Back to Reality: Bush watering down War Crimes Act

From the gang that informed us that the "Geneva Conventions are irrelevant" comes the latest ploy to keep legal their strategy of torturing and degrading our so-called enemies:

Water down the War Crimes Act.

I realize the champagne hasn't even warmed in Connecticut and across the country.  But before we can rest on our progressive laurels, here's another opportunity for us to remember why we supported Ned Lamont in the first place.

The war in Iraq was a mistake to begin with, it has been and continues to be poorly executed and our continued erosion of human rights in its execution undermines our standing and moral leadership in the world.

Specifically, here's what the Administration is trying to do:

The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.

Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.

"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.

Not so bad, eh?

Let's flash back about three and a half years ago.  That's when we saw the shakey video footage of captured US soldiers in Iraq on Al Jazeera.

At the time, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:

Speaking on CBS, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld charged that if those seen on television were indeed coalition soldiers, "those pictures are a violation of the Geneva Conventions."

And Don Rumsfeld is not the only one who is outraged when humiliating acts occur.  So is the Yugoslavian War Crimes Tribunal.

But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as "outrages" by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.

So while we're outraged when it happens to us, when we're accused of doing it to someone else, suddenly the charge is just too vague.

Degrading and humiliating treatment is just too vague a term for the likes of Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, David Rivkin, and John C. Yoo.  What's next: Cruel and unusual punishment?

And the kicker quote from  Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black:

the changes can "elevate" the War Crimes Act "from an aspiration to an instrument" by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing "the ideals of the laws of war."

But the last time I checked, the Geneva Conventions is not American law, but international law.  How will the world perceive this?

"This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.

Corn also has this to say

Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects."

So when this new War Crimes Act comes up for another vote, who do you want sitting next to Chris Dodd in the Senate chambers?  Someone who thinks it's unpatriotic to criticize the President or someone who thinks it is unconscionable to undermine our pursuit of human rights-- even during wartime?

The stakes are high and getting higher.

•  This story should stand on its own

  but tonight, it serves as another reminder of why these primaries and the general election are so important.

  by suzq on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 10:52:02 PM PDT

  •  Nice reminder, suzq.

    But, I disgree that the Iraq war was a mistake. The level of deception Buscho used to wage this war omits the possibility of mistake, IMHO.

    How many things wrong with this quote:

    "People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.

    Microscope?  They've gotten away with virtually everything they've attempted.  

    I love the use of the word "foreigners."

    The amendments are not to shield the administration from "foreigners"; it's to avoid prosecutions.

    They really think they're going to lose Congress.  

    by 2lucky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:11:25 PM PDT

    •  I forgot the word 'intentional' before mistake.

      Still, their desire to do it doesn't take away from the fact that it was a bonehead thing to do.

      by suzq on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:24:12 PM PDT

      •  A very tragic result for the people of Iraq.

        Bushco really thought we could waltz in there, on the cheap and with their incompetent and corrupt cronies and install us some permanent bases, own their oil, and have the middle east doing democracy (read: unregulated "free" markets") like it was the Macarena.  

        The depth of our lack of understanding of the middle east cannot be overstated.  

        by 2lucky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:41:28 PM PDT

•  Thank you for the diary and the reminder...

  that the fight to take back our country is far from over.

  by Darksyde888 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:20:23 PM PDT

  •  One victory does not a sea change make

    and that is what we need. The fight to retake America is on in earnest. This was an opening salvo.

    by 4Freedom on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:09:28 AM PDT

•  Perhaps the Democrats in the Senate

  emboldened by the Lamont victory over Joe "George's Tool" Lieberman, will realize that a filibuster of any vote on this abomination of a bill between now and November will play well to a public already far ahead of the inside-the-beltway gang in their disdain for Bush's ill-advised war of choice.

  It will be interesting to see what Lieberman's poll numbers as an independent are - I suspect that independents in Connecticut may well favor Lamont by a larger margin than the Democrats did.

  In a larger sense, though, it's time to put pressure on all of our elected representatives NOT to vote for any bill that weakens sanctions against torture:  the meme to create is:

  a vote for the amendments is a vote FOR torture.

  by bobdevo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:24:34 PM PDT

  •  Well said. My diary summarized in one sentance.

    by suzq on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:30:52 PM PDT

•  I was always under the imression that

  laws could not be written to provide an escape from an act already done, but protected thiose from the date the law was passed,  something about the retroactive part bothers me.

  Reality is the fact they are trying to legitimize their war crimes bothers me, as many have told me, let the Hague figure it out

  by testvet6778 on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:46:52 AM PDT

•  This is important since war crimes are coming

  to light every day and the victims deserve respect, justice, and compensation.

  by Agathena on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:04:33 AM PDT

  •  Yes, in U.S. and Israel.

    It's too obvious.
    Remind them of Qana, Bint Jbeil, and now on Tyre.

    by ysbee on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:03:08 AM PDT

•  I was writing the same issue with this title:

  Crisis!  Bush Admin. Rewriting the War Crimes Act

  Thanks for posting this, suzq. Yours is much comprehensive.
  I've read this WP article on MSNBC.com. For me, the most worrisome was this part:

  "This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' " the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.

  Again, they just keep on trying to dump the dignity of international law with ignorance and throw our least pride as Americans with common sense.

  by ysbee on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:57:54 AM PDT

  •  The contempt for brown people is too clear

    Our criminals in office will continue their monstrosities until they are completely overwhelmed by public outcry. We just heard an opening chorus with Lamont. Now it's time for the full orchestra to mount the stage and increase the call for peace.

    by 4Freedom on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:13:12 AM PDT