Dismay at attempt to find legal justification for torture

[JoFerret]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445559016

Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale University's law school and a former US assistant secretary of state, went to Geneva in 2000 to present the first US report on its compliance with the UN 1994 Convention against Torture. He says he told the global gathering the US was "unalterably committed to a world without torture".

This week's revelations that Bush administration lawyers had sought to find legal justifications for torturing terrorist detainees have left him dumbfounded.

"They are blatantly wrong," he says. "It's just erroneous legal analysis. The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide."

Mr Koh is one of the small community of top international lawyers who say they are more shocked than anyone at what their profession has wrought. Scott Horton, past chairman of the international human rights committee of the New York City bar association, says the government lawyers involved in preparing the documents could and should face professional sanctions.

"There are serious ethical shortcomings here," he says
<more>

[Lorien]

1. A snip:

Harold Hongju Koh, deanof Yale University's law school and a former US assistant secretary of state, went to Geneva in 2000 to present the first US report on its compliance with the UN 1994 Convention against Torture. He says he told the global gathering the US was "unalterably committed to a world without torture".
Advertisement

This week's revelations that Bush administration lawyers had sought to find legal justifications for torturing terrorist detainees have left him dumbfounded.

"They are blatantly wrong," he says. "It's just erroneous legal analysis. The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide."

Mr Koh is one of the small community of top international lawyers who say they are more shocked than anyone at what their profession has wrought. Scott Horton, past chairman of the international human rights committee of the New York City bar association, says the government lawyers involved in preparing the documents could and should face professional sanctions.

[Hoping4Change]

45. They are all so profoundly ignorant, they have no ability to

discern their own stupidity. They listen to anyone who spouts neocon bullsh*t. The fuckwits are stupid enough to buy into their propaganda but now their chickens are all coming home to roost.

[ewagner]

2. As soon as Reagan is buried

This is going to be a major story.

We'll see more and more law professors expressing shock and outrage over those memos........

[JoFerret]

21. And we will see Ashcroft et al

twist themselves into pretzels trying to slither out of their responsibility. Honor and dignitude time.

[goforit]

3. Well thank you for your opinion Mr. Koh!!!!...Hope those S&Krs won't

harass you for being bold!!!

[bloom]

5. When lawyers can't oppose torture without being harassed

it's time to wear sackcloth clothes and mourn in the streets.


My (lawyer) husband got a reply (to a his reply to a mass email) saying he was a "damn freak" for opposing torture and Bushes* war of lies (from another lawyer).

[indigobusiness]

7. This whole debacle has held a mirror up to our society...

...the reflection ain't pretty.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Should had replied to the torture supporter with...

then you must support torturing little old women and defenseless children.

[Mokito]

34. Why state the obvious?

[goforit]

37. So the insanity runs in all levels......The line is now drawn.

I'm sorry your hubby has to deal with these morons.
I say ya gotta fight fire with fire.

And so be it.

[struggle4progress]

4. The *&co morons have been sabotaging important work ...

done through several generations of international diplomacy.

[KoKo]

6. So, I guess Chimp & Cheney will blame the lawyers for bad advice, the

Military for acting on the bad advice, and Chalabi and the CIA for Bad Advice about WMD, Greenspan when the Economy implodes and whomever else they can blame except themselves.

How long can this all go on? :grr:

I really wish Ruppert's article was correct and this group will be removed before the election, because I don't know what we will have left
come November at the rate they are going. And, to think if they lose the election they still have two months to go afterwards to wreak havoc on us and the rest of the world is just horrifying

[Mechatanketra]

9. Blame, unlike common matter, is infinitely divisible.

The thing about the torture situation is that blaming "bad advice", even if it's true, doesn't get you off the hook. After all, the lawyers only told them it was legal -- the decision that it was a desirable course of action remains theirs alone.

To illustrate: if I'm arrested for robbing a bank, I can hardly use "But so-and-so swore I wouldn't get caught!" as a defense, can I?

[central scrutinizer]

13. Did * ASK for the advice?

You wouldn't ask for advice on torture if you had no intention of torturing anyone. Whether the advice was bad or not, it is difficult to spin that fact. So all of Bushco's protestations about torture are very hollow and obvious lies if they did indeed request legal opinions on torture.

[Just Me]

14. If he's consistent (which he seems to be) he ordered: find a way,...

,...to make it happen. That's how he and the rest of his cabal operate.

If laws "get in the way" of what they seek to accomplish, they just find a way around them or through them or in spite of them.

They are quite Machiavellian.

[LiberalFighter]

26. Along the same line as...

if you know the answer to the question is not what you want... don't ask.

[TankLV]

30. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner folks!

THAT is the Million Dollar Question.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

Go to the head of the class.

All other discourse as to who, what, why, etc. is just useless blather.

[Toots]

24. Remember though that he PROMISED to surround himself with

smart and able people to give him sound advice. That is why so many people voted for him. Not because he was brilliant, people understood he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer but because of the "smart" people he would surround himself with. They were to be the "Adults" in charge for a change. What is that old saying fool me once yada yada yada.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Isn't that interesting...

he is a moran and says that he will surround himself with smart and able people...

Was he smart enough to surround himself with smart and able people?

or

Was he smart enough but wanted to surround himself with corrupt smart and able people?

[struggle4progress]

8. kick

:kick:

[thebigidea]

10. geez, I read that as "Disney attempts to find legal justification for..."

[JusticeForAll]

47. OMG I did the same thing!!!!

I'm bustin' a gut right now...thanks for the laugh!

[Edmond Dantes]

11. The Yale Law School Connection

You know, it's a funny thing....

Dean Koh of Yale Law School is all upset over this torture business.

Yet it was Yale Law grad JOHN YOO ('92) who co-authored at least one of the relevant legal memoranda in his capacity as Deputy Asst. Attorney General of OLC.

Another Yale Law grad, JESSELYN RADACK ('92), worked in DOJ's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office and tried to stop the violation of John Walker Lindh's legal rights. She was forced out of DOJ and then forced out of her law firm job. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003151.html and http://brownalumnimagazine.com/storyDetail.cfm?ID=2308 I wonder if Yale Law School came to her defense or whether the institution let her twist in the wind.

Yet another Yale Law grad, SUSAN SWIFT ('82?), a woman who worked in OLC in 1992, tried to blow the whistle on this practice of contriving legal opinions to suit the needs of the President. DOJ investigated her on trumped-up ethics charges, tried to fire her, and later arrested her for allegedly threatening the OLC Asst. Attorney General. The personnel and arrest records were later expunged -- but her legal career was destroyed in the process (although rumor has it that she's still employed at DOJ, in the Civil Rights Division). I wonder if Yale Law School came to HER defense.

Ironically, Yale Law School invited alum GEORGE ELLARD ('83) to speak on ethics matters, as he had served in DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility. But Ellard himself had been investigated by the Deputy Attorney General's Office for using his OPR position to extort sex from a female DOJ attorney who had been investigated by his office, OPR.

Apparently Yale Law School needs to take a hard look at how it teaches ethics, how it fails to support grads who courageously lay their careers on the line trying to do the right thing, and de facto supports ethically-challenged attorneys like Yoo and Ellard.

[Edmond Dantes]

22. Correction regarding Ms. Radack

She graduated from Brown undergrad in '92. Probably graduated from Yale Law School in '95.

Radack now has her own website at http://www.cradl.info. It includes numerous links to media reports about her situation. Very interesting reading for anyone curious about how DOJ REALLY works.

This poor woman probably saved John Walker Lindh's life and DOJ is now persecuting her -- just like they persecuted Swift.

OF SPECIAL NOTE: If you click here: http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1608157 you can listen to NPR piece about Radack/Lindh. I almost went into cardiac arrest when I head JOHN YOO being interviewed as part of this piece. Even though he had already left his post at DOJ, he criticized Radack -- a fellow Yale Law School alum -- for taking a principled ethical stand.

YOO makes me sick. :puke:

Don't forget to tell YOO that you disapprove of his legal opinion and his unfounded attack on Ms. Radack. [e-mail]

[berry]

32. I agree completely about Yoo, but would like to defend Koh if I may.

Harold Hongju Koh didn't become dean of Yale until fairly recently. He worked at the State Dept under Clinton and, among other tasks, was involved in trying to help Aristide and Haiti. Also he apparently worked on the anti-torture conventions. His father was one of the leading lights of the democratization movement in South Korea. He really is one of the good guys.

I do agree about Yale's responsibility to support grads (and others too) like Radack. And to denounce Yoo, et al. I suspect Koh would gladly receive letters about this, and use them for ammunition in any disputes that may arise. I'm neither a lawyer nor a Yale grad, but I know a few Yale Law grads and I'm going to urge them to weigh in (though they already may have done so--the ones I know are the sort who would).

[Edmond Dantes]

33. Actually, I have nothing whatsoever against Dean Koh.

You are correct that he is a new dean. And he has, in fact, been speaking out against the torture memoranda. It is my fervent hope that he also speaks up in support of people like Radack and Swift--people who laid their legal careers on the line trying to do the right thing.

Radack, in particular, is in need of institutional support right now. I hope Koh publicly gives her his unqualified backing.

Former Dean Kronman did not back Radack or Swift as far as I know. Extremely disappointing.

[berry]

36. Thanks for the reply.

I do know that even "good people" may need a nudge or a push to do the right thing. I was very glad to be informed about Radack and Swift. And I consider myself nudged now to at least write some letters and even write to Koh myself. (I don't know him, but know several people who do, so could easily introduce myself.)

So thanks for the information!

[Edmond Dantes]

44. And thanks for prompting me to clarify ...

... that I do not in any way hold current Dean Koh responsible for this current legal mess. I don't know him, but I've heard nothing but good things about him.

If you write to Dean Koh, please do encourage him to throw Yale Law School's full support behind law grads such as Jesselyn Radack and Susan Swift, who insist on compliance with legal ethics under the most trying circumstances. That may make it easier for other YLS grads to do "the right thing" in the future, thereby setting a good example for the rest of the legal profession. This is no small matter.

Jesselyn Radack's website is www.cradl.info. I'm sure she would appreciate a few words of encouragement from someone such as yourself. I've never met her, but I do know that woman has been through hell over the past 2 years.

[samhonk]

12. One point...

"It's just erroneous legal analysis. The notion that the president has the constitutional power to permit torture is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide."

Well, the way that "inherent in the President" memo was written, * is legally entitled to commit genocide too.

[Cocoa]

15. don't give Ashcroft any ideas

...is like saying he has the constitutional power to commit genocide."



Jay Leno actually had a pretty spot-on joke about the Ashcroft testimony. The punchline suggested the Bushies are going to end up in front of a war crimes court.

[Miss Authoritiva]

16. This will not happen. Not Bush or Cheney, or any cabinet

members, or any senior-level civilian or military people will face war crime prosecutions. At the very best, some disposable middle-level people will be sacrificed. And even that is unlikely.

The reason is this: too many countries are too dependent on the US for financial, military, and humanitarian aid and too dependent on favorable trade deals.

In essence, their votes against prosecution already have been bought and paid for.

[koopie57]

35. Do you think this will be true

if bush and co get voted out of office? Once they are out of office, I think no one will have the time of day for them anymore. They will be damaged goods that carry a big stink. At least I think so, but I'm not the brightest bulb in the bunch.

[nolabels]

46. We know, they would rather they be dead first

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_052504_Galland,00.html
Unanswered Questions About a Military Leader's Sudden Death
Unanswered Questions about a Command Sgt. Maj. James Stacy"s Sudden Death
05/21/2004 14:34

On Jan. 2, 2004, Command Sgt. Maj. James Stacy "Rock" Adams, the senior enlisted leader of the scandal-scarred 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, was found dead in his apartment in Wiesbaden, Germany.
He was only 43 years of age, and he had been the battalion CSM since September 200
(snip)
Provance has alleged that a massive cover-up exists in an effort to conceal the truth in the Abu Ghraib prison investigation. Stating, "There's definitely a cover-up," young Sergeant Provance has likely sealed his fate and certainly ruined his career as a soldier. He has also asserted that all the stops are being pulled out to protect the senior leadership in Iraq (see "U.S. Soldier Alleges Cover-Up in Prison Abuse," Agence-France Presse, May 18, 2004)

In press releases this past week, Provance spilled the beans, even though he had been cautioned by the senior Military Intelligence investigator, Maj. Gen. George Fay, not to do so (see "Army 'Covering Up Serial Prisoner Abuse' Says U.S. Soldier," The Scotsman, May 19, 2004). Fay is the senior military intelligence general who has been assigned by the Pentagon to investigate the role of military intelligence in the abuse allegations.

While interviewing Provance, Fay actually threatened the young sergeant if he spoke out. Fay asserted to Provance that he could punish him for not speaking out earlier about the abuses at the prison earlier. It looks like this courageous sergeant has called Fay's bluff.

Essentially, Fay is investigating his friends and professional colleagues, including senior Iraqi commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Sanchez' top MI subordinate, Maj. Gen. General Barbara Fast, 205th MI Brigade commander Col. Thomas M. Pappas, and certainly others at the top. The results of his high-level investigation, punctuated by his threats to Sgt. Provance and probably others, should make very interesting reading. A major general threatening a sergeant is a censurable offense not far removed from a physical threat. In the real world of major general to sergeant relationships, this was indeed a threat!
(snip)

[nolabels]

48. And another important link

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2811
The Torturers
New revelations expose the corruption at the heart of Empire
– Justin Raimondo

(snip)
After the initial wave of Abu Ghraib photos came out, I thought I was beyond shock, but this new revelation goes well beyond anything imagined in my worst nightmares. If we are now measuring degrees of evil, then this is the absolute variety.

The fallback position of the administration and its media amen corner has so far been that the Abu Ghraib atrocities were the exception, the work of a few isolated individuals, and in no way representative of American policy regarding the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. But this is becoming untenable in the face of new revelations, including the news that the White House requested specific intelligence from Abu Ghraib. Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, one of four individuals held chiefly responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison-house of horrors, told Army investigators that the White House had requested information related to "very sensitive issues." The White House spin machine argues that Jordan's testimony is so "broadly stated" as to be practically meaningless. Good try, but this defense is already unraveling due to the retrieval of Abu Ghraib torturer Joe Ryan's online diary, which reveals that, whatever the specific information was, it certainly pleased the White House:

"The other big news at work was a message sent to us from Ms. Rice, the National Security Advisor, thanking us for the intelligence that has come out of our shop and noting that our work is being briefed to President Bush on a regular basis. Now if we could declassify some of it in order to shut up these people who say we have no business over here, that would be the best day!"

I agree with Joe: let's declassify Condi's commendation to the sadists of Abu Ghraib, so it can be entered as evidence in her upcoming war crimes trial. Put her in the dock with Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neocon gang, and broadcast the trial worldwide. That's the only way we're ever going to regain even a modicum of credibility, and not only in the Arab world
(snip)

[Edmond Dantes]

17. kick

:kick:

[struggle4progress]

18. and once more

:kick:

[Jose Diablo]

19. There is a stench at Yale

It is the stench of 'old money' obtained on the misery of slave and opium trade. Money made by the genocide of 50 million indigenous people of America. Money made by the current merchants of destruction of our Republic, for their profit.

Must not dig too deep into the graves of crimes long in the past. We may find the old crimes are at the foundation much of the current crimes.

American aristocracy is as bad as European. Beauty is after all only skin deep. Must not insult the 'beautiful' people, our current 'elites'.

A repeat of France may be overdue. It is after all, our 'elites' that have declared this class war. Should we give them what they ask?

We want to be sure though, we do not confuse the mere possession of wealth with the true source of the stench.

Flush the toilet please.

[tedzbear]

49. Sign me up for the revolution.

I'm more than ready to see our first lady and her "beautiful minded" mother-in-law burn at the stake (using pages of the Wall Street Journal for fuel).

:kick: :bounce: :nuke:

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

20. I don't subscribe to the Financial Times

Thanks for posting the gist of this article nonetheless.

[UpInArms]

23. early links to torture approved by Bush

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/0/690C5D7C862F056B87256B4E006E5B6E?OpenDocument

(from January 26, 2002)

Powell urges POW status
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked President Bush to reverse the president's position on al Qaeda and Taliban detainees and declare them prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

A four-page internal White House memorandum obtained yesterday by The Washington Times shows that Mr. Powell made the request and that the president's National Security Council plans to meet on the matter Monday morning.

"The secretary of state has requested that you reconsider that decision," White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote yesterday in a memo to Mr. Bush. "Specifically, he has asked that you conclude that GPW does apply to both al Qaeda and the Taliban. I understand, however, that he would agree that al Qaeda and Taliban fighters could be determined not to be prisoners of war (POWs) but only on a case-by-case basis following individual hearings before a military board."

The memo provides a rare glimpse of a major dispute inside the Bush White House on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Powell wants the president to reverse his position. But Mr. Gonzales and most, if not all, members of the president's national security team are urging him not to retreat, according to the memo.

Mr. Bush decided Jan. 18 that hundreds of Taliban and members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda army are detainees, not prisoners of war, and thus not subject to rights in the Geneva Convention. Human rights groups and some European politicians have protested the decision and have been especially critical of the living conditions for 158 detainees at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

...more...

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/0/ADC3603DD3AB3B3E87256B4F006DD71D?OpenDocument

Bush and Powell split over captives' status

David Teather in New York

January 28, 2002
The Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, stepped into the row over the treatment of Taliban and al-Qaida captives in Cuba yesterday when he said they would not be given the status of prisoners of war.

In a visit to the controversial camp at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Rumsfeld, who has been an outspoken defender of the base, said there would be no question of the Bush administration reversing its decision on the detainees. "They are not POWs, they will not be determined to be POWS," he said.

His comments were made after a potentially damaging split emerged between the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and President George Bush over the captives' status.

In a break with other cabinet officials, Mr Powell is pressing Mr Bush to declare that the 158 detainees are entitled to protection under the Geneva convention on prisoners of war.

The Bush administration has determined that the captives are "unlawful combatants", which means they are not entitled to the rights afforded by the convention. The US has refused to confer the official status because it wants flexibility in interrogating the captives.

...more...

http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/0/AC28A2D57F6CEB8087256B4E00721C82?OpenDocument

Welcome to Camp X-Ray
When is a war prisoner not a POW? When the U.S. brings Afghan detainees to Guantanamo Bay
BY MICHAEL ELLIOTT

TIME.com

Monday, Jan. 28, 2002

It's not going to be a country club," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week, describing the new military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and nobody ever expected it would be. The 110 al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners admitted to "Gitmo" by the end of last week are, said Rumsfeld, "the hardest of the hard core," men who had killed "dozens and dozens of people." But though it may lack tennis courts and a putting green, the amenities are better than you'd find in a cave at Tora Bora. True, prisoners are now confined to 6-ft. by 8-ft. chain-link enclosures with concrete floors and tin roofs (Rumsfeld thinks it's "pejorative" to call them cages). But relief will come; in three months, the Pentagon hopes to replace the facility with something more permanent.

<snip>

At the heart of the matter is a question of legality. The Pentagon has resisted calling the detainees prisoners of war, preferring the terms unlawful combatants or battlefield detainees. It's easy to see why. Under the Geneva Convention, those holding true POWs are bound to release them at the end of hostilities; but that is the last thing the U.S. wants to do with men who may be al-Qaeda operatives. Moreover, by convention (though the law seems to be murky here) POWs don't need to tell their captors anything other than their name, rank, serial number and birthday. But for Washington, the whole point of the detention is to conduct interrogations and thus head off new acts of terrorism.

