Bush Admin goes into full-court CYA mode

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
On one hand, I am shocked beyond belief that they would be this brazen and outraged that they are taking steps to immune themselves and their friends from what could amount ot criminal behavior....on the other, I feel that this is so par for the course for this administration that I am barely even surprised at this.

Source

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.

At issue are interrogations carried out by the
CIA, and the degree to which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies to the military.

The Washington Post first reported on the War Crimes Act amendments Wednesday.

One section of the draft would outlaw torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." A copy of the section of the draft was obtained by The Associated Press.

The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill "will apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or after the law is enacted."

Two attorneys said that the draft is in the revision stage but that the administration seems intent on pushing forward the draft's major points in Congress after Labor Day. The two attorneys spoke on condition of anonymity because their sources did not authorize them to release the information.

"I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous," said a third attorney, Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Fidell said the initiative is "not just protection of political appointees, but also CIA personnel who led interrogations."

Interrogation practices "follow from policies that were formed at the highest levels of the administration," said a fourth attorney, Scott Horton, who has followed detainee issues closely. "The administration is trying to insulate policymakers under the War Crimes Act."

The Bush administration contends Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions includes a number of vague terms that are susceptible to different interpretations.

Extreme interrogation practices have been a flash point for criticism of the administration.

When interrogators engage in waterboarding, prisoners are strapped to a plank and dunked in water until nearly drowning.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said Congress "is aware of the dilemma we face, how to make sure the CIA and others are not unfairly prosecuted."

He said that at the same time, Congress "will not allow political appointees to waive the law."

Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director, said that "
President Bush is looking to limit the War Crimes Act through legislation" now that the Supreme Court has embraced Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. In June, the court ruled that Bush's plan to try Guantanamo Bay detainees in military tribunals violates Article 3.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The administration should take responsibility for their actions and not try end-runs around our country's laws. This effort has AG Gonzaeles's fingerprints all over it. I certainly hope Congress shoots this BS down.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,518
31,081
146
I have to grudgingly say that I believe enough wealth and power do put you above the law in the U.S. Accountability gets trashed, and your "peers" will give you a pass because you either have dirt on them, or they want a marker they can cash in later a la Clear and present danger.
 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I have to grudgingly say that I believe enough wealth and power do put you above the law in the U.S. Accountability gets trashed, and your "peers" will give you a pass because you either have dirt on them, or they want a marker they can cash in later a la Clear and present danger.

:thumbsup:
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.

And just what do you use as your basis for the official's use of torture as being quite proper? And not Gonzalez talking points are a quantifiable source.

Also, if you notice, no one is stating that those following the orders should be reprimanded.....those that GAVE those orders however......
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.

AH! Sarcasm? Or just more Zenny boot licking?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,478
45,127
136
From the folks that are always citing morals, dignity and honor no less... unbelieveable.

Another bang up job on showing what this admin really thinks of accountability and the rule of law. The 'buck doesn't stop here,' the buck never stops - in fact, in the Cheney junta there is no buck!

These guys belong in a prison. Simply amazing. :(


Edit: Guys, please don't feed the troll.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.

So you agree that no law ex post facto making what they did is needed cuz it was all prim and proper...
We'll let the Courts decide if what they did was legal and all that... Dang I agree..

Well.. I don't agree that what they did proper but that takes an indictment and a finder of fact to determine... This bit of proposed law seeks to circumvent having to do any of that by making what they did legal if it was or is not currently..

BTW Zendari, are you really really really in support of denial of due process and torture as this issue contains?

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.



Does that include female interrogators doing strip teases in front of detaines and putting ketchup or fake blood on womens panties and rubbing it on them?

Waterboarding?

Human dog piles?

Making detainess masturbate?

Raping young male detainees?

Sodomy with glow sticks?

I agree completely proper and in perfect harmony with our values. :disgust:
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.



Does that include female interrogators doing strip teases in front of detaines and putting ketchup or fake blood on womens panties and rubbing it on them?

Waterboarding?

Human dog piles?

Making detainess masturbate?

Raping young male detainees?

Sodomy with glow sticks?

I agree completely proper and in perfect harmony with our values. :disgust:


Now you've done it - you went an gave a GOP Appoligist the mental image that they want for a wet dream.

 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
50,000 Iraqi's are dead, entire cities burned to the ground, infrastruture totally destroyed, donkeys explode, little kids heads roll down the street, US soldiers die by the thousands. I see no crimes here... move along.

Herr bushler is laughing at all of us.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.



Does that include female interrogators doing strip teases in front of detaines and putting ketchup or fake blood on womens panties and rubbing it on them?

Waterboarding?

Human dog piles?

Making detainess masturbate?

Raping young male detainees?

Sodomy with glow sticks?

I agree completely proper and in perfect harmony with our values. :disgust:

Or how about the hot cold treatment?
Went to my cabin a few weeks ago, think my human rights were violated by mother nature when she was blaring heat down on me at 100 then a cold front moved through and hit me with 65 and rain. I felt so uncomfortable she should be brought up on charges.


 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Or how about the hot cold treatment?
Went to my cabin a few weeks ago, think my human rights were violated by mother nature when she was blaring heat down on me at 100 then a cold front moved through and hit me with 65 and rain. I felt so uncomfortable she should be brought up on charges.

Might want to contact the ACLU, I'm sure they'd take on the case. :D :p

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Lucky for Bush its still you and whose army. But not even Hitler was so brazen as to believe
he could pass some Geman law granting him immunity. When a large number of very angry Russian
soldiers converged on his bunker--he did a quick reality check and blew his brains out.

But earth to Bush---earth to Bush----da US congress can't change international law.

And I have a feeling the USA will have to pay a certain price for the international co-operation that we will soon need when the reprecussions of Bush's bunglings come to pass. A small down payment on that price will include a command performance at the Hague for Bush&co. By then, it will be a price we will all be glad to pay.---as in good riddance to bad rubbish---free garbage pick up---no deposit, no return.

But it is somewhat cheerie to realise someone in the Bush administration finally gets it---their criminal tactics are not working and now they will have to pay the piper. And its the onset of panic time.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I have to grudgingly say that I believe enough wealth and power do put you above the law in the U.S. Accountability gets trashed, and your "peers" will give you a pass because you either have dirt on them, or they want a marker they can cash in later a la Clear and present danger.

Not for Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,362
1,219
126
Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
Bush finally develops an exit strategy, at least for himself and his cronies.

Can't wait to see the Presidential Pardon list the day he leaves office.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: zendari
The administration did the proper thing by complying with the Supreme Court at the time the ruling was made. Interrogation officials were quite proper in their actions beforehand so should not be reprimanded.



Does that include female interrogators doing strip teases in front of detaines and putting ketchup or fake blood on womens panties and rubbing it on them?

Waterboarding?

Human dog piles?

Making detainess masturbate?

Raping young male detainees?

Sodomy with glow sticks?

I agree completely proper and in perfect harmony with our values. :disgust:

Or how about the hot cold treatment?
Went to my cabin a few weeks ago, think my human rights were violated by mother nature when she was blaring heat down on me at 100 then a cold front moved through and hit me with 65 and rain. I felt so uncomfortable she should be brought up on charges.


I guess I take war crimes committed in my name a little more seriously than you. To each his own.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Calling constitutional experts here:

I thought we couldn't have retroactive laws. Or is it just you can't make something illegal that someone has done in the past, but its ok to make something done in the past that was once illegal legal?
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Originally posted by: brandonbull

Can't wait to see the Presidential Pardon list the day he leaves office.

I bet Scooter Libby will be at the top of the list.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Bird222
Calling constitutional experts here:

I thought we couldn't have retroactive laws. Or is it just you can't make something illegal that someone has done in the past, but its ok to make something done in the past that was once illegal legal?

I thought by now most people would realize that the Constitution is nothing more than a "historical document", no more relevant to today than the August PDB.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Bird222
Calling constitutional experts here:

I thought we couldn't have retroactive laws. Or is it just you can't make something illegal that someone has done in the past, but its ok to make something done in the past that was once illegal legal?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alberto Gonzales---our top law enforcement figure is the expert here---or have you failed to notice?

But then again---maybe the supreme court and congress will get some backbone---and send Alberto to jail---just like they did John Mitchell.---they certainly would have impeached Nixon---but he resigned---maybe when they drag Bush off to the Hague they will finally also get Kissinger for his international law violations too.

Why is it that so many of our Attorney Generals wind up in jail?
 

newmachineoverlord

Senior member
Jan 22, 2006
484
0
0
Originally posted by: Bird222
Calling constitutional experts here:

I thought we couldn't have retroactive laws. Or is it just you can't make something illegal that someone has done in the past, but its ok to make something done in the past that was once illegal legal?


This is correct. That is why you can't be prosecuted for drinking alchohol during prohibition after prohibition has been repealed, etc.

Impeachment is the only way to stop them from pardoning their co-conspirators, and voting out bush supporters is the only way to prevent them from retroactively making murder, torture, and election fraud legal.