“he Bush administration has drafted amendments to a U.S. war crimes law “passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions.”

Actually, that understates the scope of the War Crimes Act of 1996, which includes the Hague Conventions as well as, arguably, the UN Chater (under the fourth bullet below):

(United States Code TITLE 18 , PART I) U.S.C 118 § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes (a) Offense.—

• “Whoever…commits a war crime…
shall be fined…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.— …that the person committing such war crime …is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States…

(c) Definition: … “war crime” means…
• …a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949…
• [acts] prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 …of …the Hague Convention IV…, signed 18 October 1907;
• or any protocol … to which the United States is a party;
• …a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949…

That’s great Jay,and when you get a gig with ‘The Star’ or ‘National Inquirer’, let me know so I can pick up a copy next time I go through the grocery check-out.

Also, the putsch changed Hitler’s outlook on violent revolution to effect change. From then on he thought that, in order to win the German heart, he must do everything by the book, strictly legal, since Germans obviously frowned on not following the rules. He decided to maneuver it so that the German Volk would choose him as dictator. Later on, the German people were calling him “Adolf Legalité” or “Adolf the Legal One.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

I think backing McKinney is a bad idea. Her actions after the incident with the police officer in the capitol building were not consistent with what I would like to see from our elected representatives. I think it is good she is being kicked out. It sends a message, that democrats don’t want those who disrespect our police officers, and other similar personnel. Besides Mckinney has been boot from congress before.

Sen. Lieberman was soundly defeated by Ned Lamont, but old Joe still refuses to admit he has been beaten, so he plans to run as an Independent in the November election!

Lamont trounced Lieberman by about a 4% margin of votes, but earlier polling of voters predicted more like a 10% win, so some suspicion lingers in election!

The press is reporting that Sen. Dodd intends to help Sen. Lieberman, which is an insult to CT Democrats, and a spit in the face to all progressives nationwide!

Rep. McKinney was beaten badly by Hank Johnson, but the infamous fraudulent Diebold voting machines still are used in Georgia, so her defeat is suspicious!

Johnson supposedly won by a vote margin over 18%, which is incredible since Hank has the charisma of a block of wood, and received covert funding from the GOP!

Cynthia was targeted for defeat, so did fraud occur?

( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)

The Constitution of the US: Article 1, Section 8: “…No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.

Article 6, Section 1: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” (emphasis added).

Article 2, Section 1: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” “

Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — August 9, 2006 @ 12:41 pm

I saw that too. If he had any party loyalty he would accept the will of the voters in his party and not run as an independent. It’s all about Joe. He would rather a Republican win in Connecticut than have a Democrat other than himself win.

What a selfish Prick!!!

The principled stand I refer to us Iraq. Lamont has called out all supporters Democratic or Republican that are still trying to sell this war of choice.

Are the people that voted for Leiberman saying they SUPPORT the Iraq war of choice? Are they actually democrats? Are republicans allowed to vote for Leiberman in this primary? Who are these people that voted for Leiberman and what is thier stance on Iraq? Does 48% of the DEMOCRATS support the Iraq war of choice like Leiberman does? Do they support NOT getting Osama like Leiberman does? Do they support Saudi Arabia like Leiberman does? If only half the democrats are willing to stand up to the war mongers then how is this situation ever going to be resolved?

That’s what I’m wondering. If officials keep saying they’re close to civil war, there must be some watershed moment, something in their minds that would happen to qualify as “civil war.” But I’m glad there’s no way it’ll be a civil war until our administration is ready to say it is. Good for the Iraqis too.

Comment by RUCerious — August 9, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

Agreed. He can’t fathom losing the power he has attained. His running as an independant is a big “F-you” to the CT voters. Other than changing his party affiliation from “D” to “I”, what else is he going to change about himself that should appeal to the indy voters?

When the president decides, he’ll let us know.