Evidence Members of Congress Refused To Enforce Geneva
Members of Congress have given neither a victory to their foes, nor endured a defeat: They've engaged in a public act which fails to enforce Geneva.
This is not a political issue. It's a matter of criminal law and evidence.
Ref The legal defense funds that should not be needed if this bill created real immunity, or could legalize abuse.
Ref Evidence showing Senate refused to enforce Geneva.
Ref Evidence showing House refused to enforce Geneva.
Consider what Congress has really done.
1. The debate (smokescreen) was over the prospective issues -- how prisoners will or will not be treated in the future.
2. The real Member of Congress-concern was the war crimes issue.
If Members of Congress really believed the bill was good for America going forward, why are they passing legislation that (illegally) immunizes people for wrong doing that has already happened?
The answer is: This question is a red-herring. Congress knows the bill is illegal, and it has no power to immunize anyone.
We know this for one reason: Within the bill is language that does exactly what Congress -- through this bill -- says is not needed: It provides a funds for a defense, not a legal defense nor absolute Article III-judicially-recognized immunity to war crimes.
Here's the key language which Members of Congress really voted for: Ref The language that will permit them to spend money. The language does not grant immunity; but assumes that there will be prosecutions, and that Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff will be targeted, investigated, and indicted.
If Congress was certain that the bill, as passed by the House and Senate, was a legal defense, there would be no need to include language for the opposite outcome: That the bill would be struck down, and those who engaged in the "permitted" conduct, were charged for engaging in unlawful, inhumane treatment.
This bill isn't about protecting those who commit abuse; it's about accepting that the Geneva Conventions are requirements, and that the US Government will be requested to provide funds to pay for the defenses of those who have not earlier engaged in oversight, prevented the abuses.
These bills are PR-stunts to make it look like the Congress is though on something; in truth, they are fearful. True leaders, who were really standing for the rule of law, would not have to include any language to defend themselves for what has happened -- they would have already done what they were supposed to do.
These bills are not a defeat, but a delaying tactic, a smokescreen, and a false message of power and confidence. The prosecutors can see through it. And those who the President says this bill will target -- the enemy -- will become emboldened, not simply for what it permits, but because the bill's language accepts the vulnerability of war crimes prosecution as inevitable.
The objective of the Congress and President will be to delay the investigators, hide the evidence, and deny the prisoners the forum to report evidence of Geneva violations.
Hamdan appears to have gotten thrown out the window, which is a subsequent offense against the justice system. Congress has no power to throw out what is important: Geneva.
Again, if this bill's objective were lawful and possible, then by passing this bill, the President should be able to commit abuses; self-define Geneva how he chooses; ignore the courts; and abuse power. This is a sham to keep faith with his fellow war criminals in the RNC.
Rather, the smokescreen is to confuse the party faithful in the RNC, make them believe the RNC leadership and President are committed to the phony objectives, and distract attention from their real concern. Yes, this is politics, but when you've been caught committing war crimes, the last thing you want to do is openly admit it, rather you go down fighting like Enron did, until the very last minute.
Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff know they're legally guilty; but in their minds their still arguing that they can twist the case law to fool people. The problem is the courts have already turned against them. The issue isn't who is or isn't on the Supreme Court, but whether the rule of law will or will not be enforced at The Hague.
Members of Congress, the DoJ Staff, and President know this is where things are going, similar to the prosecutions over the Yugoslavian war crimes: American war crimes prosecutions before The Hague.
Pace yourself. If Yugoslavia and Ludwigsburg are a guide, American astronauts might very well return to the moon before the war crimes tribunal completes its work.
The bill is meaningless, but gives the RNC leadership something to go to the confused RNC membership and say, "Look over here, but ignore the war crimes." [This is a smokescreen, as used in the phony NIE leak and the phony RNC rebellion -- illusions the RNC is under seige, but are united. More]
Note the bill contains language that would preserve all non-illegal elements. This is designed to ensure that if the court strikes down the bill over the language related to permitting inhumane acts, the thinking is that the non-illegal portions of the bill will remain in tact.
Despite this preservation clause, the Constitution doesn't give the court the power to strike down lines, but entire acts, discussed in detail discussed here. However, the courts have the power to strike down the entire bill, destroying the Congressional claim on defense funds.
It remains to be seen whether the Courts (1) conclude the Congressional language related to funding is evidence of their intent not to investigate, and they should; and (2) similarly strikes down the entire act as an illegal reward for (a) having committed war crimes, (b) drafting illegal opinions, and (c) failing to prevent war crimes when they had the chance 2001-2006.
Prosecutors will hope to show the language was the means to facilitate more war crimes, and could not have been lawfully relied upon as legal. Whether funds are or are not transferred to defend Members of Congress and the DoJ Staff are separate matters of law and evidence.
Use this bill as the catalyst to gather evidence to prove, inter alia,(1) there were subsequent war crimes, which Congress failed to prevent; and (2) Members of Congress unreasonably assumed they would be defended, but should not have reasonably relied on that possibility of reimbursement as a defense or excuse for inaction over the abuses committed (a) 2001-2006; and (b) after the bill was signed into law.
What You Can Do
1. Remind your friends to keep your eye on the big picture: This is evidence of war crimes, and the failure of Congress to do what it has the power to do -- prevent inhumane treatment. It has no choice. [Visit the Archive ]
2. Learn the lesson of California: States can use their power to target illegal activity. Visit: [ Share this link. ]