Michael Savage radio program says Bush turning Abu G. military personel over to World Court.

Husband listening to radio on way home from work. | 6/23/04 | BriarBey

[BriarBey]

I know the Mods. will move this, but my husband come in very upset and I feel the same. Has anyone heard anything about this? Michael Savage is ranting about Bush turning our military personel from Abu. G. over to the world court. He does that and he has lost our vote.

[republicandiva]

So, in essence, you'll be voting for Kerry.

[TomGuy]

I think it has to do with this article/thread:

US withdraws UN measure on immunity for US soldiers

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (Reuters) - The United States announced on Wednesday it was withdrawing its U.N. Security Council resolution seeking an exemption for U.S. soldiers from the new International Criminal Court because of lack of support.

James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, told reporters, "We are dropping action on this resolution."

[oceanview]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158696/posts

[Howlin]

Keep your damn vote then.

I don't like people who threaten with their votes.

Don't like what he does? Don't vote for him. But, FGS, stop putting up threads telling us about it.

[Southack]

Abu Ghraib Abuse Prosecutions Move Forward

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

PHOTOS

PHOTO ESSAYS

Photo Essays:

•

STORIES

BACKGROUND

•

Prison Abuse Lawyers Can Question Generals

•

Pfc. Lynndie England's Hearing Delayed

•

Fast Facts: Soldiers Charged With Abuse

•

Lawyer Fired From Lynndie England Defense Team

•

England's Lawyers Say Hearing Scheduled

BAGHDAD, Iraq — One Virginia-based soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal unexpectedly decided Tuesday to go ahead with a hearing without private counsel while the Army scheduled the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing for another.

Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II (search) of Buckingham, Va., decided to proceed with a pretrial hearing on Tuesday, one day after he opted to postpone it because his civilian lawyer, Gary Myers, did not appear in Iraq, Maj. Carolyn Dysart said.

Frederick's military lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, said Monday that Myers wanted to participate by telephone because coming to Iraq "places people in peril for their lives."

The judge, Col. James Pohl, angrily dismissed the suggestion, saying that he had received and denied a previous e-mail request from Myers to take part by phone. The judge had postponed the matter until July 23.

Fredeick's wife, Martha Frederick, said in a telephone interview that the swiftly changing developments had her on an emotional roller coaster.

"But I have faith in Captain Shuck and I feel that he will do the best that he can. I know they're being pressured. I just want what's right for Chip," she said.

"I can see now, though, how political this is and I'm sure the rest of the world can see it — that this is a trial based on winning an election. They want to punish these people in front of the Iraqis," Martha Frederick said.

In a related case, Spc. Sabrina Harman (search) of Lorton, Va., was to face an Article 32 hearing, similar to a grand jury in civilian criminal cases, to determine if the 26-year-old will face court martial, the U.S. command said Tuesday.

The session, known as an Article 32 hearing, will determine if the 26-year-old will face court martial.

The session will be held Thursday, a military spokeswoman, Lt. Beatriz Yarrish, said. A military official said the defendant undergoing the hearing was Megan Ambuhl (search), 29, of Centreville, Va., but Yarrish said her Article 32 hearing has aleady been held.

Harman and Frederick are among seven defendants who are accused of abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad.

After a pre-trial hearing in Baghdad on Monday, lawyers for two of the defendants said their clients were following orders by senior officers and military intelligence.

Harman, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company (search), is seen in photographs published internationally since the scandal broke smiling over a pile of naked prisoners.

[gilliam]

All that happened is that the United States announced Wednesday it was dropping a UN resolution seeking a new exemption for American peacekeepers from international prosecution for war crimes. Since Abu Grave broke, we didn't have the votes for it. The International Criminal Court has real war crimes to worry about right now. I don't think we are a very high priority for them. Today the International Criminal Court said it has begun to investigate crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they actually did kill, rape and tourture people.

[California Patriot]

This is exactly what the left wants to see: Defections from Bush by the very same people whom the left most hates, and who would be most offended by a leftist presidency. The "I won't vote" reaction from the right makes them just as happy as we feel when we hear about a "Nader Democrat."
It's precisely the same thing.

[SGTARKyTEK]

if its true i will vote for Michael Badnarik(Libertarian)

[B4Ranch]

Prisoner abuse: US backs down over immunity for soldiers
Outrage as documents reveal approved interrogation techniques
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
24 June 2004


The US bowed yesterday to international outrage over prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan by abandoning its bid to secure a United Nations exemption for its soldiers from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC).

The about-turn at the UN came less than 24 hours after the White House released secret internal documents on the treatment of enemy prisoners - again in an attempt to dispel suggestions that it condoned the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The decision not to seek a new resolution exempting US personnel from overseas prosecution is an astonishing climbdown for an administration that had vowed to have no truck with the ICC, and had previously threatened to veto all UN peacekeeping missions to get its way.

But opposition on the 15-member Security Council was overwhelming, especially after Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, declared last week that a resolution sent "an unfortunate signal at any time - but particularly at this time".

The two moves underline how, despite the punishment being meted out to the Abu Ghraib guards involved in the abuse, the scandal continues to damage the Bush administration.

Documents released in Washington set out harsh interrogation techniques for terrorist and enemy prisoners but - the White House claims - make clear that outright torture has never been permitted.The documents contain elaborate lists of permissible, relatively innocuous sounding, methods of interrogation. But they also reveal that harsher techniques, including stripping prisoners, placing them in hoods and using dogs to terrify them, were approved for several months, before apparently being revoked in April 2003.

