Jacki’s whereIstand Blog

If you are concerned that you might be prosecuted for a violation of the law, immediately amend said law.  The Bush Administration seeks to amend the War Crimes Act, a U.S. law criminalizing violations of the Geneva Convention.  The amendments are aimed at decriminalizing conduct the Geneva Conventions categorize as "outrages upon [the] personal dignity" of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts.  Under the amendments proposed by the Administration, acts such as forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women’s underwear, which were techniques employed at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, would no longer warrant criminal prosecution.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claims that provisions of the Geneva Convention such as "outrages on personal dignity" are too vague and leave interrogators’ with too little guidance on what steps are unlawful when conducting their interrogations.

Contrary to Gonzales’ assertions, tribunals have interpreted the Geneva Convention provisions concerning humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners.  For instance, an international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia interpreted acts including placing prisoners in "inappropriate conditions of confinement," forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and threatening prisoners with "physical, mental, or sexual violence" as outrages on personal dignity and as degrading and humiliating treatment.

The War Crimes Act applies to political appointees, CIA officials and former military personnel. 

whereIstand Tags

• Should US military action be governed by international treaties?

So the week has come and gone and no official announcement has come from Patrick Fitzgerald.  I have to admit that yesterday I checked Fitzgerald’s website more than once to see whether his office posted any news on Rove.  Nothing.

The question of the hour is where did the information come from?  I do not see a good reason for Rove to leak the information himself.  Why would he bother?  I can see why Rove would see to it that Leopold was destroyed, but I can’t see the benefit he gets from floating the bad information himself.  If Rove did not leak the information, who did?  A hoax?  Is it true and Fitzgerald has been sitting on it?

While I am thrilled to see Rove answer for his actions, I am more interested in the effect his indictment might have on the party as a whole and more importantly, the Republicans in the midterm elections.  Not only does Rove add an additional layer of taint, with a pending criminal matter Rove might be too preoccupied to manipulate the midterm elections.  I can see the GOP distancing themselves from Rove but still consulting him for strategy. 

I think it’s key to entangle him in a criminal matter before he makes his mark later this year. 

whereIstand Tags

• Will Karl Rove be forced to step down over his role in the Plame leak?

Sources inside the law firm representing Rove claim Fitzgerald warned Rove and his lawyers of the indictment.  Is that likely?  I’m not so sure.  Apparently Robert Luskin may also be a target in the investigation.  Some say we can expect an announcement on Friday, May 19. 

From WMR:

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm’s building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove.