Bush & Rumsfeld Out of Control

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Bush & Rumsfeld Out of Control
504
Tue, 06-08-2004 - 5:48am

The team of Bush & Rumsfeld have reduced the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States government to the level of the Spanish inquisition. They’re ruined my wonderful country so that now, instead of the light of the world, we are an evil power. Torturing POWs is abhorrent to all civilized people that’s why nations agreed to accept the first Geneva Convention in 1864, right up to the fourth in 1949 .  The United States signed all the additional protocols added up to 1977, but congress didn’t ratify the 1977 addition concerning the treatment of guerilla fighters.  Bush is using this to claim that he had the right to order torture. He has even flaunted our own country’s law against torture.  The man is an out of control menace to civilization.  He has not learned from history, perhaps because he read any.


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 


 http://hnn.us/articles/586.html


 


I don’t want to hear the childish “Well, Saddam tortured them worse” line of reasoning.  I’ve had it. Two wrongs have never made a right. These people need to be impeached.


 


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=


 


June 8, 2004
Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush

By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT







 


WASHINGTON, June 7 — A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.


The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.


One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."


"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."


Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.


"The April document was about interrogation techniques and procedures," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. "It was not a legal analysis."


Mr. Di Rita said the 24 interrogation procedures permitted at Guantánamo, four of which required Mr. Rumsfeld's explicit approval, did not constitute torture and were consistent with international treaties.


The March memorandum, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.


A Jan. 22, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department that provided arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated was used extensively as a basis for the March memorandum on avoiding proscriptions against torture.


The previously disclosed Justice Department memorandum concluded that administration officials were justified in asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war.


Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the administration's top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice Department's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002, noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.


The March memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, was prepared as part of a review of interrogation techniques by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes. The group itself was led by the Air Force general counsel, Mary Walker, and included military and civilian lawyers from all branches of the armed services.


The review stemmed from concerns raised by Pentagon lawyers and interrogators at Guantánamo after Mr. Rumsfeld approved a set of harsher interrogation techniques in December 2002 to use on a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot.


Mr. Rumsfeld suspended the harsher techniques, including serving the detainee cold, prepackaged food instead of hot rations and shaving off his facial hair, on Jan. 12, pending the outcome of the working group's review. Gen. James T. Hill, head of the military's Southern Command, which oversees Guantánamo, told reporters last Friday that the working group "wanted to do what is humane and what is legal and consistent not only with" the Geneva Conventions, but also "what is right for our soldiers."


Mr. Di Rita said that the Pentagon officials were focused primarily on the interrogation techniques, and that the legal rationale included in the March memo was mostly prepared by the Justice Department and White House counsel's office.


The memo showed that not only lawyers from the Defense and Justice departments and the White House approved of the policy but also that David S. Addington, the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, also was involved in the deliberations. The State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV, dissented, warning that such a position would weaken the protections of the Geneva Conventions for American troops.


The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith," the report said. "Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control."


The adjective "severe," the report said, "makes plain that the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture. Instead, the text provides that pain or suffering must be `severe.' " The report also advised that if an interrogator "has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture."


The report also said that interrogators could justify breaching laws or treaties by invoking the doctrine of necessity. An interrogator using techniques that cause harm might be immune from liability if he "believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm."


Scott Horton, the former head of the human rights committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said Monday that he believed that the March memorandum on avoiding responsibility for torture was what caused a delegation of military lawyers to visit him and complain privately about the administration's confidential legal arguments. That visit, he said, resulted in the association undertaking a study and issuing of a report criticizing the administration. He added that the lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.


Jamie Fellner, the director of United States programs for Human Rights Watch, said Monday, "We believe that this memo shows that at the highest levels of the Pentagon there was an interest in using torture as well as a desire to evade the criminal consequences of doing so."


The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction.


