I was thinking about the whole “Osama might be dead from typhoid” thing, and suddenly my mind went back to the movie Almost Heroes. While not the best movie ever, it’s got a hell of a sequence that applies well to this situation.

Bidwell: [returns to camp after a bear has bit off his leg] Sir, I’ve been to hell and back.

Edwards: Yes, I can see that…

Bidwell: I suspect that you’ll want to lead a hunting party to slay that terrible beast.

Edwards: Well, yes, that thought did cross my mind briefly. But now I have a better idea.

Bidwell: Yes, sir?

Edwards: I shall fashion for you the finest wooden leg you’ve ever seen.

Bidwell: But what about the bear?

Edwards: Rest assured, Bidwell, in 20 years or so, the ravages of old age will deal with the bear far more cruelly than we ever could have.

Bidwell: Revenge is sweet, sir.

Yep. Sounds about right to me.

This is just killing me. I already wrote about the so-called compromise between Bush and the redcoats that would do very little aside not actually clarify the Geneva Conventions, but rather let Bush decide what they mean (which is kinda like saying we’re not going to outlaw drugs, we’re just going to let people decide which ones are bad).

And now there’s a wonderful offshoot. Bush is going to try and give himself amnesty over whatever torturing and such he’s already done.

Since U.S. courts generally limit plaintiff status to people who have suffered definable harm, these provisions amount to a broad amnesty law for Bush and other administration officials who have engaged in human rights violations since the 9/11 attacks.

I’m not a legal expert, but I’m going to hazard a guess that you just can’t do that. The ex post facto laws we have are generally interpreted as saying that if you commit a crime, then it’s made illegal, you can’t be prosecuted as it was legal at the time you did it. However, this also means that you can’t just sit around waiting for something to be legalized and then think you’re off the hook. Unless, of course…

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.

And that’s the Bush policy for you. Deny that you’re doing anything illegal, but at the same time demand that it be MADE legal. Then when your efforts prove successful, you can just deny that you did it before. It’s sort of like the most vocal folks in the “make pot legal” effort but say they don’t smoke, they just care about civil rights.

I’d also like to point out that, according to CNN, this is a “compromise”:

I could just cry. Who in the hell thinks that any of these hadn’t been banned already? Once again, the Geneva Conventions Article III:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

All right. Parts (a), (b), and (c) I would HOPE would take care of that entire goddamn list. I want to know what republican was in that group going “well, wait, does sexual assault really count as degrading or humiliating?” Who said “okay, when they say murder, mutilation, and torture, does that mean we can’t murder, mutilate, and torture people?”

The right is out of their goddamn minds. I’m not sure how much I can handle.

[tags]torture, republicans, bush[/tags]