digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

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

Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act

newcitizenship.net — The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AhmedOmran, on 10/29/2007, -6/+87Anyone surprised?
    • Kirium, on 10/29/2007, -7/+58Shocked!!!!!!






      Well, not really...
    • Terc, on 10/29/2007, -4/+25Nope, kinda expected this sooner. Maybe he thought it'd make too much noise any earlier than this?
    • bigboy101011, on 10/29/2007, -5/+48why would bush care about the law now, he hasn't in the past?
    • vudicarus, on 10/29/2007, -30/+22Seroiusly lame blog spam. It's copied and pasted entirely from the Nation.
      http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher
    • thomasprebble, on 10/29/2007, -4/+42Lets just hope none of those Bush lovers will try to label this as inaccurate. Its 100% verifiable.
    • Lasker, on 10/29/2007, -39/+3Rofl The Nation gets on the front pagee. If I make a rant about Clinton being the best president evar can I get on the front page?
    • thomasprebble, on 10/29/2007, -8/+27Unlike you republicans we here support Democracy! Thats why none of your submitted pages ever make it to the front page. You have just been outvoted. Get over it.
    • manifestdata, on 10/29/2007, -33/+5wow thomas, your panties still in a ruffle over the 2004 elections?
    • thomasprebble, on 10/29/2007, -2/+31No I don't live in the US so I couldn't vote. But wouldn't it be nice since all your decisions have far reaching consequences for the rest of us.
    • bbrosemer, on 10/29/2007, -26/+4Dupe posted 2-3 weeks ago...
    • bbrosemer, on 10/29/2007, -26/+5Dont believe me .. Here I posted it a MONTH AGO.
      http://digg.com/world_news/Bush_Administration_Secretly_Trying_To_Change_War_Crime_Laws
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/29/2007, -3/+11I'm glad this finally made it to digg.. I submitted it last week and no one seemed to care.
    • Zippo, on 10/29/2007, -4/+40Enough is enough! I have HAD it with this ***** Bush in this ***** country!!
    • bbrosemer, on 10/29/2007, -9/+2Yeah Im kinda getting sick of digg people just care if certain people submit this is just nytimes watered down....
    • deesnutz, on 10/29/2007, -2/+16Why? Is George W. Bush trying to avoid jail time? Is there something that we don't know?

      Christ, when will America wake up and impeach this poor excuse for a President all ready.

      Let the movement begin and spread the word ...
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/1585028665/left/1028424
    • DigitAl56K, on 10/29/2007, -0/+9"why would bush care about the law now, he hasn't in the past?"

      So his ass doesn't end up in jail.
    • hackwrench, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8While it's 100% verifiable, it will get labeled inaccurate for technical nit-picks about the way it is stated, in this case, the use of the word "crucial". I find it likely that the other recent stories so labeled, were for just this sort of thing, but they didn't catch my interest enough to make it worth confirming.
    • omaryak, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9"War is hell." To pacifists it's a rallying cry; to Bush & Co. it's carte blanche to make it so.
    • kuzotz, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7No surprises here. We move closer to fascism each day. The UK reaches towards fascism by the seconds.....

  • MyHappyClam, on 10/29/2007, -39/+8I am still waiting to see this so-called draft. Sounds like rumor to me. I, unlike so many, don't take everything I read or hear (especially from the Internet) as fact. Anyone who does is most likely and idiot without any brains to think for themselves.
    • pumacub, on 10/29/2007, -1/+26How about you use that brain of your to do a little research then.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/29/2007, -2/+7@myhappyclam-what are you? On Bush's payroll? Or just satan?
      • nicholai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1They better not be wasting my tax money on these neocon spammers.
  • ujangdigg, on 10/29/2007, -3/+12...as planned before.
  • jsd8cc, on 10/29/2007, -3/+34I'm assuming this is the article they're talking about?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276.html

    Why do I have to read extrapolations from 2 blogs then give up and search google for the source article they're referencing?
    • blackmariah, on 10/29/2007, -18/+2Because digg has hit Slashdotian ***** levels faster than anyone thought possible.
    • PowerCow, on 10/29/2007, -3/+12then do everyone a favor and leave
    • hackwrench, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6It would help if Digg weren't so anti-"Multi-link post", though it's also an inherent flaw in the linked article.
  • pintomp3, on 10/29/2007, -17/+5i broke the law? what law?
  • helix400, on 10/29/2007, -35/+7Both duplicate and inaccurate.

    Duplicate because this story has hit the main page before. (I'm at work, or else I'd hunt down the link).

    Inaccurate, because Bush isn't killing it at all. Instead, he's spelling out exactly what humiliating treatment is, because the old law was extremely vague on this.

    Now, the real controversy is whether the Bush Administration's exact definition of what constitutes a "war crime" is good for the country. That's where the debate should be, and not this inaccurate garbage.
    • SmokedL, on 10/29/2007, -3/+26http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_2.html

      Referring to the geneva convention:
      "They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections."


      "humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as "outrages" by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said"

      I honestly get sick to the stomach by people defending things like this. I just cannot understand how people can consider this justifiable.
    • joelmole, on 10/29/2007, -4/+15"Inaccurate, because Bush isn't killing it at all. Instead, he's spelling out exactly what humiliating treatment is, because the old law was extremely vague on this."

      No doubt a very narrow definition that absolves him and his administration of any wrong doing.

      "Now, the real controversy is whether the Bush Administration's exact definition of what constitutes a "war crime" is good for the country. That's where the debate should be, and not this inaccurate garbage."

      So you're saying the ends justify the means?
    • SmokedL, on 10/29/2007, -5/+8@joelmole in response to helix400
      "So you're saying the ends justify the means?"

      That's how I read it.

      *sarcasm* Considering how many powerful people with lofty stated goals have believed that the ends justify the means it's amazing that we have not yet achieved paradise on earth. */sarcasm*

      Conflict has always been around, will always be around, and all parties believe that their end is worthy. Letting the ends justify the means makes you one of the bad guys. It really is that simple.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/29/2007, -0/+11Seems to me, the real controversy is the man trying to get retroactive exemptions to a law in order to protect what we've been told are just a few bad apples, not representative of our military or the "war on terror" in general.
    • helix400, on 10/29/2007, -6/+5joelmole,

      "So you're saying the ends justify the means?"

      No, I was clariying that Bush wasn't killing any law, but rather, further defining it for legal reasons.

      I didn't even take sides in that post, but rather said that the debate should be about these specific changes to the law, and if they are good for this country or not. Had I taken sides, I would have stated who is correct and why.

      Also, just remember, simply because a post isn't anti-Bush doesn't automatically make it pro-Bush. Be careful trying to read between the lines and find things that aren't there.
    • joelmole, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I reread your post after I commented and realized I didn't pick up the nuance of meaning in your last sentence, so I apologize for characterizing it incorrectly.

      I agree that this is not quite "Killing the War Crimes Act", but it's much more than mere "clarification" of the conduct prohibited by the War Crimes Act of 1996. The evidence shows this is clearly an attempt to strike prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against humiliating and degrading treatment, which specifically points to the systemic abuses in Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities.

      Here's an excerpt of his address on September 6, where he admitted to the secret extrajudicial imprisonment of prisoners of war, and made clear his desire to recast the War Crimes Act to shield members of the CIA, members of the military, and members of his administration from criminal charges:

      "The Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article Three applies to our war with al-Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act - simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way."

      More insight from Whitehouse.gov:

      MYTH: The Administration Is Seeking To Narrow The War Crimes Act To Protect Abusers.

      * FACT: The Administration Is Seeking To Provide United States Personnel With Clarity and Certainty As To What Constitutes A Criminal Offense Under The War Crimes Act. The War Crimes Act provides that any violation of Common Article 3 is a felony, but it does not specify what conduct constitutes a violation. Although Common Article 3 prohibits some actions that are universally condemned, such as “murder” and “torture,” it also prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment,” phrases that are vague and do not provide adequate guidance to our personnel.

      * The Bill Defines The Clear Offenses That Violate Common Article 3. The bill enumerates nine offenses that constitute clear violations of Common Article 3, including murder, torture, and cruel or inhuman treatment. These prohibitions include clear and serious outrages upon human dignity, such as rape, sexual assault, and conducting Nazi-like human experiments.

      There's nothing vague about the prohibition of "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." To argue that is to argue that our constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" is also too vague. GWB set that bar at a different level than what is allowed by the Geneva Conventions, and is making a preemptive strike to "correct" that, so he and his cohorts are exempt from criminal charges in the instance of a democratic majority in the house after the midterm elections.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Helix

      No, he's not "killing" key parts of the bill, he's just torturing the logic until it tells him what he wants to hear.

      Did I say "torturing?" My bad!
  • Rudrasksha, on 10/13/2007, -4/+16hm while I havent read the article (im on my way out the door)

    the headline makes me wounder fo bush will be remembered as the 21st century's Stalin
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3you can ignore what bush is exactly doing
    but it just makes you a fool
    read helix400s post

    Both duplicate and inaccurate.

    Duplicate because this story has hit the main page before. (I'm at work, or else I'd hunt down the link).

    Inaccurate, because Bush isn't killing it at all. Instead, he's spelling out exactly what humiliating treatment is, because the old law was extremely vague on this.

    Now, the real controversy is whether the Bush Administration's exact definition of what constitutes a "war crime" is good for the country. That's where the debate should be, and not this inaccurate garbage.
  • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I'd do the same in his place.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7So now Bush will get off Scott free for all those people he beheaded in those videos? oh, wait, that was the terrorists... who want to kill innocent Americans... who we cant make uncomfortable if we catch them... Damn that Bush....
    • pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Yea, let's bring ourselves down to their level. That'll show 'em.
    • Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I dunno...you would think that maybe, as the leader of the free world, we would hold ourselves to a higher level of behavior to set an example to the rest of the world.

      Cuz you know....we're #1 and all.
    • triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@grey

      what innocent Americans did the Iraqis want to kill before we invaded? if you don't believe all the facts, maybe you will believe bush's own words when he said there was no link between Iraq and the world trade center.

      bush and co. send innocent Americans to die for reasons that have been soundly disproved. so who is it again that's killing innocent Americans?
    • Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the current american attitude is, we are good because we arent the worse

      "America produces a lot of pollution" -"but we arent as bad as china"
      "America causes a lot of deaths" - "not as much as the middle east"
      "America is an immoral cesspool of corruption" - "well at least we arent as bad as, um..., LOOK terrorists, lets kill em"
  • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Marked inaccurate. If you blow past the two levels of blog spam and actually read the draft what you'll find is the Bush Administration is actually up to...which is pretty much just nailing down the defintion of "degrading and humiliating treatment."

    Hardcore 'torture' like waterboarding will STILL be illegal under this legislation.
  • tdrizzle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"All wars are crimes"

    One of my favorite quotes from the West Wing when they were discussing war crimes
    • thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Amen.
    • mww2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oop, typo. I think you meant to say "All wars are glorious".

      Now let's all go on not doing the fighting or the dying!
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4So the underlying sentiment is that all those involved in war are criminals.

      So you're in favor of rolling over if anyone bombs or invades. You don't want to be a "criminal" for being involved in a war.
  • matthall28, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Lets guess why he is doing this.... Maybe he doesn't want to be tried in court for something we don't know about yet. I smell a scandal:P
    • bbrosemer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4NO gosh people this is so Rumsfield cant be tried. The supreme court already shot the bush admin down by saying the genova convention does apply even if enough people give the opinion that it doesnt. Dont comment on a subject that you are ignorant about for or against either way it makes you look bad.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nice source.
  • temporalwar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11He does need to go to Jail, who cares if he is the president!
  • Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9How long till marked inaccurate by bushbots?
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm actually kind of concerned that the neo-cons haven't marked this as inaccurate yet.
    • cohortq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+311pm PST and I see it marked as inaccurate. Whew! I thought the neocons had forgotten to try to marked this down!
  • jls8705, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That article is far too long for me to read.

    Torture is wrong.

    Don't do it.

    Don't try and change the law to make it ok.

    Simple as that.

    Bush just keeps shooting himself in the foot over and over again.
    • humanaut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Bush just keeps shooting himself in the foot over and over again"

      I wish he'd aim a little higher.

      Of course none of this legal manouevring will save him come that fateful day in 2007, in Chicago...
    • triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5maybe we can get him to go hunting with cheney.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8we were all humiliated in the worlds eyes over abu grab. How do you think the world will perceive us when we make everything they did retroactively legal
  • zc_au, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4so if the US drop it
    how quickly will it take for all the countrys out there that want to do "" war crimes"" to drop the act and than do them
    but im sure the US will be saying xx country is doing " war crimes " even if they drop it
    but you cant take with one hand n give with the other
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1This is not a duplicate, but a triplicate. This story has hit the main page twice already:

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Seeks_Retroactive_Laws_To_Protect_Himself_From_War_Crimes_Prosecution
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Bush_Fog_Machine_The_War_Crimes_Act
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in.
    • triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7some things are worth being repeated. i sometimes see the same or related story multiple times in the paper.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well, it seems you and Bush have something in common.

      "In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." May 24, 2005

    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good boy, you get a cookie.
  • justinmt7, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Guys, guys, guys:

    Theres a side of this none of you are seeing, because the authors of this article put so much spin on it. It's this: Part of the intent of all this is to protect our TROOPS from getting PROSECUTED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

    Trust me, this is a good thing.

