I'm actually currently on a political blogging hiatus. It started shortly after the Israeli conflict began, when people started talking about WWIII, Iran, again with the turra-tacks on 'Murrka, and all that other stuff that makes conservatives wet their pants with happy, golden conservative pee.
I needed a break, and so I've been writing on my own blog about waveguide wifi antennas. But I'm not staying completely out of touch. I still read the news, and scan the diaries, but as far as commenting a lot, writing daily about topics of current national and world interest, I'm attempting to stay clear.
This morning, however, I see this, and although it's not a presidential signing statement, it's basically an attempt to shield oneself' from the rule of the law...
Detainee Abuse Charges Feared
An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.
And they damn should be scared, especially after Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other instances.
But it gets better.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
Legal fears? Accountability? Responsibility? Not if we can worm our way out of it.
And how do we do that exactly?
In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.
Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.
The Justice Department's top legal adviser, Steven G. Bradbury, separately testified two weeks ago that Congress must give new "definition and certainty" to captors' risk of prosecution for coercive interrogations that fall short of outright torture.
Here it comes...
Language in the administration's draft, which Bradbury helped prepare in concert with civilian officials at the Defense Department, seeks to protect U.S. personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by incorporating language making U.S. enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to U.S. -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.
The administration's excuse for why we should, or at least could do this, seems to defy logic.
The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of U.S. legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that "shocks the conscience." This phrase allows some consideration by courts of the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.
It's not, however, quite what the US Supreme Court thinks should be the case.
The Supreme Court, in contrast, has repeatedly said that foreign interpretations of international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions should at least be considered by U.S. courts.
That's all I'm going to quote, but there's certainly some more information in the article that's worth reading, including what law the administration is currently worried about, some information on how the law itself applies, some information regarding Hamdan, which as it turns out, this could hinge on, given the recent ruling.
So take a minute, read the rest of the article, and give this some thought. The administration wants to protect individuals, and potentially themselves but the consequences for performing and approving outright human rights abuses and to do so, they will draft legislation saying they can't be charged.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry did I say "can't be charged?" I meant to say ABOVE THE LAW.