Skip to main content

Frontpaged on Democratic Underground. Crossposted on Truth 2 Power.

In their 5-3 decision yesterday in the Hamdan v Rumsfeld (pdf) case, the Supreme Court may have just established a determination that Amnesty International has been long looking for and Albert Gonzales has worked hard to avoid.

They made it official : George W. Bush is a War Criminal.

Oh, he may at this time be unindicted, untried and unconvicted - but make no mistake - the court has made it clear that he is a criminal.

In the Majority Opinion Justice Stevens stated:
Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan 's commission trial are illegal.

The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

In his concurring opinion Justice Kennedy brought it home:
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered "war crimes," punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.
The core of the decision, as written by Stevens is here:
Hamdan is entitled to the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention until adjudged,in compliance with that treaty, not to be a prisoner of war; and that,whether or not Hamdan is properly classified as a prisoner of war,the military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the UCMJ and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based onevidence the accused would never see or hear.
The Court did not find that Hamdan or other detainees would have to be tried in civilian court, only that the Special Secret Tribunals that have been setup by President Bush are not authorized under current U.S. Law (the UCMJ) and also violate our treaty as a member of the Geneva Conventions.

It is quite possible that Hamdan would have to be tried in a normal "Courts Marshal" styled Tribunal, or that Congress could amend the UCMJ to allow for the presentation of secret evidence with a new class of tribunals and carve out part of the UCMJ so as to be severed  from Geneva, and thus make the current Tribunal structure established for Al Qaeda and Taliban members "legal" -- but that isn't the only hurdle to be crossed.

Much has been made of the arguement that Geneva is an international law, and supposedly unenforceable with the U.S. But that isn't strictly true as Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes clear.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Under this article it could be argued that International Treaties made by the United States are in fact - U.S. Law. With or without this interpretation however, it is now clear that the President has indeed violated U.S. Law, specifically the 1996 War Crimes Act under 18 USC § 2441, which exists in supplement to the Geneva Conventions and states:
The law applies to "U.S.  officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty,"
The article defines "War Crimes" :
(1) as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;      
prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;    
which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.  
Early on the War on Terror(tm) Alberto Gonzales had noted this law and as White House Council had advised President Bush to refuse to recognize that "Enemy Combatants" had standing under the Geneva Conventions, not simply because they weren't members or agents of a signatory state - but simply because doing so would put the President at risk for violations of this law. As Reported by Michael Isikoff for Newsweek.
It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote. The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision--then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell-- to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions. "Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.
It is now clear that this artful dodge has failed, and the Supreme Court has fully established that persons such as Hamdan, who may not officially be "Prisoners of War" until such a determination is made via judicial proceeding, are indeed covered by the Conventions, and that their treatment is protected under the War Crimes Act.

Furthermore, these memos by Gonzales indicate premeditation of the intent to violate 18 USC § 2441, several months before his request for the Bybee Torture Memos, which the ACLU in their own suit against Donald Rumsfeld contends was the first link in a chain which has led systematic abuse of detainees at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram AFB in Afghanistan, Extraodinary Rendition to Secret Prisons and the notorious Task Force 6-26.

In all these areas - BUSH. HAS. VIOLATED. THE. LAW.

If Congress intends to immunize Bush by changing the UCMJ, they will also have to change the War Crimes Act and possibly even de-ratify Geneva in order to make the Presidents current illegal conduct - legal.

But in addition to the War Crimes issue, there is also the NSA Domestic Spying issue - which the President and Justice Dept have claimed were given life by the Authorization to use Military Force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But SCOTUS would appear to have thrown some severely cold water on that idea.

Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific,overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President 's war powers, see Hamdi v.Rumsfeld ,542 U.S.507,and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circum stances,see,e.g.,id.,at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF ' s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ.
Without having specific and detailed authorization by Congress to try Hamdan outside of the standard proceedures of UCMJ and/or without an appropriate update to the UCMJ, the court has found the trial to be illegal. It only follows that they would also find the Presidents claim of authority to wiretap International calls without judicial review to be similarly illegal, particular since the 2002 Hamdi decision specifically required a role for the courts.  In Hamdi...
JUSTICE O 'CONNOR,joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE,JUSTICE KENNEDY,and JUSTICE BREYER,concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
The "neutral decisionmaker" would be a Judge (or judicial panel). The kind of judges that can also issue warrants, like the FISA Court.

The real issue and question is - will Bush even care? At this point in time, he has deliberately broken the FISA Statutes as well as the War Crimes Statute, so what does he have to lose by essentially ignoring the court? Is this Congress going to hold him accountable? Even though the NSA program has been openly revealed it continues on without any changes yet made by Congress to the existing law. Senator Russ Feingold suggests the rather mild remedy of a censure and it dies on the vine, and Bush hasn't even shifted his stride as he continues to trample on Civil Rights and ignore both the law and the courts. Senator (and part-time remote viewer) Bill Frist has already begun work on legislation to make the Secret Tribunals legal, so why should Bush do anything to bother abiding by the law, the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions?

Perhaps because this decision has opened the President up to a veritable avalanche of court challenges for his policy. In my original presumption and post before reviewing the detail of the case, I had worried that future cases of this type would not be able to be filed by Gitmo Detainees because of the Levin-Graham Amendment to the Anti-Torture Bill, but it appears that at the very top of their decision the Court Considered this question, and rejected it. This means that the door is wide open for future detainee suits. And unless Justice Stevens dies or retires, Bush is unlikely to win any of these challenges in the future.

At a certain point the realization that this President is a criminal will eventually begin to dawn on the American people - and they will have to force Congress's hand to take action (either through appointment of a Independant Council/Special Prosecutor or Impeachment Proceedings).

It may not happen in time for the end of his Presidency, but it's only a matter of time  - hopefully, it won't be too late.

Update:Glenn Greenwald also has some excellent analysis of this decision from yesterday and today has an analysis I concur with; The President is quite likely to completely ignore the Court on this issue:

When asked about the Court's ruling yesterday, the President's answer seemed to suggest (albeit ambiguously) exactly that view:
    At any rate, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously. And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that.
Isn't the President saying here that no matter what the Court says, he is "not going to . . . jeopardize the safety of the American people"? Thus, if compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling would -- in the President's view -- impair his ability to defend the nation, isn't it quite likely that the President would simply refuse to comply with the ruling on the ground that the Court has no authority to impair his functions as Commander-in-Chief? And if he asserted that power, is there any doubt that his followers would trip over themselves with praise, wallowing in bravado fantasies of Andrew Jackson's heroic challenge to the Court's authority?
Oh, I'm sure they will - in fact the witchhunt for the heads of those crazed out-of-control Supreme Court Justices is already gearing up for full steam. It should be an interesting ride.


Originally posted to Vyan on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:50 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  re (5+ / 0-)

    So he's a draft dodger and a war criminal.

    What a son-of-a-bush.

    "Take me to your Kingpin." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:56:11 AM PDT

  •  Bush is also a 'common criminal' (5+ / 0-)

    The Hamdan ruling lays the groundwork for criminal sanctions for Mr. Bush under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

    TITLE 50 USC CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1809 Criminal Sanctions says:

    A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

    (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .

    An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    That's 5 years and $10,000 for each count; each wiretap = 1 count; 1,000 wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000 fine.

    Notice there is no intent provision in the language of the statute, it is a model of simplicity: if you intentionally tap without a warrant you're guilty.

    Bush has already admitted he okayed the wiretaps because he thought he was above the law. Retrospective realization of an error in thinking doesn't relieve him of liability for criminal sanctions.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"

    by bobdevo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:58:22 AM PDT

    •  Agreed n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      knowthings, bobdevo

      Truth 2 Power Radio - Passionate Progressive Protest Rock 24/7/365

      by Frank Vyan Walton on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:23:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you ain't a judge, are you ??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      cuz I really like your math here, but I wouldn't want to appear in your courtroom as a defendant

      That's 5 years and $10,000 for each count; each wiretap = 1 count; 1,000 wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000 fine.

      btw, that would be under a "consecutive" sentence, a judge would be more inclined to sentence a person to a "concurrent" sentence, which would be 5 years maximum

      dig thru the Geneva Conventions and you'll find out that george is also criminally cupable for all of the Abu Ghraib convictions too

      stupidity or ignorance isn't a defense against these charges either. an admission of ignorance of the crimes is specifically defined as an admission of guilt in the Geneva Conventions

      •  How 'bout we compromise and settle (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        for the Federal mandatory minimums on the 1,000 counts.  The fine however . . . the bastard pays the MAX!!

        "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex"

        by bobdevo on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 01:47:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nice Summary. (4+ / 0-)

    We need to get the U.S. Media to pick up on these excellant points.

    George W. Bush, violator of the Geneva Conventions, is by definition a "War-Criminal".

    Even though the United States Government will never hold him accountable, the question is why won't other Nations and the Governments of other Countries hold George W. Bush accountable and bring him under indicitment & face trial -- should he ever travel anywhere ever again-?

    They should be able to do this...

  •  What the fact means.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, srkp23, ilyana

    The fact that America, under Bush, has committed war crimes in Iraq could well mean an end to free and fair elections in America. Never forget that Bush is above the law and out of reach of international organizations for only as long as he remains the head of America or remains under the protection of the next head.

  •  George W. Bush _is_ a war criminal. (3+ / 0-)

    He didn't have to be a war criminal.

    He decided to be a war criminal.

    He's the decider, and like all immature, amoral, bullies, he decided wrong.

    Punish him to the fullest extent of the law.

    They don't govern -- they steal. Conservatism is THEFT by another name. Today, Republicanism = Conservatism = Theft. Their governance is theft.

    by Yellow Canary on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:28:08 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for pointing this out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, noweasels

    SO CLEARLY.  So now that the Supreme Court has ruled on this, what now?

    I listened to Tony Snow's press conference last night as he repeatly talked about "bringing the detainees to justice"  They've been HELD, some of them since 2001,  without being able to go anywhere at all.  So we must assume by Snow's comments that where they are being held isn't justice.  

    What is JUST about holding people without charges, and subjecting them to repeated interrogations? Sometimes using torture,

    Just the FACT of their long term imprisonment is torture.. Totally destructive of their personal lives.
    Children are being raised without fathers, parents are growing old without sons, wives are being deprived of the compionship of their mates,  ALL without DUE process.

    "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

    by ilyana on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:42:14 AM PDT

  •  Recommend this diary.. it's excellent! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, noweasels

    "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

    by ilyana on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:43:01 AM PDT

  •  We used to stand for goodness.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, FWIW

    America used to stand for fairness and goodness until cons. made it torture and very cruel..This is  not  america ..Until bush and cohorts are punished, indicted, and imprisoned for causing all this destruction, international or america cannot start healing..We have to make sure we never have spoiled little children with too much power in charge again..

  •  Thank God. (0+ / 0-)

    More Evidence against our Criminal in Chief:

    Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution:
    ... The Congress shall... make rules concerning captures on land and water... make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces... [and] make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    As for bypassing "domestic and international laws," the United States Code (1 U.S.C. 2(112), says:

    The United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws, concurrent resolutions, treaties, international agreements other than treaties, proclamations by the President, and proposed or ratified amendments to the Constitution of the United States therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.


    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - A. Einstein

    by FWIW on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:13:54 AM PDT

  •  Please help (0+ / 0-)

    us support Amnesty International (here)

    Very interesting reading !

    by cyberotter on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:09:58 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site