Monday, September 25, 2006

a broad amnesty law

* pdaly at EW's:
"My summary of WH talking points in Tenet's mea culpa: Wilson's information was not helpful. Even so, we the WH did not receive a briefing. And even though we the WH didn’t receive a briefing, Wilson's contacts cannot be trusted to be telling the truth.
The WH seems positively allergic to all things Wilson and it tries to put as much distance between Wilson and itself. What I STILL cannot figure out, however, is why the WH would care now (unless to get PLAME) since VP Cheney merely waved off ElBaradei blunt announcement March 7, 2003 (just 12 days before the invasion of Iraq) that the Niger documents purportedly showing Iraq seeking yellow cake were crude forgeries.

What else do Plame and Wilson know? Or more accurately, what else do BUSH/CHENEY think they know?"

* parry:
"In effect, this legislation could be interpreted as a broad amnesty law, like those enacted by legislatures in Argentina and Chile to give cover to government officials who waged “dirty wars” against leftists and other political opponents in the 1970s.

Because of those amnesty laws, many perpetrators of torture, “disappearances” and extrajudicial killings were spared punishment even after the grisly details of their crimes against humanity emerged from the secret records.
The emerging U.S. amnesty law would be unusual in that it wouldn’t explicitly acknowledge that offenses had been committed, nor is the word “amnesty” used. Nor have there been public hearings in Congress to determine what the Bush administration might have done that requires amnesty.

Nevertheless, the legislation, which seems to be gaining bipartisan support, would create broad areas of legal protections for Bush and other human rights violators for past crimes. By also barring victims from seeking enforcement of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. courts, the bill would give the Bush administration wide latitude for future acts of abuse.

Yet, this troubling “amnesty” signpost – for an America rushing down a path marked by previous “dirty war” states – has been passed with barely a comment on its significance."

No comments: