Bush not restricted by torture bans...

[HKRockChick]

what's one more law to break?

[MIKE BURN]

Quote:

---

Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans



Tue Jun 8, 6:49 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



By Will Dunham



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites), as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by U.S. and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.



The 56-page memo to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war," overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture.



"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," stated the memo, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.



These assertions, along with others made in a 2002 Justice Department (news - web sites) memo, drew condemnation by human rights activists who accused the administration of hunting for legal loopholes for using torture.



"It's like saying the Earth is flat. That's the equivalent of what they're doing with saying that the prohibition of torture doesn't apply to the president," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.



Media reports of the two memos prompted a fierce exchange in a congressional hearing, at which Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) refused to release the documents while Democrats accused the Bush administration of undermining prohibition on use of torture.



The administration says it observes the Geneva Conventions in Iraq (news - web sites) and other situations where the treaty applies and that it treats terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in a way consistent with the spirit of the accords.



The March 2003 memo was written by a "working group" of civilian and military lawyers named by the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s general counsel.



It came to light as the Pentagon reviewed interrogation techniques used on foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid concerns raised by lawyers within the military and others about interrogation techniques approved by Rumsfeld that deviated from standard practice.



"It may be the case that only successful interrogations can provide the information necessary to prevent the success of covert terrorist attacks upon the United States and its citizens," the memo stated.



"Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield," the memo stated.



The memo labeled as unconstitutional any laws "that seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States."



The memo offered numerous explanations for why U.S. officials and military personnel were immune from bans on torture under U.S. and international law. The memo recommended a presidential directive from Bush allowing for exercise of this power by "subordinates," although it remained unknown whether Bush ever signed such a document.



"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts," said Tom Malinowski, Human Rights Watch's Washington advocacy director.



"They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Malinowski added.



Amnesty International called for a special counsel to investigate "whether administration officials are criminally liable for acts of torture or guilty of war crimes."



Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld in April 2003 approved 24 "humane" interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, four of which required Rumsfeld's personal review before being used. Whitman said 34 techniques were considered by a working group of Defense Department legal and policy experts before Rumsfeld approved the final list.



"None were determined to be tortuous in nature (by the working group). They were all found to be within internationally accepted practice," Whitman said.

---

[DreamTone7]

Very inciteful (not insightful) topic title, Mike...if untrue. Are you sure you don't want to change your name to something like "Disturber of the Peace"?

[MIKE BURN]

If you follow the included Reuters news article link provided above, you'll find out that I used the original headline of the news article which is...



"Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans"



...except of "Memo Says...".



Where's your problem? Does this make a big difference?



Do you have a reality problem?



I just wanted to avoid that the the thread title becomes too long and truncated, the message still is the same especially when reading the REUTERS news article in full.

[DreamTone7]

First of all, I was just jerking your chain...if you understand the meaning of that.



Second, yes, it does make a big difference. People who are already inflamed towards anything that has the name "Bush" on it will read it as if it means "Bush not restricted to torture bans"...which is exactly how you wrote it. Not that there was a memo suggesting that he might not be restricted to torture bans. HUGE difference. The first is stated as a reality, while the second is merely a proposal. So, to answer your question, the reality is not a reality when it is only a proposal.



Third, if it was your intent to get a round of "Bush-bashing" going, you could not have done a much better job at it than by editing the title in the way that you did. So, Mike...was this just a coincidence?

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Not that there was a memo suggesting that he might not be restricted to torture bans.

---

It was a memo cited in the March 2003 Pentagon policy paper and it stated that the president’s broad wartime national security authority may override anti-torture laws and treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, in certain circumstances.



OIW 'the rules that we enforce do not apply to us'



This memo cited in a policy paper says that the president doesn't have to obey the law.



To me it seems the persons behind it are totally in the dark of what the USA is supposed to be about.



The right way to do it would be to get support to change the law, not to circumvent it.



Well, who needs democracy anyway?

[DreamTone7]

Nice try, Galmin...you're always right there with a negative slant on anything American. (Too bad you can't slam American music...or you'd have to give it up all together!)



There is a difference between referencing a memo in a policy paper and having the memo included into the policy paper as part of it. I don't believe as yet that Bush has even signed it...he had not at the time of the article Mike references. It was presented as one of the options to the president...who probably put out a call for all options available to him. I would have done the same as he...I would want to know what options are available. Any prudent leader would. Now if he actually signs this policy, things could get ugly.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Nice try, Galmin...you're always right there with a negative slant on anything American.

---

Oh, that's right. I lurk looking for every chance to hit with a negative slant on anything American, therefore I say things like "To me it seems the persons behind it are totally in the dark of what the USA is supposed to be about".



Now can you for once in your life try to keep a civil discussion with me without your preposterous accusations?

Quote:

---

It was presented as one of the options to the president...who probably put out a call for all options available to him.

---

Ah yes. Makes perfect sense.

-Ok, I want a list of all my possibilities outside the law.

[DreamTone7]

All usually means all...doesn't it? And I will note for future reference that you don't understand what means. My apologies.

[NRKofOver]

Dream, shouldn't all Americans be a bit concerned with the tactics being used against the prisoners held at Gauntanamo, especially in light of this particular evidence?



The real question isn't Bush's legal responsibility in this matter, the question is:



Do you believe that the President has the right to treat prisoners of war outside of the standards set by the Geneva Convention and law?



If you say 'yes', then this article is of no consequence.



Many of us Americans believe that the United States has an obligation to set the standard of behavior for everyone around the world, because we believe that we have the potential to be the greatest country in the world. Some of us believe that we can set the best example of any nation at any time throughout history. Obviously this 'memo' goes against such idealism and disturbs me, especially with the knowledge that much of what this administration has done with Al-Queda prisoners in Cuba, which is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and American law. That bothers me more than some lawyer deciding from a legal perspective that it should be 'ok'. It's ethically a problem, not legally.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

To me, the memo itself is not disturbing...but the president buying into it would be. The president's aids and assitants have an obligation to bring to light all possibilities, including unethical ones. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is only in recent years that the media has had it's nose into everybody's business...at times, to the detriment of the ability of the government to function as efficiently as it could. The president buying into this would be alarming, to a certain extent, from an ethical perspective...and not an action that I would agree with. However, since the terrorists have never signed the Geneva convention, I would not consider the United States legally bound in any way to follow it in it's treatment of prisoners. Aditionally, terrorist prisoners could all be considered spies...if one where to use the articles of the Geneva convention to help define what role they are playing in this war. Treatment of spies within the convention articles includes execution. Difficult to call either way since they do not answer to any known government, nobody is officially responsible for their actions except themselves, and the Geneva convention was obviously not written with terrorists in mind or it would have more clearly included a definition for them within its articles. So, legally, it's a difficult call to make. Ethically, a simple one.

[DreamTone7]

I should note one more thing. All forms of interrogation that have currently been approved by the US government for the prisoners at Gitmo fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

All usually means all...doesn't it? And I will note for future reference that you don't understand what means. My apologies.

---

1, All means all. Granted.

2, I am fully aware of what means and to add to a personal attack in a totally redundant line doesn't nullify it.

One may smile and smile etc....

Quote:

---

There is a difference between referencing a memo in a policy paper and having the memo included into the policy paper as part of it.

---

What would be the use of referencing a memo including wild ideas of illegal activity if it is not policy?

To show an example of how "not to do it"?

Is there in fact a slim chance that interrogators and military interpreters, commanders of prisons, etc through the added memo in a policy paper could believe that laws that forbid torture do not apply?

Why include text from the memo to a policy paper in the first place?

Quote:

---

The president's aids and assitants have an obligation to bring to light all possibilities, including unethical ones.

---

Unethical? How about illegal? There is no court of law in the free world that can charge you with a crime solely against ethics. There is no mention in the memo that restricts the presidents "proposed" carte blanche to terrorists belonging to a specific organisation.

[DreamTone7]

If you consider what I wrote a personal attack, then, for the record, you do not fully know what means.



I will not apologize twice.





How is it illegal? Show me where terrorists are governed by the articles of the Geneva Convention...and then show me those articles. They're not there and you know it! It's like two parties with only one signing the contract...unless the other signs, there are no obligations.

[Galmin]

There is no mention in the memo that restricts the presidents "proposed" carte blanche to terrorists belonging to a specific organisation.