Elizabeth Holtzman: BUSH+CHENEY-Already-"Pardoned Themselves & Got Immunity From The War Crimes Act"

[kpete]

Elizabeth Holtzman: Well, they did get immunity for themselves from the War Crimes Act. Let's make that explicit and perfectly clear.


BuzzFlash: They did.


Elizabeth Holtzman: Both Cheney and the administration pardoned themselves, in effect, and got immunity from prosecution under the War Crimes Act, which, by the way, carries the death penalty. A criminal statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain portions of the Geneva Conventions, and to engage in torture, mistreatment, or degrading treatment of detainees. So they were very worried about criminal liability -- so worried that they got themselves immunity under the War Crimes Act. So, yes, I think that would be the next step. You might even see a pardon by George Bush before he leaves office.

more at:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/094


(kpete: for some reason, my first post was deleted from DU-I do not understand why....?)

[MsLeopard]

1. K&R

I don't suppose their immunity can be undone by the next president?

[RC]

2. The very fact they pardoned themselves is evidence against them.

I don't think this will hold much water with the World Court.

[Octafish]

3. Killing a million Iraqi civilians should qualify as a war crime, as well.

Perhaps, in addition to genocide and torture, a good prosecutor
can find make a case against Bush and Cheney, such as crimes against humanity,
in the historical record these traitors have tried to obscure.

[kpete]

4. I don't agree that impeachment divides, and I don't agree that it diverts. ...

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
I don't agree that impeachment divides, and I don't agree that it diverts. ... I do think, however, that the failure to act now, given the litany of abuses and the seriousness of abuses, could simply set the groundwork for future presidents to do the same or worse. If we want to preserve our democracy, then we have to act to hold the President and the Vice President accountable.

-- Elizabeth Holtzman, four-term Congresswoman, former House Judiciary Committee member, and coauthor
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/094

[Ganja Ninja]

5. I don't imagine that pardon will mean much in the world court.

That's where I'd rather see them stand trial anyway. Then there's no chance of them winning an appeal in the Supreme Court.

[Solly Mack]

6. The War Crimes Act of 1996 was amended by the MCA of 2006

and not for the better..the DTA of 2005 changed things too.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33662.pdf

Note the wording difference...pages 2 of 13 and 8 of 13 (the change was "ANY" violations to "specified" violations....


and this allowed the Bush administrations definition of torture to come into play for making a case of immunity..well, of not being charged to begin with...meaning: if it doesn't specifically say it's not torture, then it's not torture...Bush's excuse (as in, Geneva doesn't specifically mention water boarding)



Also, the Detainee Treat Act ( pg. 7 of 13) allowed for more immunity...by presenting the defense that if the President told me to do it, even if the President was wrong, I'm still not guilty. The Nuremberg principle is that following orders isn't an excuse...the defense allowed under the DTA rips that to shred.






And on page 9 of 13, make note of the new wording brought by the MCA of 2006..."specifically intends to cause severe..."

Remember the whole if it doesn't cause body organ failure, etc, then it's not torture bullshit coming out of thew WH and the DOJ?(in the Memos) Well, that "intends" and "severe" is a direct result of that

Then read page 11 of 13...on how now, since the War Crimes Act was amended by the MCA of 2006, and applied retroactively, that now people can't be prosecuted for some (read most) crimes ...that before the War Crimes Act was amended by the MCA 2006, they could be charged for...



Then read 12 of 13

Fuck it..read the whole thing.

Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA 2006)

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/legpriorities2007p2.pdf


eliminates due process
turns a blind eye to past abuses
Made Bush his own judge and jury
Rejects core American values
permits coerced evidence - think of the CIA tapes that were destroyed and the "evidence" used from those torture tapes to make the case for other things..(Padilla, etc)

[jtrockville]

7. THIS is why IMPEACHMENT is in the Constitution * sighs *

[bluesmail]

8. k & r

[bobthedrummer]

9. k

[Dan]

10. World Court

I suspect that Bush & members of administration are going to live in fear (or prosecution by the World Court) for the rest of their lives.

It would be a statement of our belief in the rule of law - if we turned Bush & identified members of his administration over to the court for judgment. If Bush has legal reasons that justified his actions - the he should share them with the world. If his case has merit - he will walk a free man and we (those of us that did not understand nor agree with his actions in Iraq) will finally understand the 'whys' of his actions. If his case does not have merit - then he can stand before the World Court had take his punishment (whatever that might be) with his head held high.

[alfredo]

13. In the early days of his junta he lobbied our allies to grant him immunity

from the International Criminal Court.

[Dan]

14. hahhahahaha, yes he did

but it only applied to the initial first year or two of the war.

[alfredo]

16. OK, so it's best he doesn't leave the country after January 09.

[TankLV]

11. But - no matter if they did it - the CONSTITUTION says it plainly that it is illegal to

grant RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY for/from ANYTHING under ANY circumstances. Period.

I don't have the exact words, but it is in the first Ten Ammendments, I think...

no matter what "they" do, it's not LEGAL unless they AMMEND the CONSTITUTION, which they have NOT done. Period.

[Wizard777]

17. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto (retroactive) Law shall be passed. "

I don't think retroactive immunity will survive SCOTUS.

[truebrit71]

12. A pResident can't pardon himself surely..?? Wouldn't that make him a sovereign?

..whether they face prosecution or not the entire world knows what they are...

[Rex]

15. Ha. What stupid jackasses!

Their collective hubris will lead them to ruin. Good. Fools.