PROOF that Bush SIGNED a directive authorizing use of TORTURE!

[ElementaryPenguin]

A fact that is not only onto itself an impeachable crime - but which without question qualifies Bush as a bona-fide WAR CRIMINAL!

The proof is in the language of the Dept. of Justice memo itself (found in the link below):

"any presidential DECISION in the current conflict (which they expanded to include Iraq) concerning the DETENTION...of prisoners would constitute a controlling EXECUTIVE ACT that would immediately and completely override any customary international law."

Since the White House and Justice Dept. are trying to use this "presidential DECISION", this "executive ACT" as legal cover for any potentially criminal acts performed by any subordinates (including Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld) - there is no way ANYONE makes a move without Bush's SIGNED directive in place! This directive has to exist and no doubt WILL ultimately service (likely, as this memo did - courtesy of a BushCo hostile CIA)! When questioned directly about this - Ashcroft would NOT say that such a directive did not exist. Clearly - it does - and it is a hideous smoking gun against Bush.

As you know, Justice Dept. and White House lawyers had concluded that international law cannot bind the executive branch (the president) under the Constitution, because it is not federal law - an opinion so radical that one legal expert yesterday characterized it as the legal equivalent of "declaring the earth is flat." Below are two links that absolutely annihilate the absurd suggestion that international law and treaties are not binding according to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/PentagonReportMarch.pdf

Here are two links (among many) that absolutely annihilate the absurd suggestion that international laws and treaties are not binding according the U.S. Constitution.


http://beautifulhorizons.typepad.com/weblog/2004/06/bush_to_the_us_.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4812581.html

Who knows - perhaps Chimpy may find himself sharing a cell with Milosevic! Perhaps the Busheviks would be well advised to break out those plans for attacking the Hague!

:shrug:

[LittleApple81]

1. Hoping beyond hope. It would be deserved but...I would settle for

getting them OUT.

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. The release of this doc should go a helluva along way

Toward achieving that result!

[bobbieinok]

5. assuming anybody hears about it - 24/7 on FAUX??? CNN???

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. You mean the RaygunMichaelJacksonScottPetersonKolbeBryant cable stations?

:argh:

[UrbScotty]

13. I bet it will be on voters' minds! (nt)

[samhonk]

3. Proof is a pretty strong word for this...

As soon as that presidential order shows up, that's proof. Until it does, the thing smells really bad, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it to stand up in a court of law. I sure hope the order is leaked or otherwise (legitimately) produced - this crap needs to stop.

IANAL - while I wouldn't say this proves * ordered abuse / torture, can it be construed as a conspiracy to do so?

[ElementaryPenguin]

4. This isn't definitive

Proof yet - but substantial enough inferences can be made already - the type of evidence that would be recognized in a court of law, let's put it that way. We shall see soon enough, I believe.

[F.Gordon]

6. It would take hours (that I don't have....)

...to sift through all the docs available. You would need to compare changes made by Bush* through Executive Orders to the original "law".

But here is a start....(I added bold)

November 13, 2001

Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be --
(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;
(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;
(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;
(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and
(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

And

Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense. Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

I also found docs that transferred power from the Sec. of Treasury to the Attorney General. Odd stuff. I read the above order as Bush* giving Rummy the freedom to do what ever the fuck he wants to do, but it is vague and Bush* outlines "humane" treatment in a through d.

[Tansy_Gold]

8. Am I the only one who sees this whole thing as an attempt to set . . . .

. . . . a precedent for the * administration declaring all federal laws, all treaties, all conventions, and all portions of the Constitution subordinate to any and all * executive orders?

In other words, is this an attempt by the booshies to set the stage for martial law, suspension of the November elections, and declaration of a hereditary monarchy?

I'm not usually much of a tinfoilhatter, but watching Auschwitzkroft slump and smirk and sneer at the Judiciary Committee hearing the other night, all I could think was, dear goodness, if he/they get away with this, there is no stopping the unilateral abolition of the entire legal framework of the United States of America as most of us have come to know it.

The context, of course, is "the war," and I wonder now just how much of "the war" they intend to keep alive and vital until the election. I think they understand that another major terrorist attack might not necessarily guarantee them a quasi-legitimate victory, although based on the reactions of the general populace after 9/11/01, who knows how craven the people of this country might become? Failure to produce another terrorist attack deprives them of the emotional response and leaves the door open; failure to produce, in this case, is not necessarily the same as success in foiling, if you get my drift.

Tansy Gold, who thinks too much

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. You deserve an award for best Ashcroft name!

ROFL with that one!

:yourock:

[Tansy_Gold]

11. ::blushing::

Thanks, EP.

Actually, I've been verbally calling him Auschwitzkroft since his confirmation, but it takes too long to key. It just seemed particularly appropriate for that post.

Tansy Gold, who began comparing boosh to Hitler in early 2000

(edited for typo)

[Straight Shooter]

10. You're not the only one

This kind of stuff scares the bejeezus out of me. It's the proverbial camel with its foot in the door. Next thing you know, the whole beast is in the tent. In this case, though, it's a chimp that's pushing its way in.

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. Justifiable public service kick (a non-Reagan thread!)

:dem:

[Karenina]

14. Kick!

:kick:

[Spazito]

15. There is NO doubt in my mind that an Executive Order was signed...

and, from the questioning during the Senate hearing with Rumsfeld, the Senators know it. No one, and I mean no one, from the bush admin has said it does not. They have circled around the question but have not categorically said no. That, to me, is the same as an admission that such a Directive exists.

[ElementaryPenguin]

20. Bingo! And when it surfaces along with the images of children tortured

BushCo is going to immediately be transformed into the Titanic!!

:mad:
:argh:

[Renew Deal]

16. kick

:kick:

[nomaco-10]

17. Maybe the rest of this country would be as thoroughly ...

outraged as we are if only they knew, but that would mean the the corporate whore media would have to take their heads out of reagan's ass and skimp on the coverage of the Scott Peterson and Kobe trials and the Murikan people would have to be willing to miss a few minutes of some Bachelor reality show to actually listen to the news.

[proud patriot]

18. OH YEAH !

:kick:

[Q]

19. Of course there is an EO or directive that exists...

...but don't expect the GOP-controlled congress or the 'loyal opposition' to have the nerve to demand it in an 'election year'. It's all about politics to these guys and they won't risk being accused of 'partisanship' during a 'time of war'.

- I believe your theory is correct. Bush* was quoted referring to the directive in several news stories...but he characterized it as a directive to 'follow the law'. I suppose he can say that knowing that the chances of anyone ever seeing it is pretty slim. After all...we're talking about a government that has classified everything that may tend to incriminate them and gotten away with it...so far.

[ElementaryPenguin]

21. I'm betting the CIA is going to leak it!

They obviously are at war with the Busheviks!