dailypennsylvanian.com - Student protests turned up in Pentagon database: "By nathan johnson | July 27, 2006
When a group of students at the University of California at Berkeley convened to protest on-campus military recruitment last year, they hoped their effort would get some attention.
But they didn't expect that attention would wind up in a terror-threat database.
The day before the protest, on April 20, 2005, an agent of the Department of Homeland Security filed a report on the planned demonstration.
Among the items included: an e-mail sent by an organizer, along with the student's e-mail address and phone number.
The agent's report was included in a Pentagon-managed database intended to compile information on threats from international terrorists." ...
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes
Detainee Abuse Charges Feared: "Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act | By R. Jeffrey Smith | Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 28, 2006; A01
An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such 'protections,' according to someone who heard his remarks last week." ...
Friday, July 28, 2006; A01
An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such 'protections,' according to someone who heard his remarks last week." ...
U.N. rights body tells US to shut 'secret' jails ... [obey] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Excite News: "U.N. rights body tells US to shut 'secret' jails | Jul 28, 6:07 AM (ET)
GENEVA (Reuters) - The U.N. Human Rights Committee on Friday told Washington it should immediately shut all 'secret detention' facilities and give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to anybody held in armed conflict.
In findings on U.S. observance of the U.N.'s main political rights' convention, the committee said it had 'credible and uncontested' information that the United States had detained people 'secretly and in secret places for months and years.'
'The state party should immediately abolish all secret detention and secret detention facilities,' it said, echoing a similar demand in May by the United Nations' Committee on Torture.
The committee said it could not accept Washington's argument that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has signed, does not apply to anyone held outside U.S. territory." ...
GENEVA (Reuters) - The U.N. Human Rights Committee on Friday told Washington it should immediately shut all 'secret detention' facilities and give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to anybody held in armed conflict.
In findings on U.S. observance of the U.N.'s main political rights' convention, the committee said it had 'credible and uncontested' information that the United States had detained people 'secretly and in secret places for months and years.'
'The state party should immediately abolish all secret detention and secret detention facilities,' it said, echoing a similar demand in May by the United Nations' Committee on Torture.
The committee said it could not accept Washington's argument that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has signed, does not apply to anyone held outside U.S. territory." ...
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bush is flouting Constitution, bar says ... contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.'
Bush is flouting Constitution, bar says: "Monday, July 24, 2006 | By ROBERT PEAR | THE NEW YORK TIMES
President often refuses to enforce parts of new laws
WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.
In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush had used so-called 'signing statements' far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power amount to a 'line-item veto' and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto.
For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard them.
The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way was 'contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.' From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president 'must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.'" ...
President often refuses to enforce parts of new laws
WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.
In a report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Bush had used so-called 'signing statements' far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
In the report, members said those broad assertions of presidential power amount to a 'line-item veto' and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto.
For example, in signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws approved by Congress, Bush reserved the right to disregard them.
The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in that way was 'contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.' From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president 'must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.'" ...
Sunday, July 23, 2006
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic
Surveillance We Can Live With: "By Arlen Specter | Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A19
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment." ... ...
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment." ... ...
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic
Surveillance We Can Live With: "By Arlen Specter | Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A19
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment." ...
President Bush's electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment." ...
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Bush Refuses To Estimate Future Costs of Iraq War, Violating Federal Law
Think Progress � Bush Refuses To Estimate Future Costs of Iraq War, Violating Federal Law:
Congress passed a law requiring the Bush administration to estimate the future costs of the war in Iraq. Here’s an excerpt:
The President shall provide to the Congress a report detailing the estimated costs over the period from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any related military operations in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, and the estimated costs of reconstruction, internal security, and related economic support to Iraq and Afghanistan… the report referenced above shall be submitted no later than January 1, 2005.
There is an exemption if the administration certifies that estimates “cannot be provided for purposes of national security.” But the President hasn’t done that. From Bloomberg:
Instead of a presidential waiver, Joshua Bolton, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote congressional leaders in May 2005 that the Pentagon couldn’t compile the estimates because “there are too many variables to predict accurately.'’
Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) isn’t happy:
The Bush administration hasn’t followed a 2005 law requiring the Pentagon to estimate the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan military operations through 2011, a Republican lawmaker said today.
“The administration does not appear to have compiled with a statutory requirement to provide Congress with a report,” wrote Representative Christopher Shays in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate armed services and appropriations committees.
Shays has good reason to be concerned about mounting costs. Total appropriations for Iraq by Congress will soon exceed $400 billion."
Congress passed a law requiring the Bush administration to estimate the future costs of the war in Iraq. Here’s an excerpt:
The President shall provide to the Congress a report detailing the estimated costs over the period from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any related military operations in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, and the estimated costs of reconstruction, internal security, and related economic support to Iraq and Afghanistan… the report referenced above shall be submitted no later than January 1, 2005.
There is an exemption if the administration certifies that estimates “cannot be provided for purposes of national security.” But the President hasn’t done that. From Bloomberg:
Instead of a presidential waiver, Joshua Bolton, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote congressional leaders in May 2005 that the Pentagon couldn’t compile the estimates because “there are too many variables to predict accurately.'’
Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) isn’t happy:
The Bush administration hasn’t followed a 2005 law requiring the Pentagon to estimate the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan military operations through 2011, a Republican lawmaker said today.
“The administration does not appear to have compiled with a statutory requirement to provide Congress with a report,” wrote Representative Christopher Shays in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate armed services and appropriations committees.
