Bush seeks protection from War Crimes Act

Atty Gen. Gonzales has asked Congress to provide "protection" for US military personel who may have committed crimes punishable under the War Crimes Act. The act, passed to cover the sort of abuse and mistreatment POWs in received at the hands of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, apparently would cover some actions sanctioned by the Administration. Ironically, it was passed to allow prosecution of those who abused US military personnel, by making them accountable to US civilian courts, no matter where the abuse occured. At the time, no one imagined that any American administration would tolderate such abuse of prisoners held by the US.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14067214/

Another measure of how far this nation has fallen in a generation.

 

Too late, I think. We got outraged about the treatment our guys got from the North Vietnamese, and now we're doing some of the same things.

And we defined them as war crimes, even made it possible for soldiers to be tried in civilian courts no matter where the crimes took place.

They can't even say that they were just following orders. (that defiense was put away after the Civil War)

 

Maybe so. But not to the AG; he says we need to get Congress to write an exception for our own troops, or they could be indicted.



§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

It's not clear whether administration officials can be held accountable for ordering troops to violate the act, the GOP congressman who sponsored the Bill intended it to be so.

 

In fact, the Bush administration has admitted that they did not follow the Geneva convention. The use of "physical duress" (the North Vietnamese used that phrase, too) on prisioners is prohibited. The very reason that the administration says we need to make an exception to the War Crimes Act, is to protect US personnel who violated it. Keep in mind the specific provisions of the War Crimes Act were written to address the very things the North Vietnamese were doing to our servicemen.

That was also the North Vietnamese argument. Since they were accused of being evil terrorists ("air pirates", I believe they said) they felt no reason to treat them humanely. That we have accepted those values ourselves is deeply embarassing to Americans.

A final observation:
We treat prisioners humanely (at least until recently) not because they deserve it, but because people who don't become degraded and evil in the process. We avoid torture because we do not want to become like them. Until recently.

And make no mistake. The people who feel entitled to torture enemy combatants will generalize that to anyone they don't like. That is human nature. If a man will steal from his boss, he will steal from you.

It is a measure of how far we have fallen in the past few years.

 

Why do you think the administration wants legislation to exempt US troops from being held accountable for the sort of things done by the North Vietnamiese?

Did they violate the Geneva Convention? Yes. Did we? Yes, the administration has admitted that they did not follow the Geneva convention in dealing with prisioners.

Did they torture prisoners? Yes, they did. Did we? Yes we have, according to the Red Cross.


The Times said the Red Cross investigators had found a system devised to break the will of prisoners through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions."
"The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture," the Times quoted the report as saying.
Beatrice Megevand-Roggo, the committee's delegate-general for Europe and the Americas, told the newspaper the ICRC could not comment on the report submitted to the U.S. government. The ICRC has agreed to keep its findings confidential.
Reuters report

Again, why do you think they want Congress to exempt US personnel from the War Crimes Act? Why don't they want their people accountable for what they have done?

No one seems to care that this action puts every US soldier in danger. If we don't follow the Geneva Convention, it provides justification for future enemes to deny our prisoners the same rights.

The War Crimes Act is a good law, and should be enforced regardless of who committed the crimes.

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, said the source. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7796

The Supreme Court has already declared torture of these prisoners to be illegal, rebuking the Bush assertion that it was O.K. for some prisoners. The issue is not if it happened.

 

The North Vietnamese admitted that they did not put Americans on trial because they feared the condemnation of the rest of the world. Will the world support our POWs in the future, if we have ourselves tortured others?

 

Barbarian asks:
Why do you think the administration wants legislation to exempt US troops from being held accountable for the sort of things done by the North Vietnamiese?

(declines to say)

OK, I'll tell you. It's because the Attorney General says that in some cases, our people couild be charged and found guilty under the War Crimes Act. He's the highest law enforcemnt officer in the land, and in his opinion, they have done things that could result in their prosecution under the act.


Did they torture prisoners? Yes, they did. Did we? Yes we have, according to the Red Cross.

Doesn't matter. The Red Cross has a considerably better record for accurately reporting on this than the Bush administration. Do you trust them?

Especially torture. And "they are antiamerican liars" isn't going to help you. Especially given AG Gonzales' opinion.


