Reply #28: ex post facto

[davekriss]

applies to imposing new sanctions on actions that occurred before a bill is signed into law, and that seems to be the case here. Somewhere in the bill it implies this is doable because it is an act of clarification, not a proscription of new punishments, so it is not a cut & dried case. Whether or not we grant Bush the power of pre-Magna Carta kings depends on the judgment of the SCOTUS on this precise matter.

Note also that an ex post facto softening of punishments or criminality is allowed, meaning the portion that frees the Bush Regime of accountability for war crimes related to this bill is allowable, as it defines what in the past was criminal behavior as not criminal behavior now. I believe even if the SCOTUS strikes down this clearly unconstitutional bill, the Bush Regime will claim ex post facto if prosecuted for torture as it will claim it was legal from the moment Bush signed it to the moment the SCOTUS struck it down.