Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

War Crimes: Americans Unlawfully Changed Definition of Torture

The President is a war criminal. He is not alone. Many Americans have helped him. They are also the targets of this war crimes investigation.

Rather than follow the law or admit their error, the President hopes to change definitions. This is a smokescreen. There is nothing he can do in 2006 to protect you or stop the ongoing war crimes investigation against American civilians and government officials in all three branches of government.

* * *

Outrages Against Prisoners And Civilian Are Illegal

Abuse may not be inflicted on any prisoner of war or civilian. Whether that abuse is severe, minor, or causes bodily injury does not matter. All abuse and outrages are illegal under the Geneva conventions and laws of war.

When you that the definition of torture does not prohibit this abuse, remind the speaker the abuse is not lawful. It doesn't matter how you define torture. Geneva Conventions prohibit abuse. The Geneva conventions prohibit outrages and abuses against civilians and prisoners of war. It does not matter how someone does or does not define torture. It is a war crimes to engage in abuses against civilians. Whether someone is or is not engaging in torture is a secondary matter.

Debate of Definitions: A Deliberate Distraction

Rather, the debate over whether abuses are or are not torture is a smokescreen. It is one thing to commit abuses, and commit war crimes. It is another thing to distract attention from the illegal abuses by arguing over whether the definition of torture is or is not adequate.

The argument over how torture is or is not defined is a deliberate distraction. The real problem is that despite specific requirements to enforce the law, this President and others have illegally violated the laws of war which prohibit these outrages against prisoners and civilians.

Untimely US Government Action

The time to have reviewed these issues is not during a debate in 2006, but in 2001 when the initial decision was made to go to war. After that decision, all communication, messages, and agreement to permit abuses constitutes admissible evidence related to war crimes. It is not protected by any secrecy statute, claim of privilege, or executive order.

It does not matter how the President has rationalized the order or mistreatment. The mistreatment, regardless whether it is or is not torture, is illegal and not permitted at any time under the Geneva Conventions.

It is not lawful for Americans to permit abuse under the laws of war. The laws of war are not specific as to what type of abuse is or is not acceptable. There is no definition that says specific types of abuses are permissible, while other abuses are not acceptable.

Distraction With Undebatable Law

It is meaningless after the fact to change a definition of whether something is or is not a crime. The Constitution does not allow ex post facto legislation. It is not lawful to define something as a crime after someone has done something, then prosecuting that person for that activity which was not a specific crime. The past cannot be changed.

* * *

The President is changing definitions because he knows he has a real problem. He and his friends are under investigation for war crimes. They could be indicted, prosecuted, and sentenced to death.

The President does not want the voter to realize what is happening. Behind the scenes, he and the National Security Counsel have received the NSA intercepts telling him that the war crimes prosecutions continue.

The President's goal is not to protect America, but to protect himself. His goal is not to do the right thing, but to avoid consequences for having done the wrong things.

* * *

Disingenuous President

The President has fatally admitted that civilians have been detained using illegally obtained evidence, then abused in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The President wants the voters to believe that there is no problem. The President is lying.

The president and his friends want you to believe that their orders are lawful. His orders are illegal.

The President wants you to believe that you cannot speak about illegal activity. This is untrue. It is illegal to classify evidence related to war crimes. You are free to share with anyone what you know about war crimes.

The President wants you to believe that the information you have his privilege. This is untrue. Once the information is disclosed to third parties, relates to war crimes, or connected to fraud as is the case here, that information is no longer protected by any claim of privilege. By engaging in criminal activity, the President has waived all privileges. He cannot stop you from disclosing evidence of war crimes.

It is illegal to threaten you to be quiet about war crimes. Nobody may lawfully threaten to take away your security clearance if you speak publicly about illegal activity. The President’s problem is that he has openly discussed his criminal activity, but wants you to keep silent. The President cannot explain why there are two standards on whether you and he can or cannot speak. Now that the President has openly admitted to his war crimes, you are just as free as the President to speak about illegal activity.

* * *

The President cannot be trusted. The American leadership said that no American should be subject to the international criminal court. The President’s arguments are flawed. The President, DoJ Staff, and individual members of Congress face a real problem. They are being investigated for war crimes.

The President speaks out of both sides of his mouth. The President wants new assistance because he knows he needs help. The President cannot hide form international courts. Despite claims that the ICC had no jurisdiction, now the President, DoJ Staff, and Members of Congress are discussing language to defend themselves before international tribunals.

