TORTURE AND AMERICA..............

IS THIS, the American way!
__________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 4/02/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book .

http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362
___________________________
Article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
And Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=26895#26895 __________________________

In the name of national security and the war on terrorism should the presidents executive authority supercede our laws , international laws and human decency to allow George W. Bush to order eye gouging, genitalia cutting, slicing ,dicing and otherwise mediaeval torture of civilians that some bureaucrat has labeled at threat? Your thought? Mine is no, and he should be prosecuted.[trb]

LEAGAl JUSTIFICATION, EXCUSE, WHITE LIES, TO JUSTIFY TORTURE

The Justice Department late Tuesday released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government's legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants outside the United States. [b]

LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS OR CIVIL RIGHTS?

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques. [b]

AGGRESSIVE

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.[b]

WHEN US GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU ARE AN ENEMY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does "not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.":[b]

LIMITED OBLIGATION TO NOT HARM THE BODY: PULLING FINGER NAILS STICKING KNIVES IN EYES CUTTING OFF......GET THE POINT?

The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don't apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.[b]

HOW CAN TORTURE NOT BE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT?

It also defines the United States' obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other international treaties prohibiting torture to be confined to ensuring that interrogators do not apply "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined by American constitutional law, regardless of differing international standards.[b]

IT APPLIES TO OUR SOLDIERS BUT NOT THEIRS....

And it restates the oft-repeated view held by administration officials that the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war, does not apply to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.[b]

WE CAN SUBJECT CIVILIANS WHO ARE NOT OF OUR CULTURE TO PHYSICAL PAIN?

The memo also reflected Yoo's belief in that the executive branch had the inherent authority during wartime to obtain information by necessarily hazardous means: [b]

Call a stranger in another country alQaeda we can then pull his eyes out and its okay,some think.[trb]

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."[b]

It was during 2003, while the memo was operative, that guards and other military personnel committed the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, Iraq. The memo was withdrawn shortly thereafter, but before those abuses came to light.[b]

The memo was prepared by Yoo for William Haynes, then the Pentagon's general counsel and another key player in the administration's legal strategy. It was declassified Monday by Haynes' acting successor, Daniel Dell' Orto. Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.[b]

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to release the memo and others like it, had this to say Tuesday evening:[b]

It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress. [b]

The memo they have declassified today reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration. It is no wonder that this memo, like the now-infamous “Bybee memo†, could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn. Like the “Bybee memo†, this memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.[b] Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators See[w]

Memorandum: Part 1 (PDF) Memorandum: Part 2 (PDF) Our Congress has a duty to investigate the use of torture by the United States Government, punish those who have violated our laws to include George W. Bush, and change laws when they inadeuqately protect human rights. How hypocritical to protest any other governments failure to protect human rights until this duty is fulfilled.[trb]

Posted here by Terry Bankert ... http://attorneybankert.com/

Join my political party of preference, http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

--
[b] Baltimore Sun http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/justice_dept_releases_interrog.html [w] Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102213.html?wpisrc=newsletter

[trb] CAP headlines and comments of Terry Bankert http://attorneybankert.com/

46764/534

Sphere: Related Content