us. And we will link at democracynow.org to your stories at the Boston Globe.
<center>www.democracynow.org</center>

</body></html>

oneofmany · Mar 27, 2006

This is a major problem. When a president feels he is above the law, regardless of whether he truly is or not, you at the very least are dealing with a major attitude problem. Then if the president actually is above the law as appears with the case of George Bush, you run the risk of having a dictator instead of an actual president. I'm disturbed by this because a lawless one, a lawless president is not a president at all.

Makkonnen · Mar 27, 2006

oneofmany said:
This is a major problem. When a president feels he is above the law, regardless of whether he truly is or not, you at the very least are dealing with a major attitude problem. Then if the president actually is above the law as appears with the case of George Bush, you run the risk of having a dictator instead of an actual president. I'm disturbed by this because a lawless one, a lawless president is not a president at all.

King George

Makkonnen · Mar 27, 2006

Re: Bush signs Torture ban law- then writes a note saying he doesn't have to follow i

[frame]http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/King_George_Bush.htm[/frame]

biglw_1 · Mar 27, 2006

C'mon this is just a little pinch on the arm compared to the other shit he has pulled.... Does anyone remember 9-11.... Where is Osama? LMWAO
Nuff Said

Makkonnen · Mar 27, 2006

biglw_1 said:
C'mon this is just a little pinch on the arm compared to the other shit he has pulled.... Does anyone remember 9-11.... Where is Osama? LMWAO
Nuff Said

yes but does that mean we ignore it?

Makkonnen · Aug 16, 2006

Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

<h2>Fearing Prosecution, Bush Admin Tries to Change War Crimes Act</h2>
Wednesday, August 16th, 2006

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148250

The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses under the Geneva Conventions. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners. We host a debate with attorneys Scott Horton and David Rivkin. [includes rush transcript]
<hr>
Ten years ago the Republican-led Congress approved legislation to make it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush administration now fears the War Crimes Act of 1996 could be used to prosecute civilians involved in the mistreatment and torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners. Military law experts believe the Bush administration is effectively re-writing parts of the Geneva conventions.

According to the New York Times, President Bush wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions.
<ul>
<li>Scott Horton, adjunct law professor at Columbia University and the former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association in New York.
</li><li>David Rivkin, a partner in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler. He served in the Department of Justice and the White House in the Reagan and George HW Bush Administrations.</li></ul>

<hr>
<a name="transcript">RUSH TRANSCRIPT</a>
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
 Donate - <a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=25&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">$25</a>,<a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=50&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">
$50</a>, <a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amount=100&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">$100</a>,<a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=order@democracynow.org&item_name=Democracy%20Now&no_shipping=1&return=http://www.democracynow.org/thankyou.htm&cancel_return=http://www.democracynow.org">
more...</a>

AMY GOODMAN: To discuss this international issue, we're joined by human rights attorney, Scott Horton, here in New York, an adjunct law professor at Columbia University and the former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association, New York. David Rivkin joins us in Washington, D.C. He's a partner with the Washington law office of Baker & Hostetler, served in the Department of Justice and the White House in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

DAVID RIVKIN: Good to be with you.
SCOTT HORTON: Good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you both with us. David Rivkin, let's begin with you. What do you understand the Bush administration is doing now with this 1996 law?

DAVID RIVKIN: Actually, exactly the reverse than what's being claimed by the New York Times and, sorry to say, what you mentioned in your lead. The real effort by the Bush administration here is driven by the desire to make this law workable. The ’96 law unfortunately tracks vague and overly capacious term of Common Article III. Nothing wrong with that if you're interested in symbolism.

