Bush Administration now worried they could be in violation of war crimes.

It appears there’s a law passed in 1996 by Republicans that could end up making aspects of the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes:

WASHINGTON—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 in US courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant US 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 US-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that said international conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such protections, according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Ain’t having morons in control of the government just grand?


  1. Hypocrisy seems to be running “a muck” in the US, today.  I am not surprised by the this fact, but I am surprised that they even care or are willing to admit to it.  I’m sure they’ll just pass a law or repeal this one to make everything ‘all better.’  Fools!

  2. As in most nations, we do get the kind of government we deserve. Perhaps even more-so, since we, the citizens, are supposedly still in charge. When was the last time you voted? . . . worked at a pricinct? . . . worked in a political campaign to help elect someone you thought would govern wisely? . . . ran for public office? Just asking.  wink

  3. GM: The hypocrisy of Republicans is simply astounding.

    Couldn’t the same be said about the other side?
    Here in Oz neither major party inspires me.
    We have an Independant as our rep in the house.
    Back in ‘96 I hung round an election booth handing out ‘how to vote for Peter’ bits of paper. He keeps getting in with increased majorities.
    The Right don’t like him and neither do the left. left as opposed to Left.
    Peter is more a social-ist as opposed to …
    Obviously I like him. smile

  4. Ah, if only signing statements could be made retroactive … oh, wait, they probably are.

    I’m curious about this particular “obscure 1996 law,” which doesn’t really get spelled out in the Globe article.

  5. Leguru wrote:

    As in most nations, we do get the kind of government we deserve. Perhaps even more-so, since we, the citizens, are supposedly still in charge.

    Emphasis on the supposedly.

    When was the last time you voted?

    I voted for the rich white old man who had less evil in his eyes. I don’t think it helped.

    . . . ran for public office?

    I value my sole and integrity.

Leave a Reply

Connect with:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>