<snip>

Are they POWs? Washington says no, because the Taliban had no clear chain of command and was not a legitimate government. That may be so; unfortunately, as Amnesty International has pointed out, under the Geneva Convention the Pentagon has no business making such a determination. Those who fall into the enemy's hands are entitled to POW status until a "competent tribunal" has determined their status. In the case of those in Cuba, that hasn't happened.

...more...

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm

U.S.: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees En français

(New York, January 11, 2002) -- Human Rights Watch questioned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld´s statement today that captured fighters from Afghanistan shipped to Cuba were “unlawful combatants” not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Human Rights Watch also criticized the reported use of chain-link cages to confine the detainees.

“The Secretary seems unaware of the requirements of international humanitarian law,” said Jamie Fellner, director of Human Rights Watch´s U.S. Program. “As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including unlawful combatants. The United States may not pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment.”

News reports indicate that Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees will be confined at Guantanamo Bay in small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs. The cages will offer scant shelter from wind and rain. Details about sanitary and hygiene facilities are not available.

...more...

http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802.htm

U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements

(New York, January 28, 2002) In a letter this morning to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Human Rights Watch rebutted claims made by some administration officials that key Geneva Conventions requirements do not apply to the Guantanamo detainees.

In a point by point response to recent statements by the Bush administration regarding the Geneva Conventions, Human Rights Watch explained U.S. obligations to use competent tribunals where the prisoner of war status of detained belligerents was in doubt; that the Geneva Conventions do not prohibit the questioning of detainees, including POWs; and that POWs convicted of crimes can be detained even after the armed conflict ends.

"The U.S. government cannot choose to wage war in Afghanistan with guns, bombs and soldiers and then assert the laws of war do not apply," said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. "To say that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to a war on terrorism is particularly dangerous, as it is all too easy to imagine this 'exception' coming back to haunt U.S. forces in future conflicts."

...more...

[LiberalFighter]

28. Powell should do the honorable thing...

Privately demand that gw* follow the laws.

When that fails...

Publicly demand that gw* follow the laws and then resign.

BUT Powell has never done anything honorable.

[cambie]

29. The legal opinions were flaky,

but they never took the law seriously. They relied on something much simpler to keep out of jail – they expected to win. Just drop some bombs, pull over a statue and make an announcement on an aircraft carrier, and it would be done.

Again our old friend Adolph explained it perfectly. This in on record from the trial at Nuremberg. He told his generals before invading Poland after the staged incident:

“I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory.”

Maybe this is what * has is mind when he says, "The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable"

[JoFerret]

31. Commander Swift objects

...great NYTimes mag article about the JAGS assigned to defend Guantanemo prisoners and the legal obstacles and obstruction they have faced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/magazine/13MILITARY.html

[struggle4progress]

38. kick

:kick:

[Edmond Dantes]

39. Letter from Harvard Law Prof - friend of Dean Koh

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086940187032

[UpInArms]

40. I also enjoyed the second letter

These types of actions on the part of our government are unparalleled since Adolf Hitler. If this administration continues to trample on human rights among citizens of the world and the homeland, defeat at the November election will be mild.

This is the kind of governmental behaviour that leads the masses to take to the streets.

From his pen to God's eyes.

[Edmond Dantes]

42. I did too! Now, is Yoo's latest fascist memo for real?

If so, does he honestly think this "satire" is funny?

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-06-02/cityofwarts.html

If he thinks he's a contemporary Jonathan Swift writing the modern-day equivalent of "A Modest Proposal," he's sorely mistaken. Swift must be turning over in his grave right now.

Someone please tell me that Yoo didn't really write this piece of fascist garbage because I'm about to.....

:puke:

[Dhalgren]

41. KICK!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[qb]

43. So what do Dershowitz and the other torture defenders have to say now?

[tedzbear]

50. Yes. Mr. D's opinions stink of fascist racism.

:kick: