Bush & Rumsfeld Out of Control
Find a Conversation
| 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
Saddam went against the UN and it's laws, attempted to asassinate Bush Sr. when in Presidency, and slaughtered his own people. These are things he did, not might do.
I haven't heard this analogy before, very good. But before the patient listens to the doctor, he must respect that the diagnosis will be correct. The US has become so arrogant that they dismiss the Dr. opinion. I think many in the world are trying to help the US correct their international position. Unfortunately, humility is foreign to this administration.
Good point. The precedents made by the attack on Iraq are downright scary to me. Not getting UN approval, attacking without PROOF that he had WMD or had anything to do with 9/11, prisoner torture, to name a few. The image of the US is getting "soiled", and now if the US can do it and break the laws, then now everyone will feel justified to do the same.
Would Japan had been justified to do a large-scale attack on the US mainland since the US DID HAVE (not to mention DID USE) the ULTIMATE WMD - nuclear weapons??? After all, if they had attacked the US, it might have saved hundreds of thousands of japanese lives - assuming it would have destroyed the US nuclear facilities... Think about it, the one country who has ACTUALLY used the most powerful weapons of mass destruction is the US. Talk about a double standard! Some people will naively say 'but it saved lives to use nuclear weapons'. Did it really? Who's lives? Certainly not japanese lives! Was there really no alternative? Most historians say that the war would have ended soon without it. If 'saving lives' is a justification, then it's the justification for ANYONE to use WMDs, now isn't it!
Hmmmm, can you spell hypocrisy?
Sorry, even though I'm not prepared to debate the history of WW2, I just couldn't resist that one.
Interesting ...
"Bush" went against the UN and it's laws, attempted to asassinate "Saddam" when in Presidency... not to mention Bush Sr sold Saddam the chemicals to gas iranians, did nothing when he did the gassing, gave him millions, helped him become the dictator of Iraq. Yep, the Bushes are pure as white!
Did you know that George W Bush has a criminal record? He was arrested for theft, drunk driving, and also for cocaine use/possession(that was expunged by friends of Bush Sr.). Really nice guy! I would not hire a worker for my house with that kind of record! And please don't ask me for links. I don't have the time. Just do a google search and you'll find the info.
I happen to feel very sorry for Colin Powell. I have tremendous respect for the man and being the excellent soldier that he is, and patriotic American, his hands are tied and he more or less is obligated to obey his Commander in Chief. I think that he has been placed between a rock and a hard place in this administration and my opinion is that he has been forced to do and say things that go against his better judgement. My opinion of Powell is based upon the fact that I read his autobiography. I do beleive that he is "not a happy camper" within the administration and hasn't been since long before he had to publically justify this bogus report. I think he is staying there merely out of duty and perhaps to try and do his part to reign in this out of control administration and for that, I'm extremely grateful.
Since you do believe in mistakes why can you not believe that this administration has committed a great many of them. I am not convinced either way about these errors being politically motiviated but that is beside the point. Leaders of the most powerful nation on earth who happen to be currently waging a war should not make that many mistakes. Whether it is corruption or just plain incompetance doesn't matter in the long run (well it DOES matter). It's results that matter in the end and if the administration keeps on making such huge and costly errors it might be time to get rid of them or in the very LEAST, look at them with the more objectivity.
<>
This is indeed opinion and we can respectfully debate our differences in opinion on this issue. I, and many others think that the War in Iraq is playing its part in increasing terrorism against the USA worldwide. That was my opinion in the very beginning and until I see some actual facts (not error filled reports) that show otherwise, I will continue to hold this opinion.
:o)
Your post got me thinking. I certainly think that our foreign policy is based on what is best for America. But by "American" interest, politicans mean Amerian political interests, not the peoples interest. I have watched time and time, when the US becomes involved and interfers with the internal affairs of other nations--without understanding the circumstances, it seems that what was a good political idea at point A, turns out to be a disasterous idea at point B. Given this the question arrises: Should we simply stop interferring for any reason--I think they call that political isolationism? Can we even do this with a globalized economy? Then when atrocious actions happen in the world and there is a call for involvement, should just ignore the call for help? Recognizing that to get involved, when you don't really understand what's going on we are risking a negative outcome. The question is answered by, what is America's interest? The decisions, bother me because I think we should take a broader view; what's in America's interest today may be against America's interest tomorrow. The fact that we don't have a over-arching policy, means we are swayed by emotion not reason. The problem I see with American Foreign Policy is that our government is not set up to establish long-term far-reaching policies. America is always in flux.
Because this is a reason that makes sence to America. We are proud of our country and believing it is the best in the world, it makes sense to think others would be jealous. Admitting that the terrorist had reasons for the attacks would set the them outside the illogical, emotional appeal to an evil event.
Perhaps not, but the way you phrased your paragraph it is certainly reasonable for a person to infer a collusion.
<>
Have you checked the news lately. The links are becoming less and less supportable.
Pages