 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:00 AM In a refreshing distancing from the President, the Washington Post has come out in a strongly-worded editorial completely condemning the legalistic rationale for the use of torture written in a brief for the Administration by legal aides and recently leaked to the press. It is as though the character flaws of the Gang at the Top are becoiming so scurrilous and blatant as to be obvious even to jaded and bleary professionals at the Post. A vote of thanks to the Washington Post, sez I! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:56 AM Here's the last of the four paragraphs:
Thanks for posting this link, Amos. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:21 AM It's a good editorial, and it's good they printed it. It's hideous that the government has sunk so low that it's needed. I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying to find words for my shame and disgust and I can't. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Ellenpoly Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:23 AM Amos, would it be possible for you to either copy the editorial here, or PM it to me? You have to register to see it and I'm really not wanting to put my personal info yet again online for prying eyes...thanks in advance..xx..e |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Metchosin Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:50 AM If it's any consolation Clint, from someone who is not a citizen, I've always admired the American ability to air its dirty laundry and the courage of its Fifth Estate. IMO no other country in the world can hold a candle to the US when it decides to "go for it", in that regard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Greg F. Date: 09 Jun 04 - 07:50 AM jeeze, folks- this "don't want to register" business keeps coming up- you doknow you can MAKE UP PHONY INFORMATION to use to register for these newspaper & other sites, & also make up a phony e-mail convenience address (also using phony information)at one of the web-based e-mail services like Yahoo, softhome, or dozens of others. Takes about ten seconds. If you really must,use cookie manager/eliminator software(plenty of free ones out there), or delete manually, sign in each time & you're home free. I mean, a healthy amount of paranoia is fine & useful, but........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Ellenpoly Date: 09 Jun 04 - 08:07 AM I just get tired of going through the whole damn process, Greg. I'm not that paranoid, and I do know how to lie. I just get TIRED of doing it, that's all..xx..e (But never mind Amos. You did your bit, and if I want to read it, I'll do mine.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Ellenpoly Date: 09 Jun 04 - 08:27 AM (article from Washington Post) Legalizing Torture Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A20 THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a matter of grave concern because the use of some of the methods that have been reported in the press is regarded by independent experts as well as some of the Pentagon's legal professionals as illegal. The administration has responded that its civilian lawyers have certified its methods as proper -- but it has refused to disclose, or even provide to Congress, the justifying opinions and memos. This week, thanks again to an independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers, they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture. In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but refuses to disclose. There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of "national security." For decades the U.S. government has waged diplomatic campaigns against such outlaw governments -- from the military juntas in Argentina and Chile to the current autocracies in Islamic countries such as Algeria and Uzbekistan -- that claim torture is justified when used to combat terrorism. The news that serving U.S. officials have officially endorsed principles once advanced by Augusto Pinochet brings shame on American democracy -- even if it is true, as the administration maintains, that its theories have not been put into practice. Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees. Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." What if the foreign interrogator of an American "knows that severe pain will result from his actions" but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should. © 2004 The Washington Post Company |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: GUEST Date: 09 Jun 04 - 09:27 AM So, is Ashcroft in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over the legal memorandums that were requested in yesterday's hearings? And I have to admit, I wasn't aware of the fact that Ashcroft had not appeared before Congress for 15 months!!! So, who was failing the oversight procedures that are the Congress' constitutional duty--the Congress, or the administration? One thing is certain, the ways that this administration is trying to transform our constitutional system of checks and balances, and division of constitutional authority, is frightening to say the least. It is obvious this administration is doing all it can to write Congress out of the picture, and create an exclusively executive government. By the way, just what is John Kerry's position on the torture thing, anyway? Does anyone know what, if anything, Kerry has said about all this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Bill D Date: 09 Jun 04 - 10:22 AM and to top it off, here's Wash Post's editorial cartoon for today (Tom Toles is becoming a quite worthy replacement for Herblock!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Jusitfication of Torture From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 04 - 10:36 AM I like that Toles fella! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM thanks, Metchosin for the kind words. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:44 PM This is part of what I posted on another thread, before I discovered this one, where it is, perhaps, more appropriate: While channel-surfing last night, I happened upon the Senate hearings with John Ashcroft on CSPAN-2. It became obvious during the questioning, especially Ashcroft's refusal to answer certain questions and refusal to provide copies of the memos in question (despite that fact the some of the senators already had copies of the memos, leaked to the press, in hand), that torture of prisoners is a matter of Bush administration policy. Asked if he was invoking executive privilege, he said he was not, but he still refused to answer. When told that if he was not invoking executive privilege, he was legally required to answer, he still refused. He was also threatened with charges of contempt of Congress, but he still refused. He obfuscated and equivocated, talking all around the subject, but he didn't answer the senators' questions. What he wouldn't say spoke volumes. He could give dancing lessons to Michael Flatley. It was evident that many of the senators, including Republicans, were thoroughly disgusted. Small wonder. The stench was overpowering. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:00 PM Impeachment seems in order. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: GUEST Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:41 PM The closest Ashcroft came to justifying his lack of cooperation was this whopper: If we make public the methods we use to torture prisoners then Al Quaeda and others will train their people to resist these forms of torture. No one had asked him about the methods of torture, only to state whether this administration thinks torture is OK. He was clearly in contempt of congress but, since the republicans (ie. Orrin Hatch) control the committee, nothing will happen and Ashcroft knows it. Bevand Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: DougR Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:03 PM If you folks weren't so anxious to witness a hanging (Bush, Rumsfield, Ashcroft)you would not have to spend so much time gnashing your teeth and pulling your hair out over something like this subject. IF you watched the testimony AG Ashcroft presented to the Senate committee, you are aware that Ashcroft made it quite clear that the president HAS NOT approved of using torture to gather information from the suspected terrorists. What you are getting so exercised about is typical lawyer stuff. Lawyers are paid to write briefs and that's what's involved here. A subject is examined by lawyers and the brief points out the "can do's and can't do's." Since no one, other than federal officials, have seen them, I really don't know how anyone can comment on them. Even the Washington Post! As to countries possibly subjecting captured U. S. personnel to physical torture if our guys are not "good" guys, that may be true. However, we are not fighting a war against a "country." It is a war against terrorists with no central government. What would happen to our troops if captured by the terrorists was made pretty clear when the young man from Pennsylvania had his head severed from his body a few weeks ago. Who's going to clamp down on the terrorists and force them to adhere to International law? Well, who? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Don Firth Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM Doug, I watched the proceedings as I said, and it was not at all clear to me "that Ashcroft made it quite clear that the president HAS NOT approved of using torture." Nor, obviously, was it clear to the senators. They kept asking the question and Ashcroft kept tap-dancing. He did not answer the question. He made nothing clear, except that he would not cooperate. Of course, since I find the idea of Americans torturing prisoners disgusting and reprehensible, that, ipso facto, makes me a "flaming liberal," hence biased. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."Furthermore, you ask, "Who's going to clamp down on the terrorists and force them to adhere to International law?" You think torturing terrorists is going to encourage them to abide by International Law? I wonder what it will take to get the Bush administration to abide by International Law. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:13 PM "Who's going to clamp down on the terrorists and force them to adhere to International law? Well, who?" Sometime close to 1970 I talked with a Young Republican who couldn't see why the police have to obey the law when the criminals don't. Give up Doug? It's because the police aren't supposed to be criminals. We are not supposed to imitate the actions of Al Qaeda. Americans are supposed to be different. We would have been wrong to set up extermination camps for Nazis after WWII, even if they had extermination camps themselves. We could probably have tortured a confession from that young lawyer on the west coast who was jailed because of a misread fingerprint found at the Spanish train bombing. Would that have been ok with you? After all, the terrorists who bombed thje train have no respect for law, and the FBI positively identified the fingerprint. For a while. For long enough to have done a lot of damage to him. And it may well have been "typical lawyer stuff," but what kind of government asks its lawyers to justify torture? clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Amos Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:35 PM What you are getting so exercised about is typical lawyer stuff. All white collar crime is composed of typical lawyer stuff. That's why it is called "white collar" crime. Your boy-o the resident is a past master at it. At least with his team along he is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:53 PM It should be noted that it appears quite possible that the beheading of Nick Berg's body was done after his murder, after he was dead, strictly for shock value. Still a shocking act, but nothing like as heinous as if it were done to a living being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Jun 04 - 05:12 PM "...Ashcroft made it quite clear that the president HAS NOT approved of using torture." He didn't - he asserted that. The expression "made it quite clear" carries an implication that the person making the assertion is to be believed. That's maybe an implication too far. Or would it have been fair to write that "President Clinton made it quite clear that he had never had any sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM And here is a piece about it carried in today's issue of that raving left-wing publication, The Financial Times - Dismay at legal justifications for torture With this thought provoking quote by "Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale University's law school and a former US assistant secretary of state": "The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide." Mind you there are probably lawyers in the pay of the Bush administration who would have no difficulty in putting together a legal justification for precisely that, if they haven't already. After all, there are precedents enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Bill D Date: 09 Jun 04 - 09:37 PM once more...what they have done is to obfuscate the issue and dilute the responsibility until (with the exception of a couple of obvious scapegoats) NO one can be shown to have said. "Go torture those guys!", and if anyone misunderstood the rules, why they can be absolved on the grounds that they meant well ...and only had the best interests of Democracy in mind ...and it was wartime...and besides, they had their fingers crossed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Bobert Date: 09 Jun 04 - 09:40 PM Other than the torture, what bothers me maost about the recent revelation is the pattern of *lieing* on the Bush administrations part. They go to the Supreme Court and tell Justice Kennedy that they willlive up to all international agreements and then brak them, then lie about it and when caught lie some more and then when confronted with producing documents that might expose the lies they pull a Nixon on us!!! Ashcroft, who clearly is not only in Contempt of Congress but in Contempt of Humanity as well says "screw you, commies, you ain't getting nuthin' but what I want to give you..." I wish the Democrats had the backbone to push to have Ashcroft (and possibly Bush) held in Contemp of Congress, for there is no doubt that both are guilty to the bone... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Bev and Jerry Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:46 AM Doug: Ashcroft said no such thing. We watched the hearings twice (which may say more about us than about Ashcroft) and all he would say, over and over again, is that Bush did not authorize anything which would violate the constitution or any other law or international treaty. He would not state whether or not torture was a violation. If some lawyer says torture is legal then Ashcroft is telling the truth. But he still didn't answer the question of whether or not Bush authorized torture or even if he, Ashcroft, approved of torture. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Jun 04 - 04:56 AM Doesn't torture count as "cruel and unusual"? Cruel, "obviously - "unusual", well, we can but hope it still is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Don Firth Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:21 PM Here's the way it works, Doug: George W. Bush will never be mistaken for an intellectual, but he isn't stupid. I doubt that he would be foolish enough to explicitly authorize torture. The word "torture" probably never came up during discussions of interrogations at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere. At one point, Bush quite probably said something like "Do whatever you need to do." Either that, or he stood by silently when someone else said it. This way, he could always say that he did not authorize torture and that indeed he was horrified that people might interpret his instructions that way. That's politics, Doug. But here's where it's at: "According to a March 2003 Pentagon memo, Bush administration lawyers issued legal justifications for torture, specifically claiming, 'President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law.' The revelations have now forced the President to backtrack from his previous denials of culpability, with the White House admitting for the first time that Bush did, in fact, 'set broad guidelines' for interrogation in Iraq—a tacit admission that Bush himself 'opened the door' to the torture tactics in the first place." Perhaps Bush was not as politically savvy as my suppositions above assume he was. This would be more consistent with John Ashcroft's uncooperative and evasive behavior before the Senate committee. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:44 PM "Do what is necessary" "Time to take off the kid gloves" "You know what to do" - coded instructions are easy enough, whether it's torture or genoicide. But the bottom line is, if you are in command, and you fail to move decisively and promptly to stop atrocities carried out by your subordinates, just because there's no paper trail showing you ordering the atrocities, that doesn't get you off the hook. That failure to act is sufficient to mean you are guilty. Unfortunately, though the law on such matters is supposed to be the same for victors or losers, it only gets applied against losers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Bill D Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:57 PM Between Don Firth and McGrath, they have stated the situation pretty succinctly. With enough obfuscation and Gerrymandering of the memos and statutes, they can cloud the issues until it is VERY difficult to sort out where the responsibility lies. Lets just hope enough of the public sees what is happening to vote the &$%**@@ out of office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Deckman Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:01 PM and the beat goes on ... Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM And the beatings go on.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Deckman Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM And ... the constant frustration of it has just about got me beat! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Chief Chaos Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM Beats! Nature's Candy Don't Ya Know! I wish someone had the guts to go at the administration like they went after Clinton. Not because I like Clinton but because I see so much that is, has or will go wrong from here on. Hopefully I and my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and coasties never have to face obviously brutal treatment at the hands of some countries leader, backed by a bunch of ambulance chasers just looking to get paid for justifying whatever the leader wants them to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 04 - 08:08 PM McGrath: but Clinton DID lie. Don: When questioned by Ted Kennedy or his buddy, the bald-headed guy to his left (can't remember his name) Ashcroft SAID specifically that the president had not approved torture. I heard it as plainly as you did not! The argument presented that we should not torture prisoners because our soldiers, if captured by the terrorists might also be tortured just doesn't hold up. We KNOW the terrorists would torture and likely kill any of our soldiers captured and to deny it is simply wishful thinking. I do not think our prisoners should be tortured. George Bush doesn't either. Ebbie: he was just as dead one way or the other, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Jun 04 - 09:42 PM Right, Doug. So that phrase "...when the young man from Pennsylvania had his head severed from his body a few weeks ago..." was just typical catchpenny grandstanding on your part, as I thought when I read it the first time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: dianavan Date: 10 Jun 04 - 10:12 PM DougR - and we still don't know who is guilty of the murder, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 10 Jun 04 - 10:50 PM "McGrath: but Clinton DID lie." as does GWB, dougR. you'll recall i cited a specific instance in the "Popular views of the bush admin." thread in response to your challenge in the same thread and you have still never responded to it. obviously you don't care to converse about your error-filled thinking. or would you look up my citation and still respond at this late date? ball's in your court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 04 - 11:09 PM Clinton lied about his personal sex life; Bush lied about international war and chaos. Decide for yourself which was more destructive. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:00 AM Clinton did indeed lie, and he wasn't the first President to do so, and he won't be the last. The point is, the fact that some prominent person says something is the case does not always mean that it is the case. If Ashcroft was seeking to conceal the true facts, he was not in any way "making it clear", he was doing the reverse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: Bobert Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:12 AM The thing most striking about the current batch of concoctions by the Bush folks is that while they would like to be legally able to use torture, that they haven't done it because they are in compliance with "all" (ha) international law??? Yeah, go figure... I reckon we have all imagined these pictures all over the front pages of our newspapers??? (But, Bobert, those acts were carried out a small minority of folks who thought it all up on their own. Why don't you spend more time dwelling on all the wonderful things that are happening in Iraq as a result of the US invasion and occupation?) Ahhhh, will all those who believe that the US is not tortueing folks please raise their hands... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Post Slams Bush Justification of Torture From: CarolC Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:25 AM Who's going to clamp down on the terrorists and force them to adhere to International law? Well, who? How the hell can you enforce international laws by using tactics that break international laws? The answer, if you can't figure it out for yourself is... you can't. Once the enforcers of laws break the very laws they are supposedly enforcing, there is no law. At that point there is only authoritarian rule by whoever is the strongest and most ruthless. Hmmm... sounds a bit like Saddam's Iraq. You can't protect people from something by becoming the thing you are supposedly protecting them against. |
