WTF

Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON - President Bush, 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 memo, drew condemnation from 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 memos prompted a fierce exchange in a congressional hearing, at which Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to release the documents while Democrats accused the Bush administration of undermining prohibitions on use of torture.

The administration says it observes the Geneva Conventions in Iraq 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.
"Our policy is to comply with all our laws and treaty obligations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"We have detained some dangerous al Qaeda terrorists. ... While we will seek to gather intelligence from these terrorists to prevent attacks from happening, we will do so consistent with our laws," McClellan added.

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

The March 2003 memo was written by a "working group" of civilian and military lawyers named by the Pentagon'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.
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 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 of Human Rights Watch.
"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.

I guess all's fair in love and war, as they say. Sort of like the French not honoring our NATO alliance. The president must do what is in the best interests of the nation, not what is considered politically correct. The bottom line is, we are not governed by international law. We are a sovereign nation and we cannot let outside influences jeopardize our national safety and security.

I guess all's fair in love and war, as they say. We are a sovereign nation and we cannot let outside influences jeopardize our national safety and security.

hmmm, so Iraq was not a sovereign nation? and what is it now?

I guess all's fair in love and war, as they say.

Right, like depacitating civilians on videotape.

I guess all's fair in love and war, as they say. Sort of like the French not honoring our NATO alliance. The president must do what is in the best interests of the nation, not what is considered politically correct. The bottom line is, we are not governed by international law. We are a sovereign nation and we cannot let outside influences jeopardize our national safety and security.

I guess Joe Biden is wrong when he mentioned in the Senate hearings yesterday that the reason we have restrictions is to hopefully stop others from torturing our troops. We have international agreements that we agreed to... not for our enemies but for our own troops. (Of which his son is in the military) I believe.

Again, I love when we forget things and remember others only when they are convenient. When American bodies were dangling from bridges we asked how anyone could torture our people like that and then we reduce ourselves we say (and I am not saying what we did is the same thing, but in their eyes they are the same). Hey we don't have any international law. You may be aware that the U.S. has NATIONAL and MILITARY laws against this kind of thing as well. Or at least we did...

This guy said it better than I could:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003046

"To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that. "

King George indeed. No surprise that Steam and his ilk are not bothered by this. Totalitaritans love this kind of stuff.

Anyone who believes in the rule of law and democracy should be sickened by the attitudes and ideas behind this argument. The President is a citizen, and NOTHING can give them the power to set aside the law because they feel it is justified. Rule of law, rule of law!

Oh, but wait, that rule of law stuff is only something they SAY when it suits their purposes, not something they actually BELIEVE in. Decide the goal you want, then pursue it by any means necessary. Decide the finding you want and twist the data to make it seem to fit. The ends justify the means.

Sedition act, re-education camps, next stop. After all, if the president wants it, he can set aside any laws that would get in his way.

"We are a sovereign nation and we cannot let outside influences jeopardize our national safety and security."



That's funny. Didn't Hitler and Stalin say the same thing ?

I guess Joe Biden is wrong when he mentioned in the Senate hearings yesterday that the reason we have restrictions is to hopefully stop others from torturing our troops. We have international agreements that we agreed to... not for our enemies but for our own troops. (Of which his son is in the military) I believe.

Again, I love when we forget things and remember others only when they are convenient. When American bodies were dangling from bridges we asked how anyone could torture our people like that and then we reduce ourselves we say (and I am not saying what we did is the same thing, but in their eyes they are the same). Hey we don't have any international law. You may be aware that the U.S. has NATIONAL and MILITARY laws against this kind of thing as well. Or at least we did...

I love how you still use the word "hopefully!" LOL! Two video taped beheadings, tortured troops by the iraqis in both wars, the bodies dangling from bridges you mention, all point out that HOPEFULLY is a moronic word to even be muttered by a senator who should know better. we are fighting animals, pure and simple. they even believe their prisoners will be tortured if captured and fully plan on torturing anyone they capture.

I love how you still use the word "hopefully!" LOL! Two video taped beheadings, tortured troops by the iraqis in both wars, the bodies dangling from bridges you mention, all point out that HOPEFULLY is a moronic word to even be muttered by a senator who should know better. we are fighting animals, pure and simple. they even believe their prisoners will be tortured if captured and fully plan on torturing anyone they capture.

Fighting animals while slowly morphing into a H.G. Wellsian form of our enemies how nice, that certain fits the White House public rhetoric.

Fighting animals while slowly morphing into a H.G. Wellsian form of our enemies how nice, that certain fits the White House public rhetoric.

its a war.

its a war.


In a war your object is to kill them all and let god sort them out.

This is not a war because we want to win their hearts and minds. So you cannot act like it is a war and expect them not to hate you. That is the conundrum. If you want to make it war fine. Then kill them all "pave paradise and put up a parking lot." Just don't pretend and lie to me about spreading freedom.

In a war your object is to kill them all and let god sort them out.

