digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Bush-Cheney Escape War Crimes Prosecution

rubyan.com — With the passage of the Detainee Bill, Bush and Cheney have put themselves above the law. Because, buried deep in that bill, there is a provision that makes them immune from prosecution for war crimes against any detainee being held at Gitmo or elsewhere. Jack Cafferty asks: "What kind of country have we become?"

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 1, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

122 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • infopro, on 10/12/2007, -9/+95Just for reference, the US isn't a democracy -- it's a republic. Also for reference, voting does no good if one's ballot is invalidated by trickery, incompetence, or other reason. ;)
  • arubyan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53The legislation says this: "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Services, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

    This means that no detainee can bring suit for any violation of the Geneva Conventions, and this is the other huge dot. The Bush Administration already stands accused by the Supreme Court of violating Common Article 3, but the Administration wrote a law, and bulldozed it through a compliant Congress, to render prosecution impossible.

    This also means the US simply is not bound by the Geneva Conventions. If detainees cannot claim rights under them the Conventions are moot.

    Also .... and most importantly --

    The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is retroactive. It shall "...take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted.[on that date]." Nothing the Bush Administration has done can be called into question.

    http://www.xenoxnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1646
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+65But some states don't have the right to have their vote counted.


  • Sp0rAdiC, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45desc1: Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35@chriskzoo

    Fine. Then they are criminals, just like any other criminal. Criminals, in this country, are given fair trials.

    I, personally, think the terrorists are 100% scum and should be eradicated...but we are a country of laws. When we do everything we can to circumvent those laws in order to "get the terrorists", we become no better than the terrorists.
  • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37... and if voting doesn't work due to it being discounted, there is always armed revolt -- Thos. Jefferson would agree on this ;)
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37@desc1: And what, pray tell, are you defending with this typical bitter tirade against the "liberals" that seem to lurk in every shadow?

    Ever notice the conservative apologists are always on the attack...maybe they have nothing to defend? I'm not talking about real conservatives, but the neocons and their ilk.
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33It's only sinking because apathetic Americans are letting it sink. As far as I'm concerned this is OUR country and I refuse to let the bunch of well placed, lying, cheating, criminals steal it from me and future Americans.
  • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@desc1
    I'm a European, and I'm aware of the non-democracy afforded Washington DC and the Virgin Islands. I'm not sure if there are more affected regions.
    What rock have you been hiding under?
  • Drewboy64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22You sure about that? Because I'm still waiting for Bush to recieve his punishment.
  • nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@LoneRanger85: That's right, I did vote, FOR THE OTHER GUY TWICE!

    I'm moving to Canada, see you all in 2009 when Bush is gone.
  • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@ucytheynv
    The US economy is now so great that you can have two jobs and still have trouble supporting your family. Hooray!

    I live in Sweden. Our unemployment is far higher than the US. On the other hand, crime is far far less. Everyone is guaranteed health care, and no one is truly poor. Including unemployed.

    I'll take that deal.
  • daddyfizz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22man i can't wait to jump off this sinking ship we call America...
  • taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ anphanax
    that state would be Ohio. + any other state that has electronic voting machines with no paper trail.
  • haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@chriskzoo
    You are presuming that every single person being held is a terrorist. That is most definitely not true. Not even close to being true.

    There is a presumption of human rights.
    There is not a presumption that everyone the military does not like is a terrorist.
  • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@Jarda

    Funny thing is, Saddam thought HE was safe in his palace.

    Just because you don't live here doesn't mean Bush and Co won't come and fu** up your country big time.
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16They have essentially self-pardoned themselves as far as torture is concerned. Though, there are several other illegal acts that we can nail them with after Democrats take back congress in November.
  • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15This is the least important aspect of the bill. Even if this portion weren't in the bill, Bush and Cheney would not get prosecuted for war crimes--it would just never happen, whether right or not.

    People should be more concerned with other aspects of the law: that it creates an unfair system which denies justice, it violates the Constitution in regards to habeas and equal protection, and that it skirts the Geneva conventions.
  • leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12*sigh*, I await 2009 like I await Christmas.
  • halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@mntbikeracer1

    I'm sure you're right. The Conservative Extremists will be happy to see the intellectuals leave. It will make it that much easier to control the populace.

    If nothing else daddyfizz leaving on his own will mean there's one less person who needs to be rounded up and tossed into the camps with the rest of those who question the GOP.
  • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Not even his fellow Americans."

    And they let him get away with it.
  • growler1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Does anyone know if the Supreme Court could strike the law down because it's in direct conflict with the habeas clause in the Constitution?

    Also, what would be the chances of another Congress and Senate passing laws that removed this one and nullifed other Bush laws? The new laws, at least at first glance, would seem to be able to strike and replace these...

    any help w/ this is greatly appreciated.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"peace out. bye bye.
    let me see. exactly what is sinking?
    unemployment under 5%
    stock market on verge of all time high
    more people employed than ever, even though the population has been growing.
    Highest standard of living in the world. "

    Congratulations on being brainwashed by Fox News.

    Unemployment -->
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment
    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

    By Stock Market you mean specifically the DOW (I watch Fox News, too!) -->
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

    And where do you get the idea that more people are employed than ever? Sources? Furthermore, what makes you think those people are in jobs according to their education and work experience? A doctor pumping gas is still employed, technically.

    Just do a little research.
  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11this is just *****.... I want nothing more than to see bush go to jail for his war crimes... so many people killed for his foulish war... so many innocents held against their will and touchered...

    I can't beleive we are letting bush get away with this... -_-
  • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Wingnuts, this legislation allows the President to declare US citizens 'enemy combatants' without any judicial oversight. Doesn't that make you planned-parrenthood-pipe-bombers a little worried about the day Hillary is elected?
  • BlogCruiser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The USA may be powerful but these are international treaties and war crimes that have been filed against the USA and members of. There may be laws put in place for the US government. However, these crimes have not all taken place with in US jurisdiction or to its own citizens. There is a world to answer to in this case...

    http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/
    http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm
    http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Lawsuits.htm
    http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=24

    We are not any better than any other people in the world and hopefully we realize that.


  • zenmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Maybe Americans should stand up and give him something to fear.
  • snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What I can't get over and fail to understand is how the Republicans actually wanted to impeach Clinton in regards to the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, however, turn a blind eye to true abuses and defiance of law.

    Now, here we have a President who has most likely committed an array of impeachable offenses, yet inaction and docile acceptance by those very same people.

    I hope it is not as bloody as I imagine it will be when Americans (finally) rise up to take back our country from the corruption that infests our political system.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Saddam should have made it against the law to prosecute him for his crimes.
  • Jarda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Thank God I don't live in the US :)
  • ZWash300, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Seriously, I'd like to know how this is inaccurate. Show me how Bush and Cheney are NOT immune from war crimes, and then I'll be ok with it being inaccurate.
  • Arcnite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How is it possible that pro-bush people are still pro-bush. Is it blind faith? Are you just filtering the news and believing only what you wish to believe? With such an extremely low approval rating, such controversial elections, and mounting evidence isn't it obvious than this is more than just the effects of a war-time president. Furthermore it is fact that Bush has ties to the Bin-Ladens, it is fact that Cheney heads up a global oil giant... there is corruption in the air and it's getting so thick that we're choking on it.

    It truly amazes me how hard some people can shut their eyes.
  • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Many of the flaws of this law includes ex post facto law, such as allowing to try detainees for war crimes including conspiracy and terrorism.

    Conspiracy and terrorism have never been labeled war crimes until this bill, yet it allows these charges to be brought against people "before September 11, 2001, during September 11, 2001 and after September 11, 2001."
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You're wrong, catmistake. Remember those reporters who were held in captivity by those Palestinians? They were fed, cared for, and released without harm. That is how we want our soldiers treated if they are ever captured, so why is it that we are so willing to violate this?
  • epitaphic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I don't agree with everything he has done, but I do agree entirely with his stand on Terrorism and Iraq being connected"

    So what part of "no relation" or "pure FUD" do you not understand? Do you even refuse to listen when "your man" Bush says there's no connection?

    "In 6 years under Bush, how many attacks on the U.S.? None"

    Erm, how about Sept 11, 2001? Or is that not an attack on the US? BTW, "attacks IN America" and "attacks on American interests and embassies around the world" are entirely different matters.

    "YOU are circumventing MY rights."

