So, the standard on interrogation is quietly retroactive to 1997??

[seafan]

Anyone else catch this little gem today buried in this NY Times article?

The senators agreed to a White House proposal to make the standard on interrogation treatment retroactive to 1997, so C.I.A. and military personnel could not be prosecuted for past treatment under standards the administration considers vague.

[MasonJar]

1. I am sure Bush was more interested in himself than some CIA

agent.

[karynnj]

2. Why do I get a queasy feel that this date?

This is wrong - any President who ok'd torture or discarding the Geneva Convention needs to be called on it. I hope my fear is wrong. It looks like either there were illegal actions going back to 1997 OR the Republicans want the implication that they were.

If Democrats were invoved, we can not condemn in the Republicans what we accept in the Democrats.

[BattyDem]

4. 9 years is an odd choice

Why not 5 or 10 or 15? Why would they choose such an "odd" number? My guess? Someone who is either high up in the ranks of BushCo or who has some very incriminating evidence against BushCo did something in 1997 and they wanted immunity from prosecution.

[karynnj]

7. I think it might be that the War Crimes Act of 1996 is what was violated

I read more since the earlier post. The reason they went back to the beginning may be simply to make it less obvious that they are pardoning Bush et al - which a 2001 date would suggest.

[BattyDem]

8. Oh ... that makes sense

Thanks for the info. :hi:

[pat_k]

3. . . .endowed with certain inalienable, UNENFORCEABLE, Rights

Nothing obvious jumps to mind about that particular date, 1997, but they have a reason. They'll make it retroactive to whatever date accomplishes their goal.

And make no mistake, the War Crimes Protection Act of 2006 has ONE goal -- to protect the War Criminals in the Executive Branch the war crimes they have committed. To that end, the bill seeks to gut U.S. Code of any avenue through which they could be prosecuted, even going so far as to strip our courts of the ability to examine their actions. It is a transparent attempt to escape the consequences that their actions would demand in any civilized society. Their attempt to escape prosecution demonstrates their consciousness of guilt.


The so-called "definition problem" is nothing compared to this part (page 79 of http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf">Bush's version):

(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United or its States or territories.

So, now it's:

. . .We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable, UNENFORCEABLE, Rights.

[seafan]

5. My inner cynic says * is trying to implicate the Clinton administration.

"Hey, *it's Clinton's fault!*" Anything to shift the focus from what *Co is doing. It, so far, has worked like a charm, when the chattering monkeys at the corporate media start screeching for their master.

[Contrary1]

6. I found something that might explain the year:

Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997

To amend title 18, United States Code, relating to war crimes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF WAR CRIMES.

Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking `grave breach of the Geneva Conventions' and inserting `war crime';

(2) in subsection (b), by striking `breach' each place it appears and inserting `war crime'; and

(3) so that subsection (c) reads as follows:

`(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 Articles 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.'.

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1997

For some reason, the link for the above text does not work, so I have included one for the entire bill.

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/_LAW_/hr.105-204.pdf#search=%22congress%20%2B1997%20%2B%22geneva%20convention%22%20%2Bviolations%20of%20Common%20Article%203%22

[AtomicKitten]

9. that can't possibly be legal or constitutional

God, I hope not.