This morning we briefly discussed Mr Bu$h’s ongoing assault on American Democracy, and his desire to emulate the most despicable tyrants and dictators in history.

As it turns out Mr Bu$h addressed the nation a few grinning jackanapes some members of the press who may actually have rediscovered their own testicles. [Special note to Congressional Democrats: remember when you used to have them, boys?]

Bravos to David Gregory, who once again impolitely asked questions that the Little Emperor thought the lapdog press corps was too cowed to pose.

Via the smartest blonde we know Holden tells us:

Chimpy To Hold Surprise Press Conference This Morning

My guess is he is going to emphasize the importance of re-writing clarifying Common Article III today. Why? Because he has authorized the torture of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and in the CIA's secret gulags around the world.

Bush may not fear The Hague, but he is afraid of being prosecuted under War Crimes Act of 1996 (which he is also desperately trying to amend) because by ordering the torture of detainees, many of whom have died as a result of their treatment) in violation of Common Article III Bush has laid himself open to the death penalty.

As usual Mr Bu$h always thinks about himself first. And a quick reading of the rest of Holden’s article will give you the feeling that Mr Bu$h apparently is in quite some legal danger.

So by all means read the rest of Holden’s little piece. After which cast a hungry eye over this:

When considering legislation for military commissions, members of Congress should be careful not to open themselves to personal war crimes liability by denying the due process requirements incorporated in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Justice Stevens, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), warned that the military commission created by President Bush “lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions,” adding: “at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions ... applies,” common Article 3. Common Article 3, Justice Stevens emphasized, “prohibits ‘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.’” He added: “[i]nextricably intertwined with the question of regular constitution is the evaluation of the procedures governing the tribunal ... the phrase ‘regularly constituted court’ ... must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of those trial procedures that have been recognized by customary international law.” Moreover, the phrase “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable” necessarily incorporates by reference customary rights to due process that constitute a minimum set of due process guarantees under customary international law. See, e.g., 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 677, 678 n.9 (2002), cited elsewise in Hamdan; 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1, 7 n.15, 12 n.26 (2001).

In case anyone has forgotten, Hamden was the case the Bu$h malAdministration fought tooth and nail to prevent going to the SCOTUS. While they desperately have sought to avoid judicial review of their bad laws and evil crimes, they especially wanted to avoid a case in the Supreme Court, because there is no appeals court to reverse the Justices.

Members of Congress are thus on notice that minimum due process guarantees under customary international law must not be denied when Congress attempts to articulate what forms of procedure a military commission should adopt. If members participate in a plan to do so or are complicit in the deprivation of minimum due process guarantees under customary international law incorporated by reference in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions or any other rights or protections under common Article 3 (e.g., concerning the right to humane treatment even at the hands of CIA interrogators), they would be participating in the denial of rights, protections, and duties under Geneva law. Such denials are war crimes.

Moreover, “wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the ... Convention” constitutes a more egregious “grave breach” of Geneva law. Denial of what the world knows are minimum due process requirements would also resonate against us like the crimes at Abu Ghraib and the Administration’s criminal torture memos and authorizations.

I don’t know Judge Paust’s full c. v. but I have a hunch Jurist, which enjoys a good reputation as a judicial review magazine, wouldn’t have published this article if it didn’t have merit.

That’s right, gentlemen and ladies of the Congress. You too may one day stand in the docket in the Hague to answer for your part in enabling Mr Bu$h’s war crimes.