If you're interested in criminal prosecutions, which this administration is interested -- we're in the middle of a war; there are people who, because they’re not uniformed military, cannot be prosecuted under the UCMJ, somebody like a CIA agent or contractor -- and you cannot, because of our constitutional system, because of a “void for vagueness” concept, you cannot successfully prosecute anybody criminally with words like “outrages against personal dignity.”
That's why the ’96 statute has not been used once -- once -- to prosecute anybody, because any prosecutor would look at it and say it’s unenforceable. So, all the administration is doing, instead of being supposedly animated by a desire to give immunity to people, is come up with a scheme where you can go after people, civilians who tortured, killed, raped somebody and bring those people to justice. It's a good thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, your response.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think whenever lawyers put forward a draft that takes a statute that's a model of clarity and brevity and propose to substitute for it something that is three times as long and filled with really quite grotesque ambiguities, we can question legitimately whether it's designed to clarify.
I think the purposes that exist here are twofold. They're first to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government. And secondly, it's designed to provide an okay to certain techniques which fall just short of torture that are being used by the CIA and also by USSOCOM units today, and that includes techniques like waterboarding, longtime standing and hypothermia, techniques which have been linked to severe injuries and fatalities already in the course of the war on terror.

And to go back to the first, I think David's correct when he says there's been no prosecution under this statute. That's because, of course, we focus, with respect to war crimes, principally on service personnel. And as a matter of well-established, longstanding U.S. policy, service personnel are prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which provides a comprehensive basis for the prosecution of war crimes. In fact, we've already had more than 30 prosecutions brought since the commencement of the Iraq war, and there are a number of them, very important prosecutions, pending. So, service personnel are not really covered by it.

Then, with respect to CIA personnel and Department of Defense civilians and contractors, there is a memorandum of understanding that was entered into by Michael Chertoff, when he was the head of the criminal division, that covered a series of hyper-coercive interrogation techniques and undertook the Department of Justice would not prosecute personnel if they used these techniques, which in fact explains why there have been no prosecutions.
AMY GOODMAN: These techniques include?

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me just say one thing very briefly. Let me ask my good friend Scott, and I don't know, Scott, if you practice criminal law as a prosecutor or as a defender. Do you really think in this country you can bring criminal charges and get an indictment, but also a conviction, for somebody for, quote, “committing outrages against personal dignity”? Can you think of any other criminal statute that includes such ambiguous and capacious words?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it would depend on the acts that are charged. But in this case, “outrages against personal dignity” is hardly the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter are very specific techniques that are being used, which is to say waterboarding, hypothermia, longtime standing. And under the heading of “offenses against human dignity,” I think what would really be called into question are formerly approved sexual humiliation techniques, which have been applied, were used in Guantanamo, were also used in Iraq and in other places, that clearly violate Common Article III.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, we're going to end -- David Rivkin, we're going to come back to this after break. Stay with us.

[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guests, Scott Horton, adjunct law professor at Columbia University, former chair of the Committee of International Human Rights at the City Bar Association in New York; and in Washington, D.C., we're joined by David Rivkin, who served in the Department of Justice and the White House under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Washington Post piece just a few days ago: “The Bush administration's drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners.” This, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendment. Scott Horton, you were talking about sexual abuse.

SCOTT HORTON: Right. I think that, you know, we're really coming to a focus here on Common Article III, and of course, the Supreme Court in its Hamdan decision, handed down a little bit more than six weeks ago now, made clear that Common Article III did apply pretty much across the board here, and I think that's one of the things that has spurred the administration to put forward this legislation.

AMY GOODMAN: And for us mere commoners, again, Common Article III?

SCOTT HORTON: Common Article III is a sort of mini-convention within the Geneva Conventions that applies to people other than prisoners of war and creates a sort of humanitarian baseline, as it were, providing a minimum standard of conduct. And I think, as David Rivkin has pointed out, there are a number of terms in here that this legislation, this draft or proposed legislation, is attempting to define down.

AMY GOODMAN: David Rivkin?

DAVID RIVKIN: A couple of things. First of all, I would suggest we all keep our cool until early September, once the administration formally introduces the legislative proposal, and we'll be able to read. There have been a lot of drafts floating around Washington. But I think, Scott, in good faith, we should all wait and see what it introduces. I think you'll find the range of offenses, the definition of offenses, to be quite robust -- point number one.

Point number two, and this is a fundamental divide between human rights lawyers and international law aficionados, whom I greatly admire, and criminal prosecutors. The bottom line is this: the terms used in provisions like Common Article III, and permeate almost every international instrument, are not the terms that can give rise to successful prosecution in the United States district courts because, again, in a context of our constitutional system, particularly when you're dealing with criminal prosecution, you have to define terms with a great deal of precision, a great deal of specificity.

