(no subject)

[winterbadger]

From the MSNBC article on White House attempts to avoid war crimes guilt

The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a question by the Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.")

What were the Nuremberg trials about?

Comments

[robbysmom.livejournal.com]

"What were the Nuremberg trials about?"

from the standpoint of strict interpretation, an example in "wiggle room." See from the MSNBC article:

"Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was 'undefined.'"

This is a justice department that likes to find wiggle room in laws it may not have supported but wants to ban things that even what it might call "activist judges" haven't yet said are not disallowed.

And I'm sure the foudn ludicrous the former President's attempt to find wiggle room about the definition of "is."