Should the United States Execute George Bush as a War Criminal?

Apparently,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has been going around congress and quietly asking members to consider making legal some of the violations of the Geneva Conventions article 3 that George Bush has already admitted to violating.

He's doing that because the War Crimes Act of 1996 says that US Nationals who violate the Geneva Conventions Article 3 are in violation, and subject to imprisonment and execution under that act (ouch).

So, the Supreme Court has already held that the Geneva Conventions Article 3 applies to the War on Terrorism, and Bush has publicly acknowledge violating it. In fact:

At a July 13 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Air Force's top military lawyer, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, affirmed that "some of the techniques that have been authorized and used in the past have violated Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions. The top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, who were seated next to Rives, said they agreed.

The bill was originally passed by voice vote in the House (effectively unanimous), and unanimously by the Senate.

What exactly should be done with that?

Rogue Waves make the Science Times

NYT Story.

Totally awesome... Average number present on the world's oceans: 10. Cause: Unknown, but they prefer areas of strong current. Average height: 100 feet. Theoretical maximum: 200 feet. One possible explanation for the ship-swallowing capabilities of the Bermuda Triangle. If I ever decide to go on a cruise ship, I think I will stick with the Mediterranean...

A Call For Pardons

Allow me to be the first to suggest that one of the first official acts of our next President, whatever his or her party affiliation, should be to pardon our current President, George W. Bush, along with his Vice President and cabinet secretaries, for any conspiracy to violate and/or direct violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention on Torture (as codified in US law), and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. (I believe this list summarizes the bulk of the crimes known to have been committed by ranking members of the current Administration.) My reasoning goes as follows:

• As President Ford appreciated, prosecution of high-ranking members of the former government sets a poor precedent for the peaceful transition of power in our democracy;
• Stating the plan to pardon these individuals now makes it clear that even though they are not being impeached or subject to active criminal investigation, they are not off the hook;
• Acceptance of the pardon (or even silence regarding it) would serve satisfactorily as an acknowledgment of guilt, and partial act of repentance (see, e.g., Nixon);
• Refusal of the pardon, by contrast, would imply a willingness to be investigated and stand trial for these crimes;
• Acceptance of the pardon would make it clear to international courts that these crimes are not going to be tried in the U.S. (not likely in any case), and would thus allow any individuals to pursue their own remedy through these courts.

An Independence Day Meditation

On the anniversary of our nation's declaration of independence from the arbitrary rule of a man - unconstrained by Constitution, checks, or balances - two quotes:

You really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead.
  — Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), February 3, 2006

Give me liberty or give me death.
  — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I suggest that this election year presents our nation once again (for the 460th time, more or less) with a choice between these two contrary approaches to the problem of governance in the face of a mortal enemy.