If you do not, you run the risk that your charges will be thrown out or the jury would not convict the defendant, and that is the reason -- again, the notion -- to me, it's topsy-turvy -- the notion that the administration is doing it to protect somebody. They actually want to prosecute people. And they, as Scott himself pointed out, the administration has an excellent track record, with nothing to be ashamed of. This administration and this country has prosecuted more people, more aggressively, for violations of laws of war -- which unfortunately happens in the best trained military -- than any other military, including the British in Northern Ireland. And they have not been as successful prosecuting contractors, because we all know that the UCMJ is very well defined, well structured. The definition doesn't apply. So this is the effort to actually go prosecute some people, not to give immunity to people, but let's reserve judgment on that. Let's wait and see what -- how things read.

And the last thing I would say, this is only one aspect, one tool available to the government. And I’ve had a lot of debates, particularly with the Europeans, about -- they're anticipating that things like Scott mentions, sexual humiliation, like putting underwear on somebody's head, may not be chargeable under this new statute. I don't know if it is the case or not. But let's say that it isn't. It doesn't mean that people cannot be prosecuted administratively, and with all due respect, while I certainly don't condone putting women's underwear on people, isn't there is a fundamental difference between that or forcing somebody to eat pork when it's against that person's religion -- offensive, to be sure, but not the same as rape or murder or torture?

And again, in criminal prosecution, every prosecutor knows that if you overcharge the person, if you simultaneously charge the person with murder and spitting on the sidewalk, chances are very high that your jury would be disagreeable and may acquit the person on all charges. So people really do not understand what is driving this definitional exercise and don't understand that there are other ways to punish people who engage in degrading and humiliating behavior.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think one thing -- you know, I agree with several of the things that David just pointed out here. One thing that we should all focus on is that this is an American criminal statute, and discretion in bringing charges and in prosecuting is going to be exercised by American prosecutors. And as is usually the case, prosecutors bring a charge when they believe they've got a strong basis to do it and they're going to get to a conviction, which means that there are all sorts of things that they very well might not prosecute.

And in a case like this, dealing with Common Article III, we've got to deal with the fact, of course, that the President made the determination that Common Article III did not apply and, of course, officers of the government may very well have relied upon that. That makes it less likely that prosecutions will be brought. I really think, you know, the focal question comes down to much less one of the actors on the ground, the interrogators, military, CIA, and others, and it comes to much more a question of the policymakers, and that's the area where the real exposure exists here.

AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned, Scott Horton, that you are bringing more prosecutions. What? And would this change and the War Crimes Act in this country change what you do?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I don't bring other prosecutions. I mean, in fact, my involvement in criminal law has been mostly on the defense side. You know, I have studied them all around the world, and, of course, war crimes are different from most of the balance of criminal law, because they're subject to a potential exercise of universal jurisdiction. We have seven significant countries around the world that embrace and apply the Universal Jurisdiction Statute. There have already been prosecutions brought in at least two countries I can think of, Belgium and Germany, relating to the war on terror, focusing on American officials, and I think it's safe to say that there will be future prosecutions of this sort. Of course, this is something that is beyond the scope of the debate now about the modification of the American War Crimes Act.

AMY GOODMAN: David Rivkin, I have a question. In the changes that the administration would like to make to this ten-year-old law, the War Crimes Act, it includes excluding such practices as forced nakedness, use of dog leashes, wearing of women's underwear, as seen at Abu Ghraib. I remember at the beginning of the invasion when -- I think it was Donald Rumsfeld, was saying that it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions for showing photographs of prisoners if they were American. Now we're talking about these other practices. So if an American was taken hostage and was made to go naked, was put on a leash, you don't think that this law should apply?

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me say a couple of things. First, again, we have to see how the language reads, point number one. Point number two, I can assure you, despite what I said, there will be nothing in the legislation that condones or legitimizes infliction of degrading measures on somebody. Point number three, look, to me, frankly speaking, we should do a variety of things that produce humane treatment, primarily because of who we are as a society. So I personally do not condone torture, certainly no degrading and humiliating treatment.

But with all due respect, the notion that we should be doing it, as you seem to suggest, because of concerns about reciprocity, facts don't bear it out. American soldiers have not gotten Geneva-level protections in any war in which we've been involved since Geneva Conventions were adopted. Kind of Korea’s straddling the fence, because, of course, Korea happened after the conventions were drafted, but before they were ratified by many countries; not in Vietnam; not in Kosovo, when we had a few soldiers captured; not in first Gulf war.

And look, if I’m an American soldier and I know what happens to soldiers who are being captured by jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are being tortured, and I mean tortured in an medieval way and have their throats cut, and the choice was between that and being paraded naked, sign me up. I'll be paraded naked. I would vote for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo before enduring those type of treatments. So, let's not pretend that we're talking about protecting our soldiers.

That does not mean that anything goes. We have to provide the level of protection that's required by international law and, frankly, by human decency, but I’m really, frankly, very impatient about the argument, “Gee whiz, let's protect GIs.” The GIs haven't been protected at all. And do you really think that the likes of jihadis would be swayed by the intricacies of compliance with Common Article III, when they reject any -- any, repeat -- precept of international law of war as something that doesn't apply to them because it's too Judeo-Christian? Come on.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted in 1864, and certainly the United States has gotten the benefit of those conventions --

DAVID RIVKIN: Not since 1949.

SCOTT HORTON: -- and the tradition that they started -- that's the latest iteration, of course -- has gotten the benefit of those conventions in wars for decades. I mean, certainly, the First World War, certainly the Second World War, it mattered a lot to American soldiers. In fact, my mentor described to me his interment in the Second World War and said he was sure he would have been killed had it not been for the Geneva Conventions.

What we're doing is we're trying to establish principles that govern the conduct of nations, particularly, and I think, of course, it's true that we're now dealing with criminal bands that don't give much attention to niceties of international law, but we establish these traditions to set out who we are and the values we live by and also to establish the rules of play for interaction with other nations in the future, and we have to be thinking about conflicts that are coming down the road in two years, five years, ten years.

AMY GOODMAN: The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to the military. This would apply to Bush administration officials. It would apply to the CIA. Why now?

SCOTT HORTON: It would not apply to anyone other than uniformed members of the Armed Services. So the Uniform Code of Military Justice is just uniformed service personnel. It does not apply, for instance, even to Donald Rumsfeld or Stephen Cambone or to people in the White House. So it's, you know, the War Crimes Act that spreads the application of the Geneva Conventions the next level up to civilians, and particularly to civilian policymakers, and I think here, you know, there's a specific focus really on policymakers. And the prosecutorial focus in applying the War Crimes Act, I think, from the beginning was intended to provide deterrence at that level. So we're not really talking about soldiers in the field.

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me just --

AMY GOODMAN: Right, right. That's Uniform Code of Military Justice, but this would apply --

SCOTT HORTON: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: -- to Bush administration officials, to CIA?

SCOTT HORTON: Absolutely.

DAVID RIVKIN: Can I just inject one factual observation? I honestly don't think that Scott would disagree with me. Things worked until after World War II. Scott, you know as well as I do. Not just the jihadis. The Serbs, who took two American soldiers prisoners, didn't torture them, but certainly humiliated. The Saddam's military in First Gulf War tortured and actually raped at least one female aviator. We're dealing with rogue states. We're dealing with people who would not be bound by any respect for the rule of law.
Again, my point is not that we should not emulate them. God forbid. But let's not pretend that what we're talking about is something that would protect our soldiers. We should structure our behavior entirely unilaterally, driven by a respect for international law and our own morality. But let's not pretend, again, that we're going to impact the guys we're fighting.

AMY GOODMAN: But that issue of, is the Bush administration running scared right now before leaving office to change this ten-year-old law?

DAVID RIVKIN: There is absolutely no basis for it.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me just ask Scott Horton that question

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think, first of all, you know, it's very, very clear that there are not going to be any prosecutions brought by this administration, by this Justice Department. And I think the quick movement on this comes from two things. One, very, very clear ruling in Hamdan by the Supreme Court recognizing the application of Common Article III and discussing it -- two points, in fact, in Kennedy's opinion, the criminal law implications of this for those on the American side, and secondly, a realization that the Bush administration will not be at the helm of power forever. In fact, of course, Bush cannot run for reelection.