The President wants you to believe another lie. The President says that he and Congress can protect their friends against accountability. They have plans to immunize themselves against war crimes. His plan has failed. The President and Congress have no power to grant themselves immunity for war crimes.

Americans can be prosecuted for war crimes. This remains a real, spreading, and expanding risk. It is no defense that the orders were illegal. Rather, the burden is on Americans. They must prove that it was reasonable to presume the orders were lawful. It is clear the orders were not lawful. It was unreasonable for any American to presume the orders were lawful.

The President downplays the risks. The truth is the opposite. The President and Members of Congress are concerned. They are planning to make the American government pay for their legal defenses. This defense would not be required if they had followed the. No war crimes investigation would be required if Congress had investigated. Congress chose to do nothing, until Congress realized that individual members of Congress were being targeted by a war crimes tribunal.

Unconstitutional Congressional Assertion of Article III Judicial Powers

The Constitution does not permit Congress to engage in judicial activity. Congress has no power to compel any court to enforce illegal definitions, procedures, or trials. The Supreme Law does not permit Congress to retroactively immunize anyone; or make new crimes that retroactively apply to conduct that has already occurred. Congress has no power to compel any court to enforce any procedure, rule, or statute, which permits violations of Geneva, or otherwise denies prisoners of war the right to challenge evidence. It does not matter what new definition Congress makes -- Geneva prohibits outrages and abuses against prisoners and civilians.

This relates to trials. It is not lawful to use evidence from abuse to convict a prisoner of war of any crime. This treatment amounts to conduct that is not lawful, and at odds with the laws of war. Geneva requires that prisoners of war be afforded the same procedures and rules of evidence granted to military personnel. Under the UMCJ, military personnel are afforded the right to cross examine witnesses, challenge evidence, and suppress evidence that is gleaned through unlawful abuse or illegal surveillance.

The correct approach would have been to decide in 2001 to wage lawful war, comply with Geneva. The correct approach is for individual Members of Congress to swiftly move to start war crimes investigations, and find facts, and then turn this evidence over to war crimes investigators, attorneys, and prosecutors.

Americans have not treated the world fairly, and have engaged in war crimes, outrages against civilians, and have refused to stop this illegal activity. The world will treat Americans fairly.

* * *

US Government Powerless

Americans have committed war crimes. The past cannot be changed. Nothing Congress or the President does in 2006 will protect any American involved in war crimes from lawful prosecution by any other nation. It is meaningless, and untimely in too 2006 to change a definition of torture.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Even when individual members of Congress leave office, no President may unlawfully pardon them for international war crimes.

Immunity to war crimes prosecution is impossible. It is not lawful to immunize those who have illegally gather evidence, or used that evidence to subsequently abuse anyone. It does not matter whether the abuse did or did not meet the arbitrary and irrelevant definition of torture. The Geneva conventions only prohibit abuses and outrages.

Congress is powerless to help Americans. Congress may not lawfully pass any statute that permits violations of the laws of war; fails to enforce the laws of war; or retroactively immunizes anyone for braches of the laws of war. Congress has no power to stop other nations from investigating, prosecuting, and convicting American leaders, civilians, or NSA intermediaries for their complicity with war crimes abuses.

It is too late for Congressional action. Congress has no lawful power to decide that some type of abuses is permissible, while others is not permissible. The laws of war only state that abuses and outrages may not be inflicted. There is no lawful way to abuse someone in a legal way.

* * *

Indictments Against Individual Members of Congress

Under the American system of governance, there is joint Congressional-Presidential responsibility for enforcing the law. Congress has failed. Rather than investigate evidence related to war crimes, this Congress id nothing to prevent additional violations of the laws of war.

This Congress, rather than exercising leadership and preventing war crimes, has permitted the violations of Geneva. Rather than prevent what could have been stopped, this Government wants to change definitions. Congress has no power to change the law. It only has the power to change whether it will or will not cooperate with the ongoing, expanding, and broadening war crimes investigations directed at individual members of Congress.

By choosing to not enforce Geneva, they have given up their authority and legitimacy. The President and Congress are powerless. Members of Congress, who fail to exercise leadership, investigate evidence of war crimes, and otherwise prevent additional funds from being illegally spent on illegal things, have engaged in war crimes. Individual members of Congress and the President, who have failed to prevent these war crimes, could be indicted with the for war crimes.

The President said Americans didn't have to worry about war crimes. It is time to worry. Americans remain the target of ongoing war crimes investigations, indictments, and prosecutions. There is nothing the President or any American can do to stop this.

They wished this.