Thursday, August 10, 2006

War Crimes Act a Problem for the White House

Nearly everyday on this blog right wing supporters of President Bush come forward to challenge reality. Yesterday I posted about the White House effort to provide a legal escape hatch to protect this administration from war crime charges and the comments were quick to step up to the President's defense: Troutdale Councilor Canfield said..."Ok I'll bite. Specifically what definition of war crime are you using? Can you cite any U.S. or even any international law here, or are you just venting? What actions by Karl Rove or any other member of the Bush Adminisatration fit that definition?" A regular commenter named Butch chimed in: "As hinted at in the first comment...can you specify what war crime you think was permitted? Going to war after Congress has granted you that authority is not a crime. If that is, then Clinton better restart his legal defense fund - he didn't even have permission from Congress when he started his war....." This is all standard stuff. Evoke the name of Clinton and question what I could possible be talking about. This magnificent group of godly men charged with war crimes? How could that be? Maybe the name "The War Crimes Act" is too vague. Today I'm linking to an LA Times article about an amendment that would legally protect Bush officials for past behavior and any future behavior. Gosh, why would they have to amend the War Crimes Act if they're following the laws of the land? I can't wait to hear you right wing bloggers tell me how Clinton is behind all this. Go ahead, but first here's a little from the article: The Bush administration has drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal. The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill "will apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or after the law is enacted."

Amendments Sought in War Crimes Act - Los Angeles Times


At 1:21 PM, Blogger Troutdale Councilor Canfield said...

A lot of left wing rhetoric in your post, for sure. But I'm not interested in left wing rhetoric. I'm challenging your rhetoric.

I'm not challenging reality, I'm asking you to provide some reality. I'm not defending Bush. I'm asking you to defend your rhetoric with some facts.

In answer to my question, you wrote "Maybe the name "The War Crimes Act" is too vague. " Your answer itself is too vague. Can you cite which part of this act that you are accusing Bush of violating?

You talk about war crime charges. Fine. Tell us specifically which war crimes laws you're talking about, and tell us how Bush has violated those laws.

At 1:43 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

The War Crimes involve torturing detainees. President Bush said the United States doesn't torture. He was lying. Even after McCain passed an anti-torture bill President Bush granted himself the right to overlook the law if he saw fit.
I don't think torture should be a left-right issue. I think it should be a right-wrong issue. The fact that this administration adopted a policy where torture is okay is a disgrace and a war crime. The White House has plenty to be worried about, which is why this is getting a high priority.
I'm surprised that so many devout Christians support President Bush. You would think they would be anti-torture, if they were genuine about their beliefs. Let's not mince words here - we tortured detainees to death. That is not what America used to stand for. That is closer to what the Roman Empire did to Christ and yet Christians flock to this President. I think they're worshiping a false prophet, one that could make the new post-constututional empire known as America fall just as hard as the Romans did. Unless laws like the War Crimes Act are allowed to stand and the violators are brought to justice.


Post a Comment

<< Home