DAVID RIVKIN: Scott, with all due respect, you're vastly over-reading Hamdan. If you read it carefully, all Hamdan opinion does is incorporates Common Article III through the medium of UCMJ for one narrow purpose: the composition and functioning of military commissions. The court did not -- repeat, did not -- find that Common Article III applies across the board, nor could the court ever find such a thing, because in this country, courts do not issue broad advisory opinion. They're dealing with specific cases and controversies in the context of a case that was given to them, and none of those issues were before the court.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, last words.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think that's absolutely technically correct, and it's nevertheless also true that the Supreme Court told us very clearly how they will view this question and that they will apply Common Article III.

DAVID RIVKIN: They didn't even reach the question of what the Convention is [inaudible].

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to have to leave it there. Scott Horton, thanks for joining us, former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association, New York; and David Rivkin, joining us from Washington, was in the Department of Justice and the White House under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
<center>www.democracynow.org</center>

GET YOU HOT · Aug 16, 2006

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

Excellent Post!!!

GET YOU HOT · Aug 17, 2006

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

BUSH & BLAIR TARGETED BY IRAQ TRIBUNAL

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/blair_targeted.html

In late May, Bush and England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair received personal invitations to attend a session of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) in Istanbul from June 23-27. A White House spokesman told AFP he was unaware of the meeting or any such group.

The WTI, made up of thousands of people worldwide including many preeminent scholars and dignitaries, seeks to reclaim justice regarding the Iraqi invasion. The group was formed two years ago with the intent to document the war crimes orchestrated by Bush and Blair and eventually bring both heads of state to justice because of what group leaders say is “an arrogant flaunting of world opinion and established law.”

WTI media spokesman Hilal Kuey said many countries around the world are not as kind toward the two leaders as the West, viewing the Iraqi invasion as an overt act of aggression.

“Since the U.S. administration and the UK government have used their power to avoid being prosecuted for an illegal and illegitimate war, the citizens of the world have undertaken an initiative to reclaim justice,” said Kuey from her office in Turkey. “The world is calling for Bush and Blair to be held accountable for the crimes committed in Iraq.”

QueEx · Jan 26, 2009

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

<center>
UN Official Wants to Prosecute Bush,
Rumsfeld for Torture </center>

New American
Written by Warren Mass
Monday, 26 January 2009

The UN's "Special Rapporteur on Torture," Manfred Nowak, in a message recorded on January 20 for broadcast that evening on Germany's ZDF television, urged the United States to bring charges against former President George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of prisoners held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. "Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, said Nowak.

Nowak asserted that because the United States has ratified the UN Convention on Torture, which states that "all means, particularly penal law" are to be used to bring proceedings against anyone violating the convention, then charges against the two American are justified. "We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," said Nowak. "But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this."

A report in the Telegraph (UK) observed that when he was asked about the likelihood of legal action being brought against Bush and Rumsfeld, Nowak replied: "In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table." He added that the question of whether "American law will recognize these forms of torture" was still at issue.

A bipartisan Senate report released on December 11 found Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials responsible for the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo. The Los Angeles Times noted on December 12, 2008 that the report directed its most pointed criticism at Rumsfeld's decision in December 2002 to authorize the use of harsh interrogation techniques at the Guantanamo Bay facility. The report described Rumsfeld's directive as "a direct cause for detainee abuse" at Guantanamo and concluded that it "influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Torture is illegal under U.S. law. The Bush administration claimed that its harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding are not torture and that it therefore did not break the law. But that claim could be challenged in the U.S. judicial system under our own laws without need to apply any UN conventions or treaties.

But bringing charges against Bush and Rumsfeld on the basis of a UN convention would be a major step toward further raising the stature of and empowering the world body. And that empowerment would include defining "toture" on the basis of the UN treaty.

