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 - 1:09pm
So using your logic, Iraqis would have been justified in torturing Americans just before the bombings of Iraq, since obtaining information WOULD HAVE SAVED THOUSAND OF IRAQI LIVES. That argument about 'saving lives' can be used by ANYONE. That is in fact the reasoning of Al Queda. They believe that their acts of terrorism are to save ARAB lives, to make the US and others stop what they consider to be the abuse of arabs, especially palestinians. Your logic is IDENTICAL. If it's justified for the US to torture and bomb civilians to 'save lives' then it's justified for anyone else!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:14pm
"What many/some seem to have forgotten is that we were attacked. Unprovoked. Children died, women died and men died -- all innocent"

Just turn it around

What many/some seem to have forgotten is that IRAQ was attacked. Unprovoked. Children died, women died and men died -- all innocent

You are perfectly right that FANATICS being the ones that attacked the US on 9/11. Let's remember that. It wasn't IRAQ, Iraqi people, or even Saddam. We are taking it out on the WRONG PEOPLE!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:28pm
How long have you been posting here? Apparently not that long because many have posted that this isn't just a war on Osama and clan, it's all terrorists and those who harbor them. Saddam ignored the UN resolutions time and time again. Bush said enough is enough, if you don't have anything to hide then let us in, and Saddam said NO! Bush even gave him time to rethink that no and he ignored him again. If Saddam was so innocent and posed no threat why didn't he let the inspectors back in or come forward and say "fine Bush" come in and check it out, I am clean. I'll let you answer that one. There have been links to Al Queda and Iraq and Saddam all over the place including information about WMD....they may not be in the backyard of Saddam but they are somewhere.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/17/1071337009059.html?from=storyrh

s&oneclick=true

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10848

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:29pm
The "chance" Bush gave Saddam was just show. Besides he had no intention of not following through regardless of what Saddam would have done. However, if Saddam had complied it mereley would have made it easier for Bush to get at the oil. If they were successful in getting Mr. Huge Ego Saddam to back down at anything, they would have been successful in working out a killer deal for the oil. Here's a direct quote from part of the 9/11 commision's report: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." (http://www.ktvu.com/news/3429848/detail.html)Of course Bush would dispute it but it seems to me like he keeps changing his reasons for goign to war. And everyone says Kerry is wishy-washy. I'd rather someone admit when they're wrong and change course accordingly than "stay the course" even when all around you people are telling you it's wrong.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:47pm
I think Bush should have focused on the terrorists like he originally said he would and I also think he should get his butt out there on the battlefield and risk his life too like our founders did.
Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:52pm
^(insert DON'T here)

>>>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?<<<

Now you have my answer...Why are those of us who DON"T support this Administration constantly called unpatriotic and a an abundance of other names because of our views????

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:52pm
Merci!

Interesting board!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 1:59pm
Ok, I asked the question but what I am curious to know is how you have come to this conclusion? Do you have any sources or links that I can see that might support your claim? Oil you say? LOL, that one is old, and although some would like to believe it, it goes without actual accurate support or facts., just accusations to try and knock Bush again....why don't you try the new current accusation...it's sounds better if you keep current with the new liberal spin on things and what else they try and muster up. I think the new accusation is that he is a war monger with a personal agenda to finish what his dad didn't...no wait, that one is old too...I'll have to think about it, there has been so many, yet no facts behind it...

I would also like to know how you know what Bush was thinking? Or what his intentions were? Do you have links to provide support for that as well of is just your intense opinion? As for Kerry being wishy-washy...I haven't heard one consistant thing from him since he started running for Presidency.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 2:00pm
You're right, I'm new and I haven't read everything yet.

But about the 'justification' for the war with Iraq. You are mentioning issues with Saddam, not Iraqi people. And refusing inspections is something MANY other countries refused, not just Iraq. That includes North Korea and Israel. And we are in fact pretty darn sure they have WMD (nuclear and other). Should we bomb them too?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Thu, 06-17-2004 - 2:12pm
LMAO...ok whatever you say...LOL. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard so far.

Pages