Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecut

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution

Bush Turns His Terror War on the Homeland
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

When I was a kid John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain.
Alas, today the US and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today the US and Israel are seen throughout the world as war criminal states.

On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.

Israel claims that its aggression was "self-defense" to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.

United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: "Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month."

Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended "collateral damage."

President Bush maintains that Israel has "a right to protect itself" by destroying Lebanon.

Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.

Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain's amendment against torture.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice says that Bush's changes "immunize past crimes."

Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?

Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American "Christian" public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.


Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.

Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.

According to President Bush, the US will lose the "war on terror" unless the US succeeds in defeating "the Iraqi terrorists" by establishing "democracy in Iraq." Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.

Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.

Bush and the Zionist/neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Thought I would mention, I am not that tangled up in the "stealing the election" baggage...but the other part of the bolding is right on the money, IMO.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
Why do people keep referring to G.W. Bush as a "War Time President"? Bush is not a war time President. Congress has to declare war. Congress did not declare war so Bush can not be a war time President no matter how many times he and the Bush/Republicans say he is. That's like saying Johnson was a war time President for his War on Poverty or Reagan with his War on Drugs. One can see how the average person might be conned into believing these Bush/Republicans lies but not journalists or commentators. The fact that Bush is NOT a war time president puts his and all of those who followed his illegal orders and procedures in their proper light of being criminals who have engaged in crimes against humanity, torture, murder, violations of the Geneva Conventions (which the United States played a major part in formulating and signing) as well as violations of U.S. laws regarding the above crimes. If you put this in the correct context it is obvious that the Bush/Republicans must be tried, convicted and punished for their crimes.
The German hierarchy was.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,521
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
"Why do people keep referring to G.W. Bush as a "War Time President"?"

hmmm Maybe because we went to war in 2 countries and over threw both governments.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If you put this in the correct context it is obvious that the Bush/Republicans must be tried, convicted and punished for their crimes"

--Folks it would pay you to read above paragraph over and over --especially right before election time. If you think liberals aren't dangerous--they use their last attorney general to defend Saddam while wanting U.S. tried for war crimes.
They want troops procescuted but terrorist defended.

If you think Algazeera hasn't been printing same and terrorist grinning ear to ear on such statements--think again.

--isn't this same stuff Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been spewing--maybe the towel on the head in avatar is appropriate Smurph. :)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Dogs, I don't remember the way the Saddam defense team was put together, don't know that I ever knew. You seem to be saying that democrats used "their attorney general" to defend Saddam. How did that work, exactly? Were the Democrats associated with that trial, to the point of deciding his defense team makeup? Did this go through the Democratic National Committee somehow?

Ramsey Clark was attorney general for less than two years, appointed by Lyndon Johnson. Hardly a long term appointment. He has always been a histrionic activist, far left, and has always taken on cases merely for the shock value and defense of radical left-wing causes. Johnson appointed him specifically to try to alter the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time (to get his father to drop out of the Court) - a time of extreme tumult in our country as far as race relations are concerned.

I don't think Clark is reflective of mainstream democratic values to a large degree. Activist, radical left wing politics? Sure. And he has engaged in most of that by himself, including his association with the Hussein defense effort. He's done that stuff his whole life.

He was very much against us going to war in Iraq, as were many people. He just takes it a little farther than many would have. Thus, the activism and association with Saddam, which I don't really agree with, nor do most democrats, I would guess.

I don't see how your statement reflects reality. It is very spinster-like, though. Maybe you can explain what the democrats had to do with him getting on board the Saddam team specifically?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,521
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
Chad not dissing Dems and have no prob for people voting for them and will vote for some myself---My prob is with the Dean/Soros/Air America/Aclu ect liberal arm trying to take over dem party.

I'll grant you I should have been more precise on that point in my reference.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,605
252
83
"the bunker"
chad...that`s the biggest crock of left wing bullcrap/ propaganda i think i`ve ever read on these forums......seriously....

quoting amnesty international...the bbc...

""On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon."

what utter trash.....didn`t this guy read that they found hezbollah bunkers side by side with u.n. outposts?......

didn`t he know that there are documents that show that unifil daily press releases contained numerous examples of heizbollah’s use of u.n. facilities as firing stations—none of which ever made it to the mainstream media.....and that they broadcast israeli troop movements and locations?....

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/unifilpress.htm

where was all that in the bbc?....the msm?...

i guess they weren`t aware that hezbollah hides among civilians in civilian garb,either....

so what if this guy was a bad reagan appointee?...he`s a moonbat of the first order....

he`s said stuff like,

"" Bush has used “bribery and coercion” to block “every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end”? That “in order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran,” he and a “’black opts’ group will orchestrate [an] attack” on U.S. soil?""

""a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a U.S. port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the U.S. media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.""


i wouldn`t be surprised if he believed bush was responsible for 9/11...

nahhhh...he`s not totally irrational...


""We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure.""

whoops,i was wrong....



want another gem?....

""“Americans are complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children as ‘collateral damage,’” he writes.

democrats??.....

he suggested that the clinton-era oklahoma city bombing may have been the consequence of an fbi “sting operation that went awry.”

"bush invented the war on terror".....he forgot about the cole,the TWO wtc bombings,khobar towers,and on and on....

a racist?.....""“Sooner or later whites will wake up to the realization that they are being marginalized in their own country, and they will cease to support the two political parties that have marginalized them.”....

hmmmm?

this guy`s grasping at his very last brain cell...a raving lunatic....


clark?...he could be the most virulently anti-american quisling that`s ever come down the pike....

he`s widely regarded...even in extreme liberal circles.....as persona non grata...
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
No problem, Dogs. Sometimes I just want to make sure what is being thrown out in the forum here as a point. Many here would toss the democrats in and say they were trying to defend Saddam in the situation you brought up - and especially the way it was written. I understand your reference.

GW: I pretty much highlighted the parts I found appropriate for many of our discussions here. I just find it frustrating that this administration essentially goes "where no man has gone before" in making themselves bulletproof and beyond reproach in anything they do - and retroactively try and change laws to protect and cover up things they've done in the past. I think that could be a problem for many, and would think that it becomes more a matter of principle than it is political. They simply feel they are above and beyond the law in all instances, and I think that is wrong. They are now taking steps to RETROACTIVELY change existing laws to protect their arse should anything come up. Like, maybe, examination by Congress and Senate after the 2006 elections, perhaps?

What are they so worried about, do you think?

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating all the things put forth here in this story. I know very little about the current problems in Lebanon/Israel. My focus is more on administration behavior, which I find very disturbing - and would think conservatives would also be disturbed thinking of the possibilities moving forward if there were liberals in the office.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Were at War? Not really. But we for some reason went to calling them actions or better yet Police Actions. As we did in Korea and Nam. I guess we think were the police of the world. Or maybe a short cut to let presidents do what ever they dam please. Or is it just a easy way for congress to wash there hands and say. Who us approve any of this.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top