The Times said the Red Cross investigators had found a system devised to break the will of prisoners through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions."

That's what Ho Chi Minh said. We passed laws to make that sort of thing punishable.

Hey, what the heck, the North Vietnamese did it....


Again, why do you think they want Congress to exempt US personnel from the War Crimes Act? Why don't they want their people accountable for what they have done?

Um, sorry, can't do that to someone accused. Against the Constitution. He can be locked up by himself, but he has to have access to others, such as his lawyer, when he wants. Of course, Bush claims the Patriot act can suspend such rights, but still...

Probably because not having a cellmate isn't torture.

It's not a foreign law. It's an American law. Sponsored by conservatives. Back when conservatives were opposed to torture.

Somehow, I can't picture Washington forcing prisoners to maintain painful postures, or sexually humiliating them, or any of the other tortures that the administration allowed to happen.


No one seems to care that this action puts every US soldier in danger. If we don't follow the Geneva Convention, it provides justification for future enemes to deny our prisoners the same rights.

I don't know how to explain this in a way that won't be insulting, but if they were impressed with about ability to destroy them, they wouldn't be fighting us in the first place.

I don't think our military is at its best, torturing helpless prisioners.

Better than some. But any violation of the Geneva convention is unamerican, and a failure to observe American values.

That's what Ho Chi Minh said, too. We weren't at war with Vietnam, so technically, our POWs weren't under the Geneva Convention. Or so he argued. As I pointed out to you, the NVA threated to put them on trial, and were deterred only by the outcry from our friends around the world. Now that Bush has assured that we have few friends, who will do that for us, next time?

In the Revolutionary war, British commanders and sometimes American tories used that argument to hang captured Continental soldiers. Was that right?

We avoid viciousness to captured enemy, not for them, but to avoid becoming them. You are evidence that they have already won a victory against us.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Especially torture. And "they are antiamerican liars" isn't going to help you. Especially given AG Gonzales' opinion.

In other words, they object to Bush violating the Geneva Convention. They aren't alone.

THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks30jun30,0,339573.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Is it any surprise that Gonzales is looking for a way to protect the administration after the fact?

Darn, who would have guessed the Supreme Court was antiAmerican?


Originally Posted by The Galatian
Um, sorry, can't do that to someone accused. Against the Constitution. He can be locked up by himself, but he has to have access to others, such as his lawyer, when he wants. Of course, Bush claims the Patriot act can suspend such rights, but still...

You may have noticed that Bush thinks he can set aside the Constitution when necessary. That doesn't make it right. This is why Gonzales is asking Congress to provide some cover.


Originally Posted by The Galatian
Probably because not having a cellmate isn't torture.

Didn't say that. I'm pointing out that putting a person in a single cell is not solitary confinement.


Originally Posted by The Galatian
It's not a foreign law. It's an American law. Sponsored by conservatives. Back when conservatives were opposed to torture.

That's the problem. You see, the War Crimes Act defines what torture is, using the North Vietnamese practices as a guide. Gonzales says by that definition, people in the government and military could be charged.


Originally Posted by The Galatian
Somehow, I can't picture Washington forcing prisoners to maintain painful postures, or sexually humiliating them, or any of the other tortures that the administration allowed to happen.

You mentioned that George Washington wanted us not to be under foreign laws. I pointed out that it was an American law. I also pointed out the unlikelihood that Washington would have accepted torture.

No, I explained that this was an American law, passed by Congress, back when that kind of thing was opposed by all, even conservatives.

So said Uncle Ho. We are better than that. "Making someone uncomfortable" is a euphemism, one that we didn't like when it was being done to our people. Bush has greatly increased the likelihood that it will happen again.


Originally Posted by The Galatian
No one seems to care that this action puts every US soldier in danger. If we don't follow the Geneva Convention, it provides justification for future enemes to deny our prisoners the same rights.


[quiote]Two things. First our soldiers are not given their Geneva rights when captured anyway (mainly by terrorists). [/quote]

We are not terrorists. Or we shouldn't be.

Mistreating captives will make it worse, however.

Originally Posted by The Galatian
I don't know how to explain this in a way that won't be insulting, but if they were impressed with about ability to destroy them, they wouldn't be fighting us in the first place.

Again, if they know that, there won't be a war. So it's no deterrent at all.