Pentagon Report Set Framework For Torture

[Theophylact]

This is from the Wall Street Journal. It's long, and I suggest you read it all. But let me highlight a few sentences (with my comments):

Quote:

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply.

The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."

The "Nuremberg defense" did not save several who invoked it from being hanged.

Quote:

A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said. Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were saying President Bush could claim.

[Joost]

"If this stands, Americans have no freedoms left that the President cannot take away at his pleasure."

Atleast, you guys are save for now.

Franklin would say.

[Whir]

Were there any that couldn't be taken away by various groups in the government to begin with? Granted, putting it all at the fingertips of one man is slightly worse, but the danger has always been there.

[George VII]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joost

"If this stands, Americans have no freedoms left that the President cannot take away at his pleasure."

Atleast, you guys are save for now.

Franklin would say.

That's why government exists in my opinion; to restrict certain freedoms. If there was no government than there would be no law, and any criminal could do as he pleased and not have to deal with the government at all.

[vass0922]

Quote:

Originally Posted by George VII

That's why government exists in my opinion; to restrict certain freedoms. If there was no government than there would be no law, and any criminal could do as he pleased and not have to deal with the government at all.

At what point is the government taking away rights to citizens that really the government has no right taking away?

Everyday they chip a little bit further into our privacy "in the fight against terrorism".. per this administration they've passed any law they want pretty much "in the fight against terrorism".

[Theophylact]

This was today's Washington Post lead editorial (I've emphasized the key paragraph):

Quote:

Legalizing Torture


Wednesday, June 9, 2004

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.

[Pexster]

I'm very curious to see how far Congress will push Ashcroft on the contempt of Congress issue for his outright refusal to respond to certain questions.

[Theophylact]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

I'm very curious to see how far Congress will push Ashcroft on the contempt of Congress issue for his outright refusal to respond to certain questions.

Well, you can't very well get a contempt citation out of committee without the chairman letting you. What do you think the chances are?

[Pexster]

Doh! Forgot to eat my Wheaties.

[Bill in SD, CA]

If there were direct evidence that a suitcase nuke was in the U.S. set to explode somewhere in the country and we had a suspect in custody I for one hope and pray that the government treat the suspect with all due respect and honor his rights under the Constitution.

It would be far more important in the long run ( especially in the eyes of history ) to be able to say the suspect was never tortured in order to find the bomb in time and have 300,000 Americans die knowing that their government took the moral high ground during his interrogation.

And I am sure the families of the victims, the horribly maimed, and those sickened and slowly dying from radiation sickness would most certainly be proud that the suspect was never tortured.

After all, we can't behave like animals can we?

What would the ACLU and Amnesty International say ( let alone the French )?

Long live the ACLU and Amnesty International!!

IMO.



Bill