I knew this was the bottom line all along. This is extremely shameful and I am hoping the Supreme Court will not allow it, unfortunately we cannot vote them out, but we can the Repubs and this awful type of actions, for the Christian right? I really think W should read the new Testament, Christ said "turn the other cheek", not Torture!
The Whole World Is Watching!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only shred of hope I have now is that the courts exercise the one right that cannot take be away from them, the right to declare this law unconstitional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What in the hell has happened to this country!? Bush and his gang of two-bit thugs commit war crimes like ‘ol Joe Stalin and his buddy Adolf Hitler and then have the audacity to have those braying jackasses in Congress make laws to “pardon” themselves? The United States government started that war in the Middle East to attain access to the natural resources over there and if anyone has the temerity to fight back in defense of their land and property, he’s labeled a “terrorist” and detained and tortured. We need to throw every one of those scoundrels out of Washington! Crime obviously DOES pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... if it hasn't already happened.

We are, without exageration, seeing the final rise of tyrany and totalitarianism in the US. I can only pray that one day Bush will have his day in the Hague as well.... and that it will come before he causes the deaths of millions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think most Americans care whether W(impeach him) gets his get-out-of-jail-free card. Trent Lott summed it up in his statements today:
September 29th, 2006 12:40 pm
Lott: Bush barely mentioned Iraq in meeting with Senate Republicans

From CNN's Ted Barrett

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.

"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."

Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.

"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."

So, whatever it takes just to keep my life normal. That's what Americans want. Don't make me think.

Seriously, can I become a Canadian?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks like the terrorists have won. Their leader, Osama bin Bush, took over the country in 2000. The incident on 9/11/01 was a training exercise gone awry. Oh, well, I guess nothing lasts very long.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not only is Bush usurping the powers of the courts to interpret and use existing laws regarding the illegality of war crimes and torture by nullifying it with this legislation, but he is essentially asking to be immune from a legacy of law regarding the conduct of war by civilized countries. If there is anything that proves that rednecks are not ready for self-government this is it!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would do the same thing if I were in his shoes and I venture to say that all of you would too. Democrats haven't been at all shy about the fact that they are going to go after President Bush in any way they can. Why would he leave an open door for something like that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me begin by saying that I am not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I seem to recall that international law allows foreign governments to prosecute war crimes against individuals whenever it is clear that the country where those individuals hold citizenship will not prosecute those crimes.

So, on the bright side, the passage of the War-Crimes Authorization Act can be viewed as clear evidence that the U.S. will not prosecute these crimes. This will ensure that other countries are now at liberty to prosecute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In English: Any war crime committed by the Bush administration since 9/11 cannot be prosecuted.

In American: Bush done got hisself a Get Outta Jail Free card!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The silence is deafening. The pope is mute. Faith institutions are silent. Guardians of morallity and justice have lost their voice. Responsibility and principle are for the others. Is it any wonder why one becomes a terrorists?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Considering that we established what war crimes are at Nuremberg, I can only hope that someday the Bushies end up before a similiar military tribunal.

"Article 6.
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. "

Article 7.
The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think most Americans would care about this, if only they knew the depth of our current tragedy.

Reporters Without Borders has a ranking for freedom of the press. The US comes in 44th in free press, 44TH!!

Neither the FBI and the CIA have been cooperating on Bush's torture scheme, though now that this amendment has passed this may be over.

The Bush regime is using private businesses, for the most part, to conduct their torture. They are untouchable under international law from what I've heard.

Randi Rhodes had an excellent program on this on 9/25, you can listen to it through whiterosesociety.org

Assuming the elections this year aren't "fixed" (again), we can only work to get democratic minded people to the polls, and hope that if Democrats take back the house and/or Senate they will work to put a stop to this madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."

for the full text of the bill, as well as who approved it see:

On Passage of the Bill S. 3930 As Amended

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There might be deep questions of legal theory here. The idea that a lawful government can declare itself immune from criminal prosecution doesn't seem coherent. "This law says there is no law."

Of course, they haven't quite done this, yet, since they have restricted the scope of their lawlessness (albeit in an undefined manner). But they're close enough that I'd like to hear some analysis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's attempt to insure that he can not be prosecuted as a war criminal is poorly thought out. In the first place the US has no place at all conducting these trials. The world would consider the trials a joke. We need to hand over all of the chain of command that approved or used torture to an international panel of judges for trial. Due to that simple fact there is no way that any new legislation protects Bush and company at all. And for the record I am an American and I am disgusted that our government has allowed torture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Under international law, anyone in any country enacting legislation that seeks to weaken or abolish the sanctions against using torture on prisoners is committing an illegal act. The perpetrators of such changes fall under the legal purview of "authorship of torture." If we Americans ever get the chance to clean the House (and Senate) of the people supporting this legislation, hopefully the United Nations jail in the Hague will be big enough to hold them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, for their next trick, the Republican Congress will be passing a bill exempting themselves from child molestation!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After I read the statute I was aghast. It shocked me intellectually and emotionally as an American, and especially as a lawyer.

I immediately did a little quick, (as contrasted to exhaustive,) research.

I could not find much, if any substantial, modification to the principle established by John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison where he said:

‘[To make a legislative act not reviewable by the courts] would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.”

As to habeas corpus, the Constitution provides, at Article I, Section 9:

“ The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Tthe Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) stated:

“The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on the return made to it the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any further with it.”

While Congress has, in the statute, in effect, suspended the right of habeas corpus, it has done so only in certain cases, and not generally. Thus, in addition to the issue of the right to suspend habeas corpus, is the issue as to whether it can be done on a restricted basis, and even if so, what restrictions are valid.

This is certainly a not a case where the suspension of habeas corpus is claimed to be predicated upon the existence of either a rebellion or an invasion. In addition to there not being a rebellion or an invasion, we are not at war, there having been no Congressional declaration of war, (as required by the Constitution). The provisions of the “Terrorist Act” in this regard do not have a leg to stand on.

It therefore appears to me that there is no question but that the issue of the validity of the law, as well as the availability of habeas corpus to prisoners of any sort, (regardless of where imprisoned,) will ultimately come before the courts and there is no basis for the Supreme Court to uphold either the validity of the suspension of habeas corpus or the limitation of judicial review.

It appears to me that even the most politically partisan Supreme Court Justice would not join any decision which, under any type of circumstances, would divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in Habeas Corpus cases.

The cynical, and heedless acts of the administration, in seeking and enacting the “Terrorist Act” are heightened by the fact that the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not say that the military tribunal procedures adopted by the Executive and the Army would have been valid had they been approved by Congress, but that the procedures were invalid in that they were not approved by Congress. The court did not say that the procedures would have been valid if they had been approved by Congress, the invalidity due to lack of congression al approval being sufficient reason to declare them invalid. The “word twisters” of the administration, consistent with their Goebbels like propaganda efforts, have cynically created the argument that: “The Supreme Court threw out the original military tribunals because they had not been approved by Congress. We therefore now have the approval of Congress.” It is much like saying: “since a duck can’t be a horse because it does not have four legs, let’s solve the problem by creating a new duck with four legs and call it a horse”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]