An "Insider Report" in The New American magazine for June 19, 2000 observed that on May 15 of that year, the United Nations Committee against Torture, in its first ever report on human rights conditions in the United States, recommended that the U.S. government modify its behavior and fulfill its treaty obligations under the Convention against Torture. The panel urged the United States to prohibit the use of electro-shock stun belts and restraint chairs, claiming that they "almost invariably" violate the terms ratified in the Convention against Torture. The panel also expressed its concerns about what it perceived as the torture and mistreatment of prisoners by police and prison guards at maximum security prisons, including prisoner chain gangs and "excessively harsh" conditions. The panel also suggested that the United States make torture, as defined in the convention, a federal crime, thereby harmonizing U.S. law with international law.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/722

keysersoze · Jan 26, 2009

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

will comment later... but isn't the war crimes act part of a treaty obligation to prevent war crimes?

dbluesun · Jan 26, 2009

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

keysersoze said:
will comment later... but isn't the war crimes act part of a treaty obligation to prevent war crimes?

yes it is and it has been violated

QueEx · Mar 29, 2009

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

<center>Spain weighs torture inquiry
for 6 former Bush officials
Rights group says international laws ignored at prison </center>

New York Times
By Marlise Simons
March 29, 2009

LONDON - A high-level Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation against six former Bush administration officials, including former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales, on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic framework to justify the use of torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case was sent to the prosecutor's office for review by Baltasar Garzon, the crusading investigative judge who ordered the arrest of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was "highly probable" that the case would go forward and that it could lead to arrest warrants.

While the move represents a step toward ascertaining the legal accountability of top Bush administration officials for allegations of torture and mistreatment of prisoners in its so-called war on terror, some US specialists experts said that even if warrants were issued their significance could be more symbolic than practical, and that it was likely that they would not lead to arrests if the officials did not leave the United States.

The complaint under review also names John C. Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas J. Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy.

The move was not entirely unexpected, as several human rights groups have asked judges in different countries to indict Bush administration officials.

Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five citizens or residents of Spain who were prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have said they were tortured there.

The five had been indicted previously. The Spanish Supreme Court overturned the conviction of one of them in 2006, saying that Guantanamo was "a legal limbo" and that no evidence obtained under torture could be valid in any of the country's courts.

The 98-page complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, is based on the Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which is binding on 145 countries, including Spain and the United States. Countries that are party to the torture convention are obliged to investigate torture cases, especially when a citizen has been abused.

The complaint was prepared by Spanish lawyers, who also relied on legal specialists in the United States and Europe, and filed by a Spanish human rights group, the Association for the Dignity of Prisoners.

Gonzalo Boye, the Madrid lawyer who filed the complaint, said that the six Americans cited had had well-documented roles in approving illegal interrogation techniques, redefining torture, and abandoning the definition set by the 1984 Torture Convention.

The other Americans named in the complaint were William J. Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; Jay S. Bybee, Yoo's former boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and David S. Addington, who was the chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Yoo declined to comment yesterday, saying that he had not seen or heard of the petition.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu..._torture_inquiry_for_6_former_bush_officials/

QueEx · May 4, 2009

Re: Bush Administration is Attempting to Change WARCRIMES Law to Protect Themselves

<center>

Condi Rice: 'We didn't torture anybody'
</center>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijEED_iviTA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijEED_iviTA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


The Swamp
by Mark Silva
May 1, 2009

We've heard this argument before: If the president said it was all right, it wasn't against the law.

"You do what's right,'' says Condoleezza Rice.

"Abu Ghraib was wrong,'' the former secretary of state readily allows.

But, in this talk with students at Stanford the former provost who served President George W. Bush for two terms as national security adviser and then secretary of state, says, "Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after Sept. 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas you faced in trying to keep America safe.''

As former President Richard Nixon once famously said in his celebrated interview with David Frost, if the president does it, it's not illegal.

"We didn't torture anybody,'' Rice says. "We did not torture anyone...

"Guantanamo was a model medium-security prison,'' the former secretary tells one of the students at Stanford debating her in this videotape.

"Is waterboarding torture?'' a student asks, pressing.

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside our legal obligations,'' Rice replies. "We were told, nothing that violates our obligation under the convention against torture.

"By defintion,'' Rice explains, "if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations.''


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/condi_rice_we_didnt_torture_an.html

Bush signs Torture ban law- then writes a note saying he doesn't have to follow it

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach

oneofmany

Star

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach

biglw_1

Star

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator

QueEx

Rising Star

keysersoze

Star

dbluesun

Rising Star

QueEx

Rising Star

QueEx

Rising Star

Similar threads