Friday, July 28, 2006

War Crimes Charges Possible


Let's Start With Bush!
The possibility of War Crimes Charges has been realized by the Bush Administration.   As the Post has described it, the War Crimes Act of 1996 may provide for criminal charges against interrorgators of enemy combatants.  



JB at Balkinization has some of the details of the laws that Torquemada Gonzales wants rewritten to cover his OK for detainee abuse at Gitmo and the Secret Prisons.   This behavior by a corrupt and incompetent administration is to be expected.


First they write a Presidential Directive that allows them to act above the law.   When they get bitch slapped and are made to act within the law, they want their rubber stamp congress to rewrite the laws to protect their illegal activities.   Par for the course. - Nothing to see here... - Please move on...
  - fc
washingtonpost.com



Detainee Abuse Charges Feared
Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act




By R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A01


An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.



Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S. - held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.



In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.



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order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said.



Continues Reading This Article...