Kate Zernike contributed reporting for this article


 


 


Elaine

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 11:10am
Didn't the US and Bush make a HUGE deal about Iraqis showing american POWs being questioned on TV, because it was against the Geneva convention? I would say that this was MUCH LESS than what Americans did to these prisoners, which WAS psychological torture. You can't have a double standard!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 11:10am
<>

Perhaps you don't know any yet. A unknown driver had an encounter with my son; two cars stopped to support my son's story. The police arrive and agreed with my son. Angry, the man contacted the police policeman and gave the description of my son's truck and said he was carrying a gun and threatened the man. Another police car pulled my son over, searched him and tore his car apart looking for a gun which he fortunately wasn't carrying. Eventually, the original police arrived on the scene and told about the incident. When the initial police car arrived my son was already in a police car heading for jail. This was because of an erroneous report by an angry driver. The Patriot Act needs to be limited, innocent people are being hurt for whatever reason. This country is just too scared for it's own good.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 11:16am
I would like to expand no. 6--Draft. Until Iraq we had a volunteer army. By refusing to allow those who have serviced retire of depart when duty over the US is forcing military on the men. We have broken the contract. This is no way to fight a war.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 11:22am
the war on Iraq, and the sanctions killed MANY TIMES OVER the number of people killed by Saddam Hussein. Listen to Iraqi people themselves. The MAJORITY thinks there were better off BEFORE, and thats when they had to deal with BOTH Saddam and the Sanctions!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 11:29am

Hey there, nicecanadianlady!!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 12:26pm
Can I just ask you why you think because those who support Bush or understand the necessity of this war, they automatically are lumped together as "not accepting of reality". What makes your version of what's real or not any better than mine for that matter. I can't stand people whow feel they have it all figured out and everyone else who feels differently, regardless of their defense, support, or sources, they somehow don't know anything??? Pretty arrogant don't ya think?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 12:36pm
I never said Iraq or Saddam attacked us, when did I say that? I said instead of waiting for another 9/11, we are going to exclude another attack by those who are in the same mindset as terrorists. This is a war on terror and what you have seemed to forget about the US is we don't have an agenda to kill off any innocent masses and perish them from the earth. That's a HUGE difference. You are basically saying that the US thinks just like Saddam, Osama, and terrorists. I think the differences are outrageous and quite obvious. As for your "fortunately not all countries feel this way" So what? Since when did we need to get all the countries in the world's ok? That's impossible! All countries have an agenda and just because those who are not supporting us didn't approve, it could very well be because it doesn't fit their personal agenda. Did you read about France and Russia? As for the other countries you mentioned, it's a little different when they pose the same threat of terrorism. Again the US isn't out to mass murder people, we are trying to secure this country and get a message across loud and clear that we won't be invaded or have that threat sitting down. This war might just give that message and we wouldn't have to use force against any other nation.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 12:42pm
First off did you even read all the posts leading up to my response? Or did you just poke your head in and read just that one and then asked your question? So are you asking why we even captured Saddam? LOL Have you checked out his track record? How about his attempt to kill Bush Sr.? Or maybe his ignoring the UN resolutions a billion times? If you indeed read the posts leading up to my comment you would have realized that the poster I was talking to asked why we don't give them the same rights as we do here in America. I simply asked them what they wanted us to do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 12:58pm
Can you post a link as to where you received that information?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:02pm
There is international law that defines how the military (including US military) should treat BOTH prisoners of war, AND Civilians when they are the occupying force. So whether the prisoners are military or not is IRRELEVANT. Either way, the US could not treat them the way they did. Until they are determined to be 'terrorists', they are either civilians or military. Besides, those in that prison where the abuse took place were not even terrorist suspects, they were suspected resurgents, fighting the occupation of Iraq.

Also, remember that there are many other terrorist group than Al Queda. What if the british army had treated suspected irish 'resurgents' that way, assuming they somehow believed they had tied to the IRA? Do you think the world (including the US) would not have cried outrage if these irish civilians had been sodomized and chained as dogs, and tortured? The IRA is a terrorist organization - just like Al Queda! The only difference is the scale of Al Queda's 9/11 attack. How about terrorism within the US? Remember Oklahoma? Should the US have rounded up people 'suspected' of being involved and used torture to get the information they want (whether or not they actually had any information to give)? What if it was your brother or husband?

Pages