Senior military officials admit War Crimes were committed.
Here you have "Senior military officials" (plural) admitting to Congress that war crimes were ordered and committed by the Bush administration.
To me, this is the headline of the day. Forget the "compromise," forget everything else. Senior military officials have told Congress that this administration has committed war crimes.
I'm going to say it again. Senior military officials have told Congress that this administration has committed war crimes.
Congress's response? Retroactively legalize war crimes.
Shout it from the mountain tops, people.
(This ties in to the next post, but I thought this revelation deserved its own headline.)
Officials' anxieties were provoked by a 10-year-old U.S. law, the War Crimes Act, that makes violations of the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on degrading and humiliating detainees, as well as actions that amount to "outrages upon personal dignity," subject to felony prosecution. Senior military officials have told Congress those prohibitions were violated.
To me, this is the headline of the day. Forget the "compromise," forget everything else. Senior military officials have told Congress that this administration has committed war crimes.
I'm going to say it again. Senior military officials have told Congress that this administration has committed war crimes.
Congress's response? Retroactively legalize war crimes.
Shout it from the mountain tops, people.
(This ties in to the next post, but I thought this revelation deserved its own headline.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:38 AM
4 Comments:
I am no expert, but didn't we have something--- uh---- ex post facto? ----- that's written somewhere, right?
By
Bravo 2-1, at 11:36 AM
Yes, it's in the constitution, but it works the other way.
Something cannot be made retroactively illegal. (Makes sense really, so the government cannot invent arbitrary laws after the fact to punish an individual for an act that was at the time lega.)
There is absolutely no preclusion to retroactively legalizing something, whether in a broad amnesty or in a bill specific to one person or case.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:55 AM
I see this more as a copout than a compromise, like the Specter sham.
By
abi, at 8:07 PM
Very much so.
I think the way the Sentors saw it, the White House would make the final overture so the Senators could claim principle and victory as they caved, but I don't think they expected this response to the details.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home