In a memo five months after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, Mr Bush declared that "new thinking into the law of war" was needed, and that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qa'ida prisoners in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

But Mr Bush instructed that prisoners be treated "humanely," and in accordance with the conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military neccessity". Bush/Cheney campaign managers hope that the unprecedented release of secret material will draw a line under the controversy.

But last night Democrats signalled they had no intention of dropping the issue. Nor do the disclosures answer the underlying question of whether the administration tacitly condoned tougher techniques that amounted to torture.

The insouciant mood at the Pentagon is captured in a November 2002 "action memo" in which Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, approved the stripping of prisoners and intimidation by dogs. Authorising detainees to be kept in "stress positions" including standing, for periods of up to four hours, Mr Rumsfeld scribbed at the bottom of the page, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours? DR."

The release of the documents failed to allay the concerns of Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House had provided only a "a small subset" of the relevant documents, Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared, saying: "Much more remains held back and hidden away from public view".

The documents, for instance, shed no light on the question that has haunted the administration since the establishment in autumn 2001 of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - whether the administration gave a tacit green light to torture to extract information.

Early last year, the commander at Guantanamo Bay was sent to Baghdad with the mission of making interrogations of suspected Iraqi insurgents at Abu Ghraib more "productive". Moreover some prominent US lawyers, as well as government officials, have argued that in cases where the information obtained could avert a planned attack, torture was justifiable. Others contend that this "anything goes" approach contributed to what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nor does the new material make clear whether the official policy, as it evolved, applied to the CIA.

As the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted in May, it emerged that senior al- Qa'ida figures have been threatened with shooting or drowning under secret rules approved by the agency and the Justice Department.

Some of the methods used are so harsh, counter-terrorism officials told The New York Times last month, that the FBI has instructed its agents to steer clear.

Whether or not the latest disclosures put an end to the controversy, the damage to Mr Bush may be lasting. A president who has touted his moral values now risks seeing these values discredited.

* British soldiers accused of mistreating Iraqi civilians could face public courts martial in Iraq, Ministry of Defence officials said yesterday.

Martin Howard, the director general of operational policy at the MoD, said: "The courts martial would ideally be done near the scene of the crime."

METHODS SANCTIONED BY PENTAGON

Hooding

Forcing detainees to adopt 'stress positions' for up to four hours

Removal of clothing

Inducing stress by using dogs

Forced shaving of detainees

20-hour interrogations

Isolation for up to 30 days

[beaversmom]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=534639

Here's what I found on google. Heard Savage talking about the UN and Bush as well this afternoon:

Prisoner abuse: US backs down over immunity for soldiers
Outrage as documents reveal approved interrogation techniques
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

24 June 2004

The US bowed yesterday to international outrage over prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan by abandoning its bid to secure a United Nations exemption for its soldiers from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC).

The about-turn at the UN came less than 24 hours after the White House released secret internal documents on the treatment of enemy prisoners - again in an attempt to dispel suggestions that it condoned the abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The decision not to seek a new resolution exempting US personnel from overseas prosecution is an astonishing climbdown for an administration that had vowed to have no truck with the ICC, and had previously threatened to veto all UN peacekeeping missions to get its way.

But opposition on the 15-member Security Council was overwhelming, especially after Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, declared last week that a resolution sent "an unfortunate signal at any time - but particularly at this time".

The two moves underline how, despite the punishment being meted out to the Abu Ghraib guards involved in the abuse, the scandal continues to damage the Bush administration.

Documents released in Washington set out harsh interrogation techniques for terrorist and enemy prisoners but - the White House claims - make clear that outright torture has never been permitted.The documents contain elaborate lists of permissible, relatively innocuous sounding, methods of interrogation. But they also reveal that harsher techniques, including stripping prisoners, placing them in hoods and using dogs to terrify them, were approved for several months, before apparently being revoked in April 2003.

This is an excerpt. Click on above link for full article.

[alnick]

Unless you hear it from President Bush, do NOT believe it.

[republicandiva]

So, essentially you'll be voting for Kerry as well. Hate to break it to you, but voting for someone who hasn't got a chance in he!! of winning, may make you feel all noble and whatnot, but you're voting for KERRY!

[Dane]

if its true i will vote for Michael Badnarik(Libertarian)

Yep the guy who blames America for 9/11 and would appease the terrorists. You guys are so transparent sometimes.

[Dolphy]

I used to listen to Savage, I thought he was pretty funny and sometimes over the top. Now he's just plain nuts, at least his on-air personality is. He can't get through a show without screwing up the facts, I don't mean spinning them, I mean actually inventing them to fit his rant.

[ConservativeMan55]

SGTARKyTEK Since Jun 9, 2004

[Northern Yankee]

I heard that from Savage as well.

Btw... Savage says there is no good coffee made anywhere anymore.

Maybe I should have him over for coffee!

[ConservativeMan55]

SGTARKyTEK Since Jun 9, 2004

[oceanview]

he is however, a necessary evil. he doesn't sugar coat anything, when he is "on topic", for example on the beheadings, he is very good. he is also very good at defining who the left really is.

[alnick]

if its true i will vote for Michael Badnarik(Libertarian)

You know, for three and a half years, one wild hysterical rumor after another has been floated about Bush is going to do this and Bush is going to do that. People get all worked up about it and say, "If he does this, he loses my vote." Every time it turns out to be a slyly worded article or simply something made up out of whole cloth.

Don't we know President Bush by now? Don't we know that he is not going to turn the trials of the Abu Ghraib troops over to the ICC? I do. It's not going to happen -- at least not while GWB is president.

Now, with a JFK presidency, it's a distinct probability that similar cases would be handed over to the ICC.

[Northern Yankee]

Jenny I heard this as well.

I can't believe Bush would do such a thing.