US Casualties

Dead: 3,802

Wounded: 26,188

Front Page
Login
Archive
ByLines
Mission
Resources
Tips
Our Store

Sections
Humor/Satire
Projects

ConyersBlog

Kudos from feline: One of the many things I love about this chatroom is knowledgable people who can instantly gratify my need to be informed, and immediately exchange ideas - I love it!

Demanding Truth, Justice and Accountability in Government

BushCo Fear of Prosecution for War Crimes Intensifies

Reed31463

The "Hamdan Gap" is now starting to open up and even Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has abandoned his silly arguments against basic civil language. NYT

“We should embrace Common Article Three and sing its praises from the rooftops,” Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former judge advocate general of the Navy who is retired, told the Armed Services Committee. “To avoid it or try to draft our way out of it is unbecoming the United States.”

Bush Administration lawyers have argued that the vagueness of the language in the provision — including the right to “judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" — opened the way to problems."

Oh yes, New York Times. There are definitely problems. But not because of vagueness in Article Three. There are problems because Bush, Cheney, Addington, Libby et al have been committing war crimes and desperately need to "redefine" torture in order to concoct a retroactive defense against prosecution.

Only two months ago, The New York Times reported that, "Senator Graham, ... said in interviews that Common Article Three must be “reined in.” He said it would make death penalty crimes of current interrogation techniques, including keeping detainees awake and forcing them to sit in extremely hot or cold cells — methods he referred to as “things that are not torture but are aggressive.”

But article 3 just does not apply to judicial rights, they are a basic set of standards that should apply to every individual upon the planet.

Text of Article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.”

So obviously the converse is any thing less than Common Article 3 is "dipensed by barbaric peoples", including Sen. Graham's recently abandoned "Rein in" Article 3 approach. In reference to Article 3, the behavior is already known to be illegal and anything less is admittedly uncivilized.

We need to share our opinions with our Senators. The intensifying dispute within the Republican Party between Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham and the Bush Administration regarding torture and related detainee legal issues indicates that even rubber stamp Republicans may finally have been forced to acknowledge that Bush and his executive branch minions are a pack of fascists. Ultimately, anything less than the Geneva Conventions Article 3 protections is uncivilized and wrong. If Congress backs down yet again, and endorses the DoJ's legal nonsense, then they too will be implicated through malfeance with war crimes as stated in the Hamdan decision.

Comment # 1 ~ Patriot ~ 08/30/2006 12:26 GMT

So now we know to be prepared for filing lawsuits the day after a fraudulent vote. We have to be prepared!

Comment # 2 ~ Alma ~ 08/30/2006 13:35 GMT

We need to create a monster demonstration so big that the MSM can't ignore us.

Comment # 3 ~ Patriot ~ 08/30/2006 14:42 GMT

Riding the train, I was thinking about this post and I think my first comment is pretty lame. A monster demonstration is right. It shouldn't be Constitutional to swear someone in before the election is certified.

Comment # 4 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 08/30/2006 17:29 GMT

How can any candidate be sworn in at all before an election is actually had and over? How REPUGnant can anything get? This is very serious. If this one is gotten away with, it will set the impetus for others. Ohio already has major problems. What can be done other than lawsuits? Can the FEC not do something? Is there no federal anything that could help in these circumstances? Of course, if there is that's probably a lost cause as well. Californians in Busby's district should stage massive demonstrations. Since the lawsuit was thrown out, can't it be appealed to a higher up court? I believe so. But money could be an issue.

Comment # 5 ~ keenekarl ~ 08/30/2006 20:08 GMT

I, as most Americans, was not aware of the events in the CA-50 congressional district election. Thanks, Rusty, for drawing our attention to it! We all know that the close election was a big scare for the Republicans. I'm not surprised that they wanted to get Bilbray sworn in before anything could be investigated! It is frightening to think that a judge would say that it is ok to swear someone in before the election results were certified! I see, in checking the link Rusty gave (Brad blog) that Bilbray was sworn in a full 16 days before the election results were to be certified by San Diego County! I also see that this case will likely be appealed. For the sake of future elections I hope that Judge Hoffman's strange ruling is overturned! Perhaps this whole situation will so infuriate San Diego voters that they will get out and vote for Francine Busby over Brian Bilbray in the November election! Remember, Bilbray just won the special election that temporarily fills that seat! The voters in CA-50 can make the final decsion by overwhelmingly electing Francine Busby! This just shows that we must be extra vigilant this November in seeing that election rights are not violated!

Comment # 6 ~ Rusty ~ 08/31/2006 23:30 GMT

Patriot, we have to be prepared more than ever before. I hope Democrats are ready for what's coming.

Comment # 7 ~ Rusty ~ 08/31/2006 23:30 GMT

I'm all for demonstrations, Alma. They may be the only way to drive these criminals from power.

Comment # 8 ~ Rusty ~ 08/31/2006 23:33 GMT

Tahoe, as you know, Brad Friedman's Velvet Revolution is asking for contributions to help finance an appeal. I hope everyone who can sends him some money so justice can be upheld in CA 50.

Comment # 9 ~ Rusty ~ 08/31/2006 23:35 GMT

Busby may win a two-year term on November 7, KeeneKarl, but her silence about RePugs stealing the special election back in June does not bode well for a clean election in November.

Comment # 10 ~ Rusty ~ 09/01/2006 21:20 GMT

There's a good analysis of this on Crooks & Liars