Shays has good reason to be concerned about mounting costs. Total appropriations for Iraq by Congress will soon exceed $400 billion."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Attorney General says Bush blocked wiretap investigation
Video: Attorney General says Bush blocked wiretap investigation
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday July 18, 2006
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has told a Senate hearing that President Bush blocked the Office of Professional Responsibility from investigating domestic eavesdropping programs, RAW STORY has learned.
SEN. SPECTER: It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not O-P-R?
GONZALES: The President of the United States makes the decision.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Republican Congressman: I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President,
Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office | AfterDowningStreet.org: "Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-07-12 15:17. Impeachment | By David Swanson
A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:
'I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.'
And this: 'Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law.'
And this: 'When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing.'
And Paul said the United States had entered a period of 'soft fascism.' ...
A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:
'I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.'
And this: 'Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law.'
And this: 'When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing.'
And Paul said the United States had entered a period of 'soft fascism.' ...
Saturday, July 01, 2006
In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, [supreme court sets prima-facie case] against Bush as a war criminal.
Paul Craig Roberts: Bush's Assaults on Freedom: "July 1 - 2, 2006 | What's to Stop Him? |
On June 29 the US Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision ruled that President Bush's effort to railroad tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees in kangaroo courts 'violates both US law and the Geneva Conventions.'
Better late than never, but it sure took a long time for the checks and balances to call a halt to the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the executive.
The Legal Times quotes David Remes, a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling: 'At the broadest level, the Court has rejected the basic legal theory of the Bush administration since 9/11--that the president has the inherent power to do whatever he wants in the name of fighting terrorism without accountability to Congress or the courts.'
Perhaps the Court's ruling has more far reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.
Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The US itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief US prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.
The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There are many reasons to impeach Bush. His flagrant disregard for international law, US civil liberties, the separation of powers, public opinion and human rights associate Bush with the worst tyrants of the 20th century. It is true that Bush has not yet been able to subvert all the institutions that constrain his executive power, but he and his band of Federalist Society lawyers have been working around the clock to eliminate the constraints that the US Constitution and international law place on executive power." ...
On June 29 the US Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision ruled that President Bush's effort to railroad tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees in kangaroo courts 'violates both US law and the Geneva Conventions.'
Better late than never, but it sure took a long time for the checks and balances to call a halt to the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the executive.
The Legal Times quotes David Remes, a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling: 'At the broadest level, the Court has rejected the basic legal theory of the Bush administration since 9/11--that the president has the inherent power to do whatever he wants in the name of fighting terrorism without accountability to Congress or the courts.'
Perhaps the Court's ruling has more far reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.
Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The US itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief US prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.
The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There are many reasons to impeach Bush. His flagrant disregard for international law, US civil liberties, the separation of powers, public opinion and human rights associate Bush with the worst tyrants of the 20th century. It is true that Bush has not yet been able to subvert all the institutions that constrain his executive power, but he and his band of Federalist Society lawyers have been working around the clock to eliminate the constraints that the US Constitution and international law place on executive power." ...
Is Bush A War Criminal?
Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish: Is Bush A War Criminal?: "Saturday, July 1, 2006 | 01 Jul 2006 05:20 am
That question has troubled me for quite a while. The Hamdan decision certainly suggests that, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions even in Guantanamo (let alone in Iraq), a war crime has been committed. And in the military, the command structure insists that superiors are held accountable. I've been saying this for a long time now, and have watched aghast as the Bush administration has essentially dumped responsibility for war-crimes on the grunts at Abu Ghraib. The evidence already available proves that the president himself ordered torture and abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now he has been shown to be required to act within the law, and according to the Constitution, his liability for war crimes therefore comes into focus. Money quote from a useful Cato Institute Hamdan summary:
Both the majority and concurrence cite 18 U.S.C. � 2241, which Justice Kennedy stresses makes violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention a war crime punishable as a federal offense, enforceable in federal civil court. The majority holds, of course, that trying persons under the president's military commission order violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, suggesting that trial is a war crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. � 2241.
Furthermore, the majority stresses that the Geneva Conventions 'do extend liability for substantive war crimes to those who 'orde[r]' their commission' and 'this Court has read the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to impose ‘command responsibility' on military commanders for acts of their subordinates.' The Court’s emphasis on the liability that attaches to 'orders' is significant, because trials in the military commissions are, of course, pursuant to a direct presidential order. Even so, it's difficult to imagine a circumstances in which charges under Section 2241 might actually be prosecuted." ...
That question has troubled me for quite a while. The Hamdan decision certainly suggests that, by ignoring the Geneva Conventions even in Guantanamo (let alone in Iraq), a war crime has been committed. And in the military, the command structure insists that superiors are held accountable. I've been saying this for a long time now, and have watched aghast as the Bush administration has essentially dumped responsibility for war-crimes on the grunts at Abu Ghraib. The evidence already available proves that the president himself ordered torture and abuse and the violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now he has been shown to be required to act within the law, and according to the Constitution, his liability for war crimes therefore comes into focus. Money quote from a useful Cato Institute Hamdan summary:
Both the majority and concurrence cite 18 U.S.C. � 2241, which Justice Kennedy stresses makes violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention a war crime punishable as a federal offense, enforceable in federal civil court. The majority holds, of course, that trying persons under the president's military commission order violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, suggesting that trial is a war crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. � 2241.
Furthermore, the majority stresses that the Geneva Conventions 'do extend liability for substantive war crimes to those who 'orde[r]' their commission' and 'this Court has read the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to impose ‘command responsibility' on military commanders for acts of their subordinates.' The Court’s emphasis on the liability that attaches to 'orders' is significant, because trials in the military commissions are, of course, pursuant to a direct presidential order. Even so, it's difficult to imagine a circumstances in which charges under Section 2241 might actually be prosecuted." ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)