USC Title 18 sec. 2441: War crimes.

[TechBear_Seattle]

Is * guilty? Has he caused others to be guilty? You be the jury.

Quoted directly from Title 18, Chapter 118 "WAR CRIMES" of the United States Code.

-CITE-
18 USC Sec. 2441

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2441. War crimes

-STATUTE-
(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described
in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the
victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection (a)
are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such
war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a
national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition. - As used in this section the term "war crime"
means any conduct -
-- (1) defined 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;

-- (2) 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;

-- (3) 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.

-SOURCE-
(Added Pub. L. 104-192, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2104,
Sec. 2401; renumbered Sec. 2441, Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec.
605(p)(1), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510; amended Pub. L. 105-118,
title V, Sec. 583, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2436; Pub. L. 107-273,
div. B, title IV, Sec. 4002(e)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1810.)

-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to
in subsec. (b), is classified to section 1101 of Title 8, Aliens
and Nationality.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. One thing I just noticed

This law, as it is currently written, offers NO exception for actions of a president, nor does it offer any exceptions for "just following orders."

[ixion]

2. it also says ANY breach of the Geneva conventions

so, by my thinking, that leaves very little room for interpretation.

[dipsydoodle]

3. You sure

the Shrubb hasn't introduced another law whereby the one mentioned above is only applicable if there is a Z in the month ?

[Hosnon]

6. Well by definition, the Congress can't make his Constitutional authority

to act illegal. Not saying he's within that authority but that's what he'll claim.

Congress can't say: It is illegal for the President to be the Commander-in-Chief.

[wtmusic]

4. Shhh...don't tell anyone about 2441, signed into law under Clinton

especially Army attorney Richard Jackson:

"...the photographs...depict threats, imminent assault, or humiliation of detainees, and the individuals depicted in the photographs were vested with the protection of one of these treaties as the result of being either enemy prisoners of war, or I Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949, T.I.A.S. 3364 ..."

http://www.bringhonorback.org/images/ag_jacksondec_4_26_06.pdf

[leveymg]

5. And, pardons aren't going to get them off the hook.

See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/24/13644/9576

WHY PARDONS WON'T MATTER: The Convention Against Torture
by leveymg
Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:06:43 AM PDT
Even here at DKos, few of us really understand how high the stakes truly are for members of the Administration to keep control over Congress, the White House, the federal courts, and ultimately, the military. In the starkest possible terms, many ranking officials are facing the near-certainty of long periods of imprisonment even if Bush grants a presidential pardon to everyone.

They are playing for keeps, and may never allow a peaceful transfer of power. Let me tell you why.

leveymg's diary :: ::
THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND THE U.S. TORTURE ACT OF 2000

In 1987, the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) came into force. The United States Senate ratified the CAT in 1994 and President Clinton signed the Torture Act of 2000. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and 2340B. That law provides domestic teeth with enabling legislation that penalizes anyone convicted of ordering, inciting, assisting or committing torture forbidden by the treaty. That felony statute provides for 20 years imprisonment for a U.S. person committing a torture crime, with the potential death penalty if the act results in death of the victim. American military personnel are subject to similiar measure under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/.... ; also, see, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/....

The CAT treaty binds all 140 signatory states to arrest and try at the Hague anyone who violates the torture convention if the state in which the offense took place is either unable or unwilling to do so. There are no exceptions for perpetrators who have received pardons or amnesties from their own governments. It matters not at all whether this Administration refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at the Hague. It is now clear that U.S. officials have committed offenses under the convention, as well as other crimes against humanity, and a trial cannot be prevented except by force.

SNIP

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. I'm curious about why the No votes

I'm also curious about why the Yes votes, but the No ones interest me more. :hi:

Anyone care to weigh in with why they voted as they did?