Prisoner Abuse Bush Order (actual full text)

[CShine]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/prisoner_abuse_bush_order

[shraby]

1. That can't be the actual full text.

There were 2 inches worth of papers.

[CShine]

2. OK, that was my assumption. Take it for what it's worth.

[Edmond Dantes]

8. This looks like the substantive text of an Executive Order, i.e.

... a presidential order. There are probably other documents that are included in the two inches.

[Coventina]

3. hmmm.....

no mention of Iraq......

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Of course not

This is dated over a year before the invasion of Iraq. This pertains only to Afghanistan.

[Miss Authoritiva]

4. Well, we all knew there'd be a loophole.

"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

[smiley_glad_hands]

9. Exactly.

The media needs to pick this up.

[testing123]

11. Media

What's that?

[myrna minx]

32. Heh-I can hear Ralph Wiggum ask "What's a media?" n/t

[lastknowngood]

5. New revised text edited for the sheeple

n/t

[struggle4progress]

6. It seems to mean it's OK to beat prisoners to death with flashlights.

[Edmond Dantes]

7. Please note THE DATE of the Executive Order

It's FEBRUARY 2002. The OLC memo by Bybee that is being "replaced" was dated AUGUST 2002. That means that the White House Counsel went back to OLC, apparently to ask for broader authority. The later Bybee memo (which I have not reread in its entirety) does not appear to be limited to Al Qaeda or Afghanistan or Guantanamo!

"Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President

"You have asked for our Office’s views regarding the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of Title 18 of the U.S. Code <i.e., U.S. Criminal Code>. As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States <i.e., not limited to Guantanamo Bay>. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A’s proscription against torture. We conclude by examining possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the statute."

Do you think there might be a SECOND Executive Order -- one that was issued AFTER Bybee produced this OLC opinion in August 2002? Or was the second order/memo issued by DOD in order to protect the White House against the possibility of criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act?

[smiley_glad_hands]

10. What has become of us?

"We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A’s proscription against torture."

Hey what was the name of the law again?
Oh, I have it here:

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of Title 18 of the U.S. Code

So, who determines what is painful, cruel, inhuman, or degrading? Is there a Pain-O-Meter? Do the prisoners get to use code words like "Ouch" or "Please Stop" when it has gone too far?

This is the worst logic that I have ever seen.

Why do we even have laws against this kind of stuff?

Why are so many Americans being kidnapped around the world again? Its gotta be the CLENIS.

[carpediem]

13. self deleted

was going to ask about the quote then figured it out.

[Bandit]

20. "You have asked for our Office’s views regarding the standards of conduct

Why was Bush* asking about how the legal requirements could be interpreted if they weren't planning on doing such a thing? This should be our focus. Why were they even asking about if torture was legal or not?

[comsymp]

21. Looks like SOMEBODY goofed- link to WH.GOV, EO's

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

ONLY EO 2/7/02 had to do with Special Ed... in fact, can't find this one at all-- admittedly, taking a break from work and am rushed...

[Edmond Dantes]

23. correction

It appears that the press may have been inaccurate in characterizing this as an "order". The document is now available here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/020702bush.pdf and is in the form of a memorandum.

[comsymp]

37. Clarification greatly appreciated

Kinda thought something wasn't right w/the story~
Glad you're here!

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Convention against Torture (link to actual full text)

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)

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.

Read more.

What part no exceptional circumstances do the neoconservatives not understand?

[Walt Starr]

19. Um, we signed but never ratified

according to the information I could find.

[TahitiNut]

36. The US signed, ratified, and is a full party to the Convention.

The U.S. signed the treaty on April 18, 1988, and the Senate adopted its resolution of advice and consent to ratification on October 27, 1990. See 136 Cong. Rec. S17486-92 (daily ed., Oct. 27, 1990). The U.S. did not become a full party to the treaty until November 1994, one month after President Clinton deposited the ratification with the U.N. Secretary General.

The Convention Against Torture was open for signature on February 4, 1985, signed by the United States on April 18, 1998, and ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 27, 1990. U.S. obligations under the treaty have been in effect since November 20, 1994, when the President deposited the ratification with the UN secretary general. Congress passed the legislation executing the Convention Against Torture on October 19, 1998. The President signed the Convention Against Torture on October 21, making it U.S. law. It is binding on all government officials and in all legal proceedings related to removal.

http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/asylum_rr99_3.htm

[Walt Starr]

15. Article duly rated a 5

Currently a 4.08

[LeftHander]

16. Take Action today....

THis is the document that PROVES Bush authorized torture.

What happened at Abu Ghraib and other places is a direct result of this policy.

It is all there in black and white.


Neocons will say it is not torture but the pictures and deaths say otherwise.

The President now violated the Torture Statue. There was intenet. It is all there.

They will wiggle a lot....but notwithstanding

[bluedog]

17. Excuse me...but bush is talking about Dictatorship

>>b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time.<<

In this portion of the memo bush states that the president has the power to nullify the law of the land.

In this memo Bush declares that he as president is above the law, and while he chooses not to exercise that power at this time - he still has it.

[TahitiNut]

24. Yes he is. That's why I call them "Busholinis."

There is surely nothing that would stop them from suspending habeas corpus in the US, given they've demonstrated no respect for the law.

[jamesinca]

18. Well well, how revealing

If he can make the connection between Iraq and the terrorist then he is allowed to beat the crap out of them, even kill them. Why because they are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. This explains why Chenney keeps repeating the lie of an al-Queda link. They need this to link to justify their actions with out being war criminals. That is the game they are playing. That link fails and they are war criminals and they know it. Since somebody has died because of their abuse, it becomes punishable by death.

[truth2power]

22. Ah-ha!! I see.....

I think you're onto something there. :think:

[TahitiNut]

25. Yes, they are war criminals. If they are not tried and convicted ...

... then the US "republic" is dead no matter what the outcome of the November elections.

[tlcandie]

26. Short and to the point... I salute your accuracy there TahitiNut!

You are among a select few whom I always enjoy reading! You've certainly hit the nail on the head yet again!

[TahitiNut]

31. As a fellow admirer (big time!) of Arundhati Roy, I'm highly flattered.

I've arrived at my opinion of the US as an outlaw nation, no longer a 'republic' and land of the free, home of the brave (now land of the sharecroppers and home of the callow), with great regret and much resistance. It really can no longer be denied except by the deliberately obtuse or the most Pollyanna-like deluded who're addicted to cake and circuses. Many seem to believe that as long as the DJIA keeps above 7,000 all is well with their world -- somewhat like slaves comforted by the price of cotton.

[librechik]

28. yes it seems that the Al Qaeda label (even if mistakenly applied)

can allow a detainee to be treated as less than a POW, therefore an excuse for mistreatment. Keep poor records (as they certainly have, and a lot of stuff can slide under the radar as "honest mistakes."

I hate these weaselly snakes who just can't be straight about the law and morality but are looking for ways to wiggle around and be allowed to commit atrocities! WTF! Where are the heroes who can bring us back to common sense and decency???

[Kelvin Mace]

27. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal

to Bush's memo:

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/mt/archives/001394.html

Your comments and views appreciated.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[KoKo]

29. Think your comment: We are prepared to be brazen hypocrites as as well as.

as war criminals" pretty much sums up what Bush was saying in that memo. Think your points are all good. I wonder when we will get a good parsing from a lawyers who specializes in "International Treaties" to come forward and really rip this memo to shreds.

It such a blatent example of their "double speak" always couched in some belief they have without any real foundation once it's analyized. Sadly so much they've done hasn't been properly analyzed. Let's hope with this latest they finally over-reached so much that their lies and obfuscations are their undoing.

[Miss Authoritiva]

30. Tripped up by their own tautologies.

Question: Has there ever been a comparable self-justifying "maneuver" by an American president and his attorney general?

Question: How many checks and balances were ignored here? How many statutory laws were broken?

Question: Who will be the final arbiter on all the legal chaos that is occurring: the Supreme Court? the International Court of Justice? a specially convened UN tribunal?


Great link, by the way. Thanks.

[TahitiNut]

33. Two points, David ...

The illegitimacy of the Nuremberg Defense rests upon the notion of an 'illegal order' in the US military. While this is a specious defense within the context of the Nazi War Crimes trial of the 40's, it depended on the fact that the ordering authorities were prosecuted and punished to even a greater extent than the camp guards and common soldiers.

Once the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense both claim and demonstrate (Rumsfeld's permission to torture in December) that such an order (to torture) is within the authority of the pResident (i.e. that "it's a legal order") then unless this abuse of authority on the part of the CinC and SecDef is punished (by impeachment, conviction, criminal trials, and incarceration) then our nation has no legitimate basis for punishing junior military personnel. In justice and equity, they cannot be rightly punished for doing that which an unpunished CinC and SecDef have already proclaimed as legal. This treatment of 'detainees' was literally state-sanctioned treatment and the CinC and SecDef established the sanctions.

The fallacy of paragraph 2 ("Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees") is exposed by the following ludicrous claim:

It's OK to torture Democrats and Lions Club members because neither the Democratic Party nor the Lions' Clubs are High Contracting Parties to Geneva.

The US is now an outlaw nation until the war crimes of the CinC and SecDef are punished.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. You are correct.

I missed that obvious point and will amend the post.

I agree with your second point completely and will incorporate it with your permission. The point I was pushing for is that even *IF* Geneva is suspended, CAT, which is also US law cannot be suspended and specifically prohibits any exceptions to the law.

Thanks!

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[TahitiNut]

35. Thanks, David. I'd be going stark raving nuts right now ...

... if it weren't for the "sanity check" of other citizens and veterans active in DU. It's one thing to see it from "esoteric" sources like HRW, but I'd feel awfully alone in my own country if other Americans didn't see the outright profligate criminal abuses of the current regime.

With every day that goes by without prosecution of war crimes committed by the Busholini regime, Congress is complicit in these crimes, demonstrating they're 100% politicians and 0% public servants/representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike.

An election is no longer enough. Not by a mile.

[Miss Authoritiva]

38. "Then our nation has no legitimate basis for punishing ....

"Then our nation has no legitimate basis for punishing junior military personnel."

I've been wondering about this. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft had all these "self-proclamations" stashed away, and yet when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the court-martial process started anyway.

So was the Bush Administration going to let the few bad apples go to military prison even though according to the own memoranda and findings the soldiers were following "legal" orders?

Or does the Uniform Military Code of Justice also prevail, meaning any soldier ordered to "soften up" the detainees was going to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't?

What a mess. This stuff will be kicking around the courts (both civilian and military) for years.

FYI: Froomkin has some interesting analyses up at http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/06/bush_ordered_humane_treatment_in_feb_2002_then_what.html