    I think we can all collectively apologize for trampling on your right to be deaf, dumb blind, and stupid. May one day you actually open your eyes. I pity you.
  • snockhockster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You have the right to your opinion, but considering your diatribe in regards to Clinton and the forked tongued "liberals", you most likely will lose credence with most intelligent people who are able to disassociate talking points produced by either party solely for the purpose of divisive exchanges of rhetoric. Rhetoric that you appear to subscribe to wholeheartedly.

    There are numerous issues in regards to Bush's presidency that once examined should cause great alarm for most Americans. The problem is these issues can not be summed up in easy to digest, short sound bytes. Combine this with people who are close minded and unwilling to listen to contrary opinions and you have your standard talking point zombie.

    The precedent Bush and the rubber stamp GOP majority Congress has set is most troubling, and undoubtedly will take years to repair.

    As I said though, you are entitled to your opinion... no matter how uninformed or biased it may be.

    That does not mean, however, that people should not call you out on it.
  • vectorprime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Torturing prisoners of war violates the Geneva conventions. This makes it both an international war crime and, since the Geneva Conventions were ratified by congress, a domestic felony.

    Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention says that if any doubt exists as to a prisoner's legal status they are to be regarded as under the Conventions "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

    So the question becomes whether the prisoners were "tortured" and, if so, whether that torture was authorized by the White House. If so, then our president has indeed committed war crimes.
  • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I voted for him because of those views and it greatly alarms me that a large section of the U.S. populace will not allow me to be represented by the man I voted for and elected."

    While it certainly is your right to vote for and be represented by "your man" it is also MY right to question "your man". Just because you decided to sit on your ass and you did not voice your opinion of clinton or question his actions does not mean I have to do the same!

    But thanks for giving us your opinion. Now if you don't mind the majority of americans would like to continue criticizing "your man".
  • locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the bill won't be struck down for violations of the Suspension Clause (Article I. Sec. 9, cl. 2), then it will definitely be struck down for a violation of the Separations of Powers. Let me explain why. Article II Sec. 1 explains that "All executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That means that neither Congress nor the Judiciary can exercise executive authority without violating separation of powers.

    With this Detainee Act, Congress did just that. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Therefore, the power to issue pardons vests exclusively in the President, and not Congress or any other governmental body. By attempting to exercise pardon power through legislative law-making, this appears to be a clear violation of the Constitution, and should be another avenue to have this travesty of a bill struck down.
  • SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@texpundit
    "I, personally, think the terrorists are 100% scum and should be eradicated."

    The problem with this statement, and the reason I did not digg your post though tempted, is that the US media labels every single group of Arabs with weapons that do not support the US agenda terrorist.

    Which group are you talking about?
    Do you want to eradicate the 10% of Lebanese that voted for Hezbollah? How about the 43% of Palestinians that voted for Hamas?
  • axonal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What happened to the "ex post facto" law?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's why we need to elect someone who IS NOT a politician. The only "Qualifications" to be president are being 35 years old and a naturally born citizen of the United States. :)
  • KottonKandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ditto: "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin.

    STOP REPORTING THIS AS INACCURATE!
    We ARE living in a dictatorship now, wake up and realize.
    Refusing to believe it just gives them more power to trample on the United States Constitution which my forefather signed his name on.

    STOP REPORTING THESE STORIES AS INACCURATE!
  • sathias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Voting for Bush isn't a dissenting point of view.
  • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Keep thinking about it and you might actually get it.

    There are supposed to be three independent branches of government, right now there appears to be only two;)
  • xBDVx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Somebody has to conest it, by breaking the law or suing. For example, abortion was declared legal by the Supreme Court when Roe sued Wade County when she was denied an abortion. I don't know if anyone could break it. I'd talk to a lawyer.
  • realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Heck knows why you're being dugg down.

    Must be lots of uneducated dicks on Digg today.
  • mv36, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Poor sad boy gets wood seeing Bush, 'his man' !?
  • luckyaba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Gotta give Bush credit. The man has balls like a damn bull. The guy fears nobody. Not even his fellow Americans.
  • SaintMatthew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Who and how do you mark an article as inaccurate? This is ridiculous, this article is true to what it’s trying to convey. Even true to the bill the article is addressing. I just read the bill last night. Please tell me who is marking this article as inaccurate and please tell me why.

    There is a difference between opinion and truth. What is said in this article IS true. Please read the bill before applying your opinion.... Redneck. I know the words are big, but if you try, I know you can do it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.