Bush to announce detainee policy changes.
By on Sep 6th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Bush to announce detainee policy changes.
CNN reports, “President Bush to announce that detainees held at secret CIA prisons, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protection under the Geneva Conventions.” We’ll wait for the fine print.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s strange that they’ve never put some of these “top terrorists” on trial. Perhaps it is because the information that came from them was obtained through torture and a) would be inadmissable in court and b) was probably of little use. Funny.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:53 pmSo they’re honoring Geneva, but just for the prisoners we *know* about. Riiight.
“Yes, we are definitely taking care of the prisoners we know nothing about. Proof? We can’t do that, it’s a secret!”
Good grief.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI don’t think W really comprehends what the word “change” means. Wait for the fine print indeed.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWeren’t they there on his (or his cabinet’s) orders in the first place?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pmDo you think any troll will come into this thread and apologize to us for attacking us for wanting the president to follow the laws of the land? I am going to go with no. Even though the president is now following the law (on this one) as we wanted, making us right, the trolls will say that this is what they wanted all along.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pmI think this is because of the huge screw up at abu graib concerning Rummy. The Bush folks know that they cannot win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq by torturing innocent people that you cam to supposedly free.
Just another tactic, I think, to help sweep Rummies major screwup inder the rug..
At least now they are forced to follow the geneva conventions, sadly it took this long for them to realize there grave mistake.
Nevertheless this is a move in a good direction, it does not howeever excuse those who ignored the conventions beforehand.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:59 pmSounds like Bush Baby is afraid of being tried as a war criminal > too late baby-cakes you will never escape the dirty crimes you vilely perpretrated on Iraq and on US citizens!
September 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pmKhalid Sheikh Mohammed? Say, wasn’t he that big, greasy-looking f*ck with the hair all over his back?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pmBush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
by JEREMY BRECHER & BRENDAN SMITH
[posted online on September 5, 2006]
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority–perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all “anti-terrorism” package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWow. It seems Bush is going to follow the law; this will piss of right-wingers who’ve spent of lot of time, energy, and print explaining the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to Al-Qaeda suspects.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:17 pmWow, the GOP wing nuts have insisted for years the CIA secret prisons didn’t exist..and on a related topic the GOP wont allow an up or down vote on Rummy..could have sworn that up or down vote BS was their mantra..
September 6th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThe law was already there! He is not following the law – he is rewriting it. Since it ALREADY exists, this IS a change… the question is WHAT did they change. And, of course, this does not exonerate them from what was already criminal behavior.
And as for rewriting the War Crimes Act, that should not stand, as it is unconstitutional to draft ANY ex post facto law. Of couse, when has the Constitution stood in the way of GOP strategy?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pmPresident Bush is expected to announce the move Wednesday, the first time the administration has acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons.
Bush will announce that the transferred detainees will get rights under the Geneva Convention once transferred to Pentagon custody.
The catch is in BOLD “once transferred” the time before this they had been tortured obviously … which is a war crime at top level all the way to bush
And until anybody can tell me how on earth WTC 7 collapsed 911 had to be an inside Job – 100%
September 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pmGood point, #13.
Seems to me they will just forget that thre were ever any secret prisons or shady goings on once all the known detainees are transfered. Then it’s back to business as usual.
It’s a good tactic, often used by criminals in standoff situations. Sacrifice the wounded and old hostages to the negotiator first. You don’t want them slowing you down when it’s time to get on the provided bus bound for the airport.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pmI give this no more credit than a publicity stunt to improve their standing at the polls. “See! We hear the people, and we a changing the rules (that were already in place) so that we abide by the rules already in place! Happy now?”
They intend on business as usual the whole way.
They are trying to ’show that they are doing effective things in the war on terra’ so as to appease their base, while they really do nothing.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:10 pmAnother terribly borring speech with one exception…It is now apparent to me that bull shit and his merry bunch of war mongers want their ass covered so he want’s Frit’s and company to push through a bill to obsolve our terrorests ( bush and company) from any wrong doing…..Another make sure we can’t charge them with treason and war crimes if we would be lucky enough to impeach and fire all their butt’s….Oh Ya! Just like everything else with this bunch of f—-ng liers and thieves, don’t like the law go over it or change it….GEEEEEEES….Vote the bum’s out, email all you’re rep’s not to let them get away with any more crap……Blesings…Peace…..
September 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pmWell, how magnanimous of him. I wonder what kind of fresh hell he’s hiding behind his back as he proclaims – oh, I forgot: unVEILS – his new plans.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pmOk, what did Bush say under his breath and after the microphones were off?
September 6th, 2006 at 2:53 pmSo we’re going to transfer them to Dept of Defense. So the only thing they have to worry about is starvation, prostation, freezing temps, sodomy, forced masturbation, human pyramids, being beaten, being beaten to death, dog collars, menstral blood smeared on their faces, dog collars, having people pee on their Korans, sleep deprivation, electrfication of their genitalia, broom handles shoved up their asses, no lawyers, no family, no hope. BIG FRINCKIN IMPROVEMENT!
September 6th, 2006 at 3:08 pmBut Senate sources said that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is considering a plan to bring the legislation to the floor next week under a special rule, bypassing the normal requirement for prior approval by a committee. The Senate is rushing to complete essential pre-election work by the end of this month.
The three Republicans have circulated their draft to Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and two congressional sources said yesterday that there is significant consensus on its major provisions. The language of some parts is still being negotiated, they said, but the section on defendants’ access to the evidence against them is settled.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:31 pmBut Senate sources said that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is considering a plan to bring the legislation to the floor next week under a special rule, bypassing the normal requirement for prior approval by a committee. The Senate is rushing to complete essential pre-election work by the end of this month.
The three Republicans have circulated their draft to Republican and Democratic colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and two congressional sources said yesterday that there is significant consensus on its major provisions. The language of some parts is still being negotiated, they said, but the section on defendants’ access to the evidence against them is settled.
————————————————————-
President Bush and his attorney general agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
One of Bush’s changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, says that Bush’s changes “immunize past crimes.â€
Under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their president’s attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel, and civilian contractors from war crimes?————————————————————-
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority–perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all “anti-terrorism†package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
September 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pmTobey Tall, you must be mistaken. Bush very clearly said in his speech today that his innocent and pure motive for wanting Congress to change the War Crimes Act is to protect our poor soldiers and CIA agents from being sued and persecuted for merely doing their jobs to protect America. That’s right – they are liable to be sued for doing nothing other than asking tough questions of a detainee. We all know that in the past, when abuses have come to light, the high muckety-mucks stepped right up to defend the poor hapless soldier on the ground who was just doing as he was told. I mean, it’s not like they hang those people out to take the blame for policies they instituted and approved or anything.
No, it couldn’t have anything to do with protecting his own and his administration’s sorry asses. Nah. That would be so out of character for them.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pm“As soon as Congress approves his request, the men suspected of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Towers in 2001 will be prosecuted.”
Are we to be treated to KSM on trial in October is this passes?
September 6th, 2006 at 4:54 pmWhy does Bush love the terrorists and hate America now?
September 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pmCNN reports, “President Bush to announce that detainees held at secret CIA prisons…
Why am I quite sure that the American media will miss one of the most significant facts regarding this news – that all those treacherous Europeans who dared to accuse the great good US-of-A of creating secret detention camps? Although it’s by far not in the same league (yet) (by orders of magnitude), it’s not like we have some kind of historic precedence against such practices, no?
I’m sure it’ll help in winning the hearts-and-minds of families who have sons detained by the Americans in unknown places, for unknown reasons. And no, being a “suspected terrorist” isn’t reason enough when you’re offering to pay sums of $25K for capturing them in the first place. Just hand over a handful of sheepherders and you’re set for life. It’s all an utterly disgusting mess.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:23 pm