Sunday, September 17, 2006

Bush the war criminal

Here's something I don't quite understand in all this sick and immoral torture legalization debate: why does it matter what law Congress passes? If Bush ordered torture or inhumane and degrading treatment, that is a violation of the Geneva Convention. The United States is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, if Bush violated the Geneva Convention, isn't he a war criminal regardless of what US law says? Unless the US secretly withdrew from the Geneva convention, I don't quite understand why any of this crap going on in Congress right now even matters. Do treaties of this kind have to be backed up by additional laws? Can Congress effectively abrogate the Geneva Convention by passing laws that contradict it?

Another question: Why doesn't some foreign government charge the Bush administration with violations of the Geneva Conventions? Would that be the diplomatic equivalent of farting at the dinner table? Or are other countries just afraid to expose the framework of international law (including the Geneva Convention) for the toothless sham our government has made of it?

Perhaps someone with expertise in these areas could enlighten me.


Blogger grishnash said...

U.S. Constitution, Article VI (paragraph 2):

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 the 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.

9:37 AM, September 18, 2006  
Blogger Zachary Drake said...

I thought there was something like that in there! I think the Bush administration is trying to spin it that they are mereley "clarifying" the Geneva convention, rather than unilaterally aborgating it.

10:08 AM, September 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Internal Monologue home