I'm not trying to drum up a "BushCo" vs. "Sissypants Turrist Appeasers" debate here, but wouldn't the attempt by the Bush Administration to pass legislation after they detained and torture these guys fall under ex post facto, which is right there in Article I, Section 9?

if its new legislation, then yes. if its just an interpretation of previously existing legislation, then probably not.

i dont know much about this new "law" though.

they wouldn't be able to use the new law to excuse actions taken before it was passed. but there's a lot of issues that could prevent a successful prosecution. all of these prisons are outside u.s. jurisdiction, and you can see bush in his public statements arguing that the geneva conventions are unclear (i.e. "we didn't know waterboarding was an outrage upon human dignity"). plus, if anybody except him gets prosecuted, he can use his pardon power.

I'm not totally up to speed on this, so I could be way off here, but wasn't the proposal to not prosecute anyone for war crimes related to terroism/iraq, etc? I think there's a difference between a law saying people won't be prosecuted for something (therefore making no judgment as to the legality of their actions) and a law saying certain conduct is or is not illegal.

By passing a law to not prosecute people for certain actions, Congress would be telling the Dept of Justice what to do, which is (I think) within their power.

Basically it is outside the realm of American law, and falls under International Treaty law. If they would have tortured people on US soil, then it would be a little more grey than it already is. The big issue is that if we pass some law excusing treatment like this, we are making it easier for other countries to treat our citizens like this, that is what McCain and Co. think will happen.
In the end its mostly an issue with the Geneva Conventions and if the completely apply to the "War on Terror".

I'm not buying this one, because of:

"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 Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The non-prosecution thing is total bullshit, but it makes sense. To clarify as well, I'm not waving any impeachment or incarceration flags, I'm just trying to sort out the details that make this even possible.

I'm just fascinated by these secret prisons. I mean, EASTERN EUROPE! I'm guessing they know how to get down old school there.

Essentially, I think there are two seperate but related issues:

1. "The Geneva Conventions are arguably vague, so let's redefine our interpretations of them to excuse our conduct," and

2. "Let's not prosecute anyone who may or may not have violated the law." In this one, I'm not sure how it fits in w/ Geneva, i.e. if there are enforcement provisions where another country can bring up our people on War Crimes. But, if that exists, I don't see how anything our Congress could pass would be binding on some sort of international tribunal. So, it seems most likely this would just refer to the Dept of Justice not prosecuting our people for breaking our own laws.

This is pretty much the gap I was looking for. Thanks.

I feel smarter and more confused at the same time after reading this thread.

But if another country wanted to prosecute US citizens in some kind of war crimes tribunal, wouldn't that require the cooperation of the US govt in extradition? Couldn't Bush just play hardball and refuse to hand people over like Serbia does with Mladic, Karadzic et al?

Not that I know anything about international law or the US Constitution, just wondering

the us has stated it won't participate in the international criminal court unless american soldiers are immune from prosecution. if i'm remembering right, the (piss poor) justification was that american soldiers would be subject to trumped up political prosecutions. and we also can't resist hooking up people's balls to car batteries.

If they were tortured by U.S. Agents abroad in secret prisons (and it's looking like they were) why bring them back here since they will start telling Big wheel Lawyers or International Bodies like the Redcross that they were tortured. I remember for years no one in the current admin denied nor confirmed the exsistense of any secret prisons.

I don't know much about how Geneva works, but that all seems pretty plausible.

The International Criminal Court is a completely different issue than this. All that is involved in ICC is that one nation can bring a suit against an individual for war crimes, the court decides whether or not the country that the supposed war criminal is from has already prosecuted or legitimately investigated the crime. If they determine that a country like the US did not properly investigate or try an individual, then that person would have an International tribunal.
We had many discussions of this during grad school. US opposition to the International Criminal Court really stems from the fact that alot of American politicians don't want some person of color from a foreign nation having even the most minimal authority over this country.