Tone for Abu Ghraib was set at highest levels (Dallas Morn. News) WOW!

[UpInArms]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/061204dnedinavarrette.e905.html

Remember when the administration told us that the beatings, rapes and murders at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the isolated misdeeds of a few bad apples?

No such luck. What's gone bad is the whole orchard. In fact, the trail of apple juice goes all the way back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

<snip>

That's how Mr. Ashcroft feels about memos drafted by Justice Department lawyers in 2002 at the request of the CIA and sent to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. The memos aren't classified, but Mr. Ashcroft is treating them as such. He's ignoring demands by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he release them.

The memos – together with a similarly worded March 2003 report by lawyers at the Pentagon – were apparently part of a serious discussion in various quarters of the administration about whether one could justify the torture of enemy prisoners.

According to the memo, the answer is "yes." As has been reported in The Washington Post, one of the memos – numbering 50 pages – suggested that the interrogation of suspected terrorists might qualify for an exemption from existing prohibitions against torture as spelled out in international law. And now the administration seems to be insisting the memo itself is exempt from U.S. laws written to ensure the transparency of government, i.e., the Freedom of Information Act.

<snip>

Never mind the whole world. How about the American people? You know, the folks who pay Mr. Ashcroft's salary and that of every lawyer on his staff and who provide the budgets for the Justice Department, CIA and the White House counsel, and who – in a far more significant sacrifice – send their sons and daughters off to fight and die in wars in a world that is made more dangerous for combatants as long as torture remains in the interrogator's toolbox. For the sake of its own troops, the administration must state the obvious: that torture is a moral abomination not to be excused by civilized nations.

...lots more...

[wroberts189]

1. registration required (damn..) nt

[UpInArms]

3. here's a link that you will really enjoy

that fixes all those "registration required" sites:

www.bugmenot.com

[crossroads]

9. Thanks for that link!

Works wonders... :hi:

[cliss]

2. I came to the same conclusion

about 1 week ago, UIA. The more I looked, the more I was looking UP. I read some stuff about the GI's; read some more about the interrogators. Followed up with something about Brigadier General Karpinski, continued with reading about General Sanchez.... moved up the food chain to Steven Cambone and General Myers.....continued up to

Donald
Rumsfeld

George
Bush.

Those are the 2 who did it.

[UpInArms]

4. I've been doing some research on

memos from legal counsel and what has been released in "statements" from early 2002.

It gets really interesting - especially when you see that these "memos" all say that (paraphrasing) as long as they tie all their warmongering to "terrorists" they are absolved from all rules.

That's why they keep the 9/11/OBL/Al-Zahwari chatter running as hard as possible.

It's all a sham, but the shades are peeling off people's eyes.

[struggle4progress]

5. Whoa! The Morning News has always been a wingnut war-horse!

I remember it from the Nixon era as a conservative "he's our president so all patriots will support him no matter what" rag.

If the Morning News is kicking responsibility for Abu Ghraib up to Boy George and his band, then there must be a LOT of discontent out there.

[UpInArms]

6. the DMN has been a nasty piece

of wasted ink for as long as I can remember (I used to read it occasionally in the 80s) and I was astounded to see this in their editorial column.

I do believe that the pillars that have supported this mal-administration have collapsed.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. An exemption from existing prohibitions against torture?

I don't know of one.

From the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

What part of Article 2, section 2, do the neoconservatives not understand?

[UpInArms]

8. you know that they read nothing

that is printed from any source but their own - that would require more than a short course from Kindasleazy Rice.

[crossroads]

10. Damn, even *this* layman understands that... and I have been called...

dense at times... DUH... I at least thought it would be cloaked in 'lawyering' terms... :boring:
:shrug:

[Disturbed]

11. "There is a cancer on the Presidency."

This may be that cancer. Perhaps there is no cure and the patient will die before the election.

I cannot imagine how Congress can keep it's head up it's ass on this, any longer.

[Merlin]

12. Thanks for posting this, JR.

It needs much broader dissemination

[Merlin]

13. Chills registering with the newspaper that ran ad calling JFK a traitor.

The morning he was killed, the Dallas Morning News ran a full page ad calling JFK a traitor. It is very difficult to register.

But this is an important story. And the good news is the paper now permits a genuine liberal to write some of its editorials.

So I guess we have to all believe in the power of redemption... ?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Interesting development

in the land of conservatives.