So today, I’m asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I’m asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act — so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts — in U.S. courts.
I’m trying to locate some perspective here. When was the last time a government official protected himself and his friends by making something that they’d done retroactively “not illegal?”
I guess there was William Howard Taft’s “Finishing Your Host’s Entree Isn’t Impolite Especially If They Weren’t Eating It Act” of 1910, but that wasn’t about an actual crime. It was more of a response to something the French ambassador had leaked to the press. Besides, it died in committee.
Nixon’s halfhearted attempt to legalize cover-ups never went anywhere either (titling it the “Give Dick a Break Bill” was a clear sign he knew it was a non-starter). Long after he died, though, his position was validated by the “What Happens In Vegas, Stays In Vegas” ad campaign. And, of course, by the Patriot Act. But retroactively legalizing something to avoid prosecution? This may be a first.
Or it may not be. Please offer me some historical context below.





18 comments
Rusty
September 7, 2006 at 4:35 am
1I am shocked by this behavior; shocked, because in retrospect I find that I have followed it myself! I feel shame to find myself painted by the same brush. I am, of course, refering to the mantra of “it’s easier to do it first and ask permission later”. But then, I only used it on my mom and then only to go to parties.
See, that is my failing that keeps me from being President. I’m not a visionary. In retrospect, I could have tried to get away with so much more! Or perhaps the issue isn’t a matter of vision. Rather, I’m not a juvenile anymore.
cooper
September 7, 2006 at 4:51 am
2That must be it, Rusty.
Murray
September 7, 2006 at 6:18 am
3Well, w’s father pardoned the Iran Contra gang and in so doing pardoned himself. The evidence that would have been used in their trials would have implicated and convicted Bush I, and with out it, he was free to claim he was a virgin. (Of course when Clinton pardoned Rich the howls never stopped).
Guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree
David
September 7, 2006 at 6:37 am
4This is intended as a stopgap in case the courts fail, as the last Supreme Court did, to recognize His Divine Right as King. More disturbing than His Worship asking is that majority in congress, aka His Courtiers, will likely grant this request, and the new Supreme Court will likely uphold it, the two new justices being adherents to the doctrine of the divine right of kings (and their minions). The really neat thing is that a terrorist is whoever His Majesty says is a terrorist.
Murray has his history right.
dee
September 7, 2006 at 6:45 am
5I vaguely remember a similar circumstance in the mid-60’s. As I recall, it involved a “do-over” in a game of Pickle when the runner argued that she had been tying her shoe and had clearly called “Time,” but the pitcher on the opposite side had not heard and thrown the ball so that the runner was declared “Out.” However, it was the decision of the judge (one Debbie Milnor, who was seated on the porch 20 feet away and was considered an impartial witness) that since the call was not communicated clearly, the Out would stand and that future requests for “Time” must be accompanied by a wave of the hand.
Thus, the prohibition of retroactive legalization was upheld but allowances were made for future activities (see Dee v. Matt and Jimmy, Michigan Street Court of Appeals, 1964)
Doc Nagel
September 7, 2006 at 8:53 am
6The punchline here is that the signature statement that comes with the signed law will exclude any actions approved by His Bushness.
Dale
September 7, 2006 at 1:08 pm
7I can think of a ton of examples, but they all come from brutal Latin American dictatorships. That must be a coincidence, right?
cooper
September 7, 2006 at 2:12 pm
8dee, let it go! It’s been 42 years now. Besides, I know you had to have gotten even with those two guys (Debbie, too, probably).
SeattleDan
September 7, 2006 at 6:43 pm
9End of the day at work, stumbling around the internets, and I came across this song on youtube, that seems still timely. It took a few minutes to load on my computer, so be patient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDWF8hznHZs
Allison
September 7, 2006 at 9:05 pm
10That was scary, Dan! Poor Donald. I only wish we could wake up to a new reality like he did.
George
September 7, 2006 at 9:21 pm
11After reading Allison’s comment, (and before watching that clip) I was expecting Donald Rumsfeld. I feel dirty now.
SeattleDan
September 7, 2006 at 9:29 pm
12George-
(Love the pics Harold posted of you and your family),
you’re fired. No, the other Donald! And not the Trumpster!
hedera
September 7, 2006 at 9:58 pm
13Actually, I enjoyed watching Donald. What a historical classic; I won’t say any more for fear of blowing the surprise.
As for the retroactive legislation: Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” For the non-lawyers (I’m not one either), an ex post facto law is one that defines an act as criminal, and allows punishment for the act even if it was committed before it became criminal. If they can make something criminal later that was legal at the time, I don’t see why they should be able to legalize something later that was criminal at the time…
Stephen
September 8, 2006 at 7:47 am
14hedra,
You just need to think more “out of the box”
Besides, when the the constitution ever mean anything to this group?
David
September 8, 2006 at 3:49 pm
15Stephen,
You mean that thing Bush said was just a goddamned piece of paper?
hedera
September 9, 2006 at 12:57 pm
16Stephen, my boss is always telling me to think “out of the box”, too. Trouble is, I’m a claustrophiliac - I like small enclosed spaces and I find the box comfortable…
And yes, David, I mean the thing Bush called a goddamned piece of paper.
antiflake
September 16, 2006 at 9:26 pm
17Did anyone actually think anyone was going to be prosecuted for past offenses without Bush’s propsed legislation? This is not thinking “out of the box”, merely out in left field.
Stephen
September 20, 2006 at 1:15 pm
18Probably not, but I think it is good to have it on the record that what they did WAS illegal, rather than trying to make it OK on the back end. To my mind the major problem in the country, and specifically this administration, is that no one is help accountable anymore. What ever happened to personal responsibility? How about, “by their fruits ye shall know them?”