    Currently, our troops could possibly be subpoenaed by a council of foreign government representatives under the Geneva Conventions. By changing this law, the government will be able to handle the prosecution of our troops under the UCMJ, without having to hand them over to foreign custody. Some of our own allies are leaning toward socialism (which isn't always bad), and we want to keep their hands away from our troops.

    Remember that relative you know in the military? How would you like for him to be sitting in some foreign jail without the US being able to help him out, especially in a case of a false accusation.

    Trust me, you want this change in the law to happen. It's not about Bush. Start thinking progressively.
    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If he raped little kids, then let him rot. If you have to go there, you kill those who are trying to kill you, no more, no less. You do not humiliate. You do not torture. You do not rape. Doing so soils the name of this great nation and puts the good men and women fighting for this country in even more danger.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As nonmembers of the ICC and as we have bilateral treaties concerning military jurisdiction with nearly every country, the US already retains nearly total jurisdiction over soldiers who commit war crimes.

      This change, hidden in the end of the new tribunal legislation which the administration hopes to quickly pass in a wave of anti-terror fear and patriotism before the Congress' session ends before the midterm elections, is meant to protect US agents from US courts. The administration is upset that the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan what Bush and Company never wanted to admit: violation of Geneva conventions is felony of US law. The Army knows this. The Navy knows this. The Air Force knows this. The Supreme Court knows this. However, this administration and the CIA do not want to believe it and will do anything to change it.
  • DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's hope that this law can not be altered retroactively, for obvious reasons.
    • davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, Congress may not pass any retroactive laws. Why is this never mentioned when this subject comes up of Bush trying to get one through Congress?

      Retroactive law = "Ex post facto law"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto#Ex_post_facto_laws_internationally
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ex post facto typically applies to laws criminalizing past actions. It looks like this is engineered to make some sketchy actions "legal."
    • davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@williamdyer, Ex post facto law applies to criminalizing a previously legal act, legalizing a previously illegal one, or somehow changing the legal consequences of anything that happened before the law was enacted.

      As you say, the U.S. Constitution's explicit ban on any ex post facto law is TYPICALLY cited to prevent the criminalization of past actions, but that does not mean we can ignore the other aspects of it. Just because it doesn't come up very often doesn't mean Congress is permitted to ignore it.

      Americans everywhere should be made aware of this very simple fact:
      The Constitution says that President George Bush is legally forbidden from doing what he is about to do. He has broken constitutional law before and he has broken condressional law before, but there's nothing complicated about it.

      Religious people own Bibles or other holy texts. Aren't there any patriotic Americans anymore who keep a copy of the U.S. Constitution around the house? You can get one from Amazon for 5 bucks: http://tinyurl.com/kgkhu
  • xypaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He's done such a good job in the past maybe he thinks he can pull a fast one....

    God wouldn't it be so nice to see that jackass being tried for war crimes.

    :.: wakes up :.:
    • Lenhart, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1US treaty obligations have the weight of Constitutional Law. An act of Congress cannot get Bush off the hook. Secondly, even if Congress could merely eschew Geneva, it would be in the form of an ex post factor law i.e. in other words making "legal" --after the fact --capital crimes that Bush has already committed.
  • Tarvok, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4@thomasprebble

    What is stopping the rest of the world from effectively "seceeding" from US hegemony? All it would take is European withdrawl from alliance with the US, and a fire sale on US bonds. Heck, the European withdrawl might not even be necessary...
  • Automatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Let's just change the Politics topic to [Reported by Diggers as Possibly Inaccurate]
    It would be more accurate I think
  • SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think people have been fired and even killed for a lot less *****.
  • Lenhart, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The authority to try war criminals for the crimes they commit is international. Gonzales, Yoo, even SCOTUS, might not have a lot to say about it when Bush --out on his ass and beyond the protection of the US military --gets indicted by an international court in Geneva. Having pissed off some powerful folk, he might even find himself with a bounty on his head. Bush committed his first war crime by attacking and invading a sovereign nation, "pre-emptively", i.e, a war of naked aggression. That's a war crime. If Bush had REALLY been interested in fighting "terrorists", he would have cooperated against Saddam, instead of lying about his WMD! Saddam --clearly --did a much better job of fighting al Qaeda than Bush has done. THERE WERE NO AL QAEDA IN IRAQ WHILE SADDAM LIVED. So ----Bush is not merely a war criminal, he's an incompetent one. An idiot! I say --let's have that trial. And, when found guilty, the REAL war criminals should swing.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.