Did Bush Have Right To Order Torture?

[Crewleader]

Lawyers Say Yes

check out the survey...:crazy:

http://www.wesh.com/news/3394105/detail.html?treets=orl&tid=265481477813&tml=orl_7am&tmi=orl_7am_1_06000006082004&ts=H

[dpbrown]

1. So do 55% of respondents to the poll

I hope everyone hops onto that poll and changes that.

[Crewleader]

2. I hope so too

look at the mind-set of these people...
The Geneva Convention should always be used...it's what America represents

but we all know what Bush represents!

[Hubert Flottz]

3. We should torture Rush and see if he's lying about his dope!

Put that on TV and it would outdraw American Idol!

[Jacobin]

4. Sure!! He had permission from Gawd

All things are possible when yer on a Crusade!!!

:-(

[JCMach1]

5. not only that, it basically gave the pres. a green light

to ignore ALL laws as they relate to national security.

Poke all the fun at the tinfoil-hatters if you like, but this constitutes a shadow government: one that works completely outside of the U.S. Constitution.

[MisterP]

35. I recall that they already composed one in 2001-02 already,

"in case something happened" to the "non-shadow" Emperor and pals

[GreenArrow]

6. might

makes right.

[kentuck]

7. Good morning Crewleader !

Interesting topic. :)

[Crewleader]

13. Good Morning to you

kentuck...Hubert and JMach1.
Also those that posted on...and DUers that read the thread.:hi:

I'm reading my e-mail this morning and found this message from my local TV newscenter...I just find it alarming along with the survey.
Of course it must be freeped..it's hard to believe people would say yes to that, liking Bush or NOT!

[Az]

8. Ask the opposite question

Do foreign powers have the right to torture US citizens?

[daa]

16. Apparently so according to chimpy nt

[Crewleader]

17. Geneva Convention

should be used but not all foreign powers will...but we live by rule of laws not a dictator who says yes to torture...he shamed America by doing so!And only made it worse for our soldiers when captured.

[MisterP]

36. * gave the OK to the Holy Mossad to kill U.S. citizens, I believe

there were many on DU demanding that we thank them for it...

[Sinistrous]

9. Note that those were bush junta "lawyers', not normal human beings. n/t

.

[themann1086]

10. Bush's legal team

sent him a memo saying the same thing. Here's the scariest quote from a WSJ article on it: 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." (emphasis mine).

I must have missed that section of Article II...

Check out http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086610719>Phillip Carter for more.

Why isn't this making headlines?!?! O. Right. Reagan died.

[Az]

11. Which of course raises the question

What the heck were they looking into whether they could torture or not? Are we back in the dark ages already? I thought it would take longer than that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. NO

[BurtWorm]

14. They said the pres has "inherent consitutional authority" to order torture

According to the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?hp

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

[Az]

15. To sumarise: Bush is above the law

This basically says that torture is illegal but Bush can get away with it because of lack of ability to prosecute the president.

[htuttle]

18. Well, that flies in the face of nearly 60 years of international law

According to this opinion, not only are certain people apparently 'allowed' to order war crimes by virtue of their office, but those that actually carry the crimes out would be immune, since they were just following orders.

It's as if Nuremberg never happened!

:eyes:

I can't believe the world will let this stand...Okay, given the experience of the last 3 years, I guess I could believe it...

[BurtWorm]

20. It also flies in the face of US Constitutional law

The US was supposed to be a bulwark against monarchy. The constitution was a document respecting the universal rights of man. The Bushists are the antithesis of the enlightenment humanism inherent in the making of the Constitution. Impeachment and conviction would be a mercy to them.

[kentuck]

19. "..the final set" ??

"Spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said that the final set of interrogation methods adopted for use at Guantanamo in April 2003 are humane, legal and useful."

[1monster]

21. WESH TV Channel 2 is

Orlando, Florida.... :eyes:

[Crewleader]

22. true... but there's Buddy Dyer

one great Democratic Mayor of Orlando! :-)

[1monster]

25. Hey, I'm Floridian too. Just sometimes I get bummed out by all the

stupidity (or is it hardening of the arteries) in this state. I don't believe that it is the majority, but it is the most vocal. That and the corporate interests which have taken over the state in a drive to develope every tiny bit of land (even land that is under water) to wrench every last cent out of it that they can. Florida used to be Paradise. Some bits still are. I wish we could those that way.

I remember when WESH was was headquartered in Daytona Beach...

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Absolutely not

The memo in question is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture. The United States is a party to both agreements.

The willful circumvention of these conventions is a war crime for which an international tribunal can and should be established to prosecute Mr. Bush and other ranking officials of his administration.

[Crewleader]

24. Jack Rabbit

thank you for your post friend...:hi:

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Hi, Crew . . .

!!

[jokerman93]

33. plain and simple n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

45. To correct my post from this morning

It's actually three agreements, since I am referring to both the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions as well as the Convention against Torture.

The term "unlawful combatant" is not used in either document. If one is not entitled to POW status, then one is a protected person. There is very little difference between how a POW and a protected person is to be treated. Of course, torture is not be be exercised on either a POW or a protected person. In fact, torture is pretty well prohibited against anyone.

[stavka]

26. The UN treaty on Torture

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, 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 or war, internal political instability 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.

[stavka]

27. ....but what about the Geneva Convention you ask?

Geneva Convention Article 17

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."


Just what Law are these lawyers looking at?

[stavka]

28. ...It must be the US Code

Section 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.


DAMN IT!, That's not it either!

[Az]

29. The lawyers are basing it on the notion of not being able to prosecute

A sitting president. An impeachment can be called for but this simply is removal from office. The President cannot be directly tried for anything.

[themann1086]

31. haha!

yeh... I have no idea what they are looking at. Even better was that "inherent authoriy" of the president to set aside the laws. I checked my Constitution, and that's DEFINITELY not in there.

[Generic Other]

30. What about US code, War Crimes Act of 1996?

which according to CIA agent Ray McGovern "makes it a crime punishable by death to rescind from or to ignore or to exempt people from the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war."


Link (plus mp3 audio): http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/03/1626202

[Crewleader]

32. check out survey

:kick:



http://www.wesh.com/news/3394105/detail.html?treets=orl&tid=265481477813&tml=orl_7am&tmi=orl_7am_1_06000006082004&ts=H

[Disturbed]

34. If 100% of American approved of torture...

it would NOT circumvent the LAW!!!

CONTEMPT for The American People!!!


CONTEMPT of The Constitution of the USA!!!





What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."


This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
* Seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
* Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm


If this is not followed through and then to the Supreme Court and that court approves of a President having the power to ignore the Genenva Convention and other bodies that outlaw torture which the US govt. signed onto then the conclusion will be that the USA is no longer a Representative Republic but a Dictatorship!

[Spazito]

37. That on-line poll allows you to vote multiple times without even

cleaning your cookies. It means less than nothing.

[TexasSissy]

38. I'm sure he thinks so.

[opihimoimoi]

39. Those Pesky Pubs are into rationalizing their desire, short term gain,

long term loss.

They know better but are too much in Denial and Arrogance. ...Giving them "License" for bad behavior.

These guys are EVIL. What goes around comes, someday, might be sooner than we think, OUR People will be Tortured for the same reason we torture them.

The Pub President walks around like John Wayne, but Bush is no hero, nor a good leader. Bush is NOT a John Wayne

:hi: Crew, hope your hands are mended.

[Crewleader]

53. Hi Opihi

Bush Is No Leader...Bush Stinks! :hi:

[Catfight]

40. Doesn't anyone see what is wrong with this question?

[Crewleader]

51. exactly

my take...to even ask such a thing!

[nomatrix]

41. No according to global policy

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

click
Other Prisoners

"Taguba discovered that guards have also videotaped and photographed naked female detainees. The Bush administration has refused to release other photographs of Iraqi women forced at gunpoint to bare their breasts (although it has shown them to Congress) - ostensibly to prevent attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, but in reality, one suspects, to prevent further domestic embarrassment. Earlier this month it emerged that an Iraqi woman in her 70s had been harnessed and ridden like a donkey at Abu Ghraib and another coalition detention centre after being arrested last July. Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who investigated the case and found it to be true, said, "She was held for about six weeks without charge. During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey."

[nomatrix]

42. More on the women "prisoners"

"The women appear to have been arrested in violation of international law - not because of anything they have done, but merely because of who they are married to, and their potential intelligence value. US officials have previously acknowledged detaining Iraqi women in the hope of convincing male relatives to provide information; when US soldiers raid a house and fail to find a male suspect, they will frequently take away his wife or daughter instead.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, whose devastating report on human rights abuses of Iraqi prisoners was delivered to the government in February but failed to ring alarm bells, says the problem lies with the system. "It is an absence of judicial guarantees," says Nada Doumani, spokesperson for the ICRC. "The system is not fair, precise or properly defined."

[nomatrix]

43. Torture "commonplace" says inmates families

Victims

"Relatives, however, insist that the majority of "security detainees" are innocent, and claim they are often victims of random arrest following attacks on coalition forces. Either way, the images of torture and humiliation would merely serve to fuel the armed struggle against US occupation, Majid al-Salim, the brother of the imprisoned sheikh, said.

"The Americans are driving people into the arms of the Maqawama ," he said.

"We now look back at Saddam's era with nostalgia," he added. "He was a good leader.

There was security. We hope he comes back."

[nomatrix]

44. Anyone ready to eat dinner?

Under Bush, he make the Iraqi people yearn for Saddam.


Under Bush, he makes the U.S. yearn for Reagan.

[bloom]

46. Like I care what his hand-picked lawyers say!...

or what any other ones who say it's ok say - for that matter...

[bloom]

47. and another thing...

I hate how they are trying to influence public opinion with these headlines. I don't know how many times I've seen such articles in the last few days - but that is all I think it is.

"Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush" so that make it OK?

It is ludicrous.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. It depends on how you define torture...

There are certain techniques such as sleep deprivation that I don't think are all that inhumane, but attaching electrodes to peoples' genitals and sodomizing them is wrong. Resorting to such methods of torture would be setting us back to the pre-englightenment days.

[David Zephyr]

49. Thanks, Crew. I Voted.

Thanks for the update. The results aren't that good.

[donhakman]

50. He has declared he is not bound by laws

He is subject to a higher law, God's law. He said he has been selected by God to do things.

[Crewleader]

52. Hi David Z

yeah I see...someone said it's allowing multiple voting.

I like what I seen tonight on Lou Dobbs when Joe Biden went after Ashcroft about the torture, his son is in the military and John's too. He's afraid for our soldiers having the same treatment now this has happened in Iraq.

Good seeing you friend! :hi:

[David Zephyr]

54. I Saw Biden and Kennedy Crawling All Over Ashcroft on C-SPAN

Sweet!