This is not a war because we want to win their hearts and minds. So you cannot act like it is a war and expect them not to hate you. That is the conundrum. If you want to make it war fine. Then kill them all "pave paradise and put up a parking lot." Just don't pretend and lie to me about spreading freedom.

i dont know who "they" are that you assume i dont expect to hate us. for the most part, all of the middle east already did. if youre advocating greatly accelerating the force with which we are prosecuting the war, them i am with you.

The war is not with the common Arab. It is with the terrorists that hide in the dark recesses of their society. You and everyone else know that. Why try to make of it something else? The ultimate responsibility of the president is to preserve the nation. I don't believe that trying to extract information from certain individuals in any way places what we hold dear at risk. It may however save many more lives than it costs and may preserve our republic at a lesser cost that most would be willing to pay. So the worst that can be said of it is, it's a shortcut.

"It may however save many more lives than it costs and may preserve our republic at a lesser cost that most would be willing to pay. So the worst that can be said of it is, it's a shortcut."

Didn't Hitler say this also.

The difference is in the ultimate goal. Hitler was a great mind but he was also a madman. He didn't see anything other than his own glory. I don't believe Bush and Hitler have the same intent or vision, yet the same tactics can be used for two entirely different reasons and objectives. One could be fore personal gain and glory and one for a truly benign and noble objective. Trying to compare the two situations without understanding the intent is not just.

i dont know who "they" are that you assume i dont expect to hate us. for the most part, all of the middle east already did. if youre advocating greatly accelerating the force with which we are prosecuting the war, them i am with you.
I thought one of the main reasons we were there were to liberate them from their opressors? Since they didn't find WMD that is pretty much the only reason left. If they hated us and didn't want our help then why did we depose Hussein in the first place? The neocons seem to pick and choose the reasons to justify this war based on the lies of the day.

The difference is in the ultimate goal. Hitler was a great mind but he was also a madman.

Wow, not that I support any role models stated above, but I have to agree with Steam on this.

Bush and Hitler are different. Bush is not of a great mind ;-)

"I don't believe Bush and Hitler have the same intent or vision"

Hitler's vision was for the glory of "Greater Germany"
Bush's vision is for the Glory of "Greater America,"

"Trying to compare the two situations without understanding the intent is not just."

Yes it is,
If you condone war crimes, you are the same as Hitler and Stalin, no matter what the intent.

Wow, not that I support any role models stated above, but I have to agree with Steam on this.

Bush and Hitler are different. Bush is not of a great mind ;-)
Bush's version of the SS troops are though. Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy et al.

Bush believes a Greater American can only be achieved when most of the rest of the World are free as we are. I don't believe that was Hitler's credo. Again, just saying they are the same, doesn't make it so.

Is this the "smoking gun" for a war crimes trial.
1) Bush approves torture for Iraqi prisoners
2) Iraqi prisoners are tortured.

1+2 = 3 3= Go directly to jail, do not pass Go.

Just as Free as We Are.

Hmmm. Do you truly believe you are free? Free to perform state-supported activities, while others are vehemently VERBOTEN?

Pullleeeeze.

"Free to do as we say", was Hitler's Motto.

What do you want to do that you are prohibited from doing? Smoke at work? Carry a gun? Drive an SUV? Most of the 'liberties' you claim we have lost are due to 'liberals' (strange term for people who want to tell us all how to live our lives) making them illegal and or socially unacceptable.

"I don't believe Bush and Hitler have the same intent or vision"

Hitler's vision was for the glory of "Greater Germany"
Bush's vision is for the Glory of "Greater America,"

"Trying to compare the two situations without understanding the intent is not just."

Yes it is,
If you condone war crimes, you are the same as Hitler and Stalin, no matter what the intent.

war crimes?! what a hoot! show me your war crimes. panties on somebodys head, what a crime. i have to hand it to you, you can stretch a lizard into an alligator with ease.

while youre at it "greater america"? hitlers intent was annexation and colonization. name one country the u.s. has ever been at war with for territory gain or colonization. you cant. we're giving iraq back to its people as a nation void of the maniac that once ruled there.

Let's see.... How 'bout Spain.....How 'bout Mexico......How 'bout the American Indian Nations ?

Ps. How 'bout England.

I thought one of the main reasons we were there were to liberate them from their opressors? Since they didn't find WMD that is pretty much the only reason left. If they hated us and didn't want our help then why did we depose Hussein in the first place? The neocons seem to pick and choose the reasons to justify this war based on the lies of the day.


there are two trains of thought there. one radical the other not. just like here. one hates the other doesnt. no picking and choosing, just dealing with it as it is.

the wmd thing is still not settled, although there is enough evidence to convict. trust me, there will be more.

there are two trains of thought there. one radical the other not. just like here. one hates the other doesnt. no picking and choosing, just dealing with it as it is.

the wmd thing is still not settled, although there is enough evidence to convict. trust me, there will be more.
Sounds like someone is partaking in more than his fair share of the record POPPY crop coming out of Afghanistan this year.

Sounds like someone is partaking in more than his fair share of the record POPPY crop coming out of Afghanistan this year.

wow, how original. claim drug use when you dont agree. that elevates the discussion.

wow, how original. claim drug use when you dont agree. that elevates the discussion.

That is all I can see since you seem to dismiss the presidents own people (David Kay, Colin Powell etc.) in your reasoning.

Bush believes a Greater American can only be achieved when most of the rest of the World are free as we are. I don't believe that was Hitler's credo.
Yes "free" as we are. Putting a righteous face on world domination was indeed Hitler's credo.

Let's see.... How 'bout Spain.....How 'bout Mexico......How 'bout the American Indian Nations ?

Ps. How 'bout England.

you fail on spain, mexico and england. the indians had it coming. they were just squatters.

you fail on spain, mexico and england. the indians had it coming. they were just squatters.

You are beneath debate.

For 1,2,&4......................Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ....Where did you go to school ?
For #3....You're just being a troll........

Oh, I just wanted to ask one question for all of us freedom minded folks who really are at the core of our American value system:

Have you ever been shot at by another person whose intention was to kill you?

Otherwise, blow it out your a55. Big talk+no action =utter crap :o

Alot of judgemental folks here who ironically felt empowered to let me know that lists are bad and I should just be ashamed for being so negative and only seeing the bad in people. Boo hooo boo hoo. BUT comparing an illiterate president to some of the sickest minds in history, yuh, thats popular and makes you a media *****.

If you want to draw comparisons to Hitler or Stalin, thats fine. As long as Stalin fought the fascists we called him Uncle Joe. The little one balled freak from Austria was a loser. Yup, he was pure hate,a sick mind, but guess what folks:

Torturing folks in a prison aint 30+ million dead. I dont care how many photos you have. The buck stopped on Trumans desk, you know the commander in Chief, you might remember him right? Well golly gee, why not hold someone accountable for their actions, oh my goodness, looks like another assertive set of actions to perform.

Too much, must get to bike...........

Nice speech, bill106

"Free to do as we say", was Hitler's Motto.
Hitlers slogan was Kopfen werden rollen. Heads will roll. Your mis quote is a joke and why I dont really care if your opinion is different than mine.

The Idian nations as you call them should have been left alone and Iagree, yes, number 105 is a bit off on the squatters statement. As to war crimes: Check out the fact that there was no convention on genocide until 1967, so, nothing else really bad happened before that right? In Fact everything was just swell until this administration. Sure.

Look, I did not vote for the prick OK? However, my personal choices are set aside whn you issue edicts about list makers and then, gee, killing and torturing prisoners versus smoking ~30 million folks, same thing? NO

Should he (the president)be censured, sure. Impeached? NO, he did not have oral relations with an intern, so, torturing prisoners is OK. (BAD SARSCASM) . You seem to hate the uneducated making bad decisions and comparisons. Thats fine. Just dont do the same thing yourself. Otherwise, you wont make the list (so ^%&%&%^ what!) :rolleyes:

The war is not with the common Arab. It is with the terrorists that hide in the dark recesses of their society

so why are we beating and humiliating average iraqi citizens? 3

war crimes?! what a hoot! show me your war crimes.

does murder count? it's funny, we want to hold iraqis, al-qaeda and taliban members accountable for crimes under international law, but don't believe those laws apply to us ourselves. then why should they apply to others?

there are either international laws that we must follow, or there aren't. you can't set them aside just because you find them inconvenient.

and the abuse story just keeps getting better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/09SOLD.html?ex=1087358400&en=fcdcebb72b746d21&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Army Now Says G.I. Was Beaten in Role
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 9, 2004


OUISVILLE, Ky., June 8 — Reversing itself, the Army said Tuesday that a G.I. was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Army had previously said Specialist Sean Baker's medical discharge in April was unrelated to the injury he received last year at the detention center, where the United States holds suspected terrorists.

Advertisement


Mr. Baker, 37, a former member of the 438th Military Police Company, said he played the role of an uncooperative prisoner and was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and seizures. He said the soldiers only stopped beating him when they realized he might be American.

Bruce Simpson, Mr. Baker's lawyer, said his client is considering a lawsuit.

so why are we beating and humiliating average iraqi citizens? 3



does murder count? it's funny, we want to hold iraqis, al-qaeda and taliban members accountable for crimes under international law, but don't believe those laws apply to us ourselves. then why should they apply to others?

there are either international laws that we must follow, or there aren't. you can't set them aside just because you find them inconvenient.


If you want to use International law OK.

IF, you are a plain clothes person, IF you also have a weapon in a combat area, and IF you use that weapon against the armed forces you are now a target , you are no longer a civilian.

So, why hurt the average Iraqi citizen? I dont know if there was a predestined idea of doing that. I agree there is no excuse none at all. Again, if you hide among civilians, shoot from a crowd of civilians, you can only guess what will happen.

BUT, remember, the media wants to sell its own wares too. This is hardly great journalism here. What should happen?

Alot of careers among senior officers need to end and yes: Jail time. I would also include a censure as well to the president. Would I impeach the President, not yet.