Justice Dept. Rewrites Prison Advice

[UpInArms]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040623_2098.html

WASHINGTON June 23, 2004 — The Justice Department is rewriting its legal advice on how far U.S. interrogators can go to pry information from detainees, working under much different circumstances from the writers of earlier memos that appeared to justify torture.

The first memos were written not long after the Sept. 11 attacks, while the new advice is being crafted against the backdrop of prisoner abuse in Iraq.

Justice Department lawyers will spend several weeks reviewing and revising several key 2002 documents, especially a 50-page memo to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002, that critics have characterized as setting the legal tone for the mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"The reason the original memo was so damaging was that it was consistent with a pattern of conduct from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to Iraq," Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, said Wednesday.

<snip>

One of the most controversial sections of the Bybee memo that appears targeted for change or removal is entitled "The President's Commander-in-Chief Power." Over the next nine pages, Bybee lays out arguments that a key U.S. anti-torture law would be unconstitutional "if it impermissibly encroached on the president's constitutional power to conduct a military campaign."

"One of the core functions of the commander in chief is that of capturing, detaining, and interrogating members of the enemy," the Bybee memo said.

...more...

[Lin]

1. "Um....officer, I'd like to go back to that red light, I think I'd rather

stop when I see it this time"

How much will these $%^&* get away with? How far will they go?! HOW many years will be spent sweeping up this mess? and has ALL the good that was done in the 1770's Revolution BEEN udone yet?! :-(

Is it going to take a ghostly visit from Ben Franklin and friends to STOP this maddness?

And will I ever stop being this angry? I'm so tired :-(

[KansDem]

6. Hey! Don't stop with the stop light...

How about your mortgage? "Say, I'd like to rewrite my mortgage to reflect an interest rate of 0.3%" No problem...

or...

Salary/wages? "You know, I'd really like a 193% raise this year so I'll rewrite my yearly evaluation..." Thanks, Bushistas!!!

Now, let's see if the American people will accept what Bush's administration is doing as readily as your mortgagee or employer will accept your new terms...

[teryang]

2. John Yoo is a fascist enabler

He's a disgrace to the law profession and the United States of America.

<John Yoo, a University of California, Berkeley law professor and former Justice Department official, said government lawyers were confronted with a unique foe after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, one to whom conventional rules of war meant nothing.

"Sept. 11 started a completely new kind of conflict, with a new non-state enemy that fights in unconventional ways that violate the very core notions of the laws of war," Yoo said. "In this new conflict, I think it's good practice for the government to ask questions about the legal lines established in statute by Congress."

Yoo, who worked with Bybee in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel, declined to comment on the substance of the memos.>

[teryang]

3. AG opinions-policy not law

Opinions from the Attorney Generals Office are not law BUT THEY ARE EXPRESSIONS OF POLICY. This is exactly how they are understood legally.

[gratuitous]

4. They set the stage

They don't have the force of a court decision, but they do set the legal terms for a contemplated action by the executive. When an Op Atty Gen says, "You can do thus and such under these circumstances," it becomes the green light for the Executive to do something. The legal memoranda from 2002 set the stage for the subsequent treatment of persons held by the government until a court could review the policies and tactics.

Without a specific court ruling, these bloodthirsty maniacs could do pretty much anything they wanted, because anyone who questioned it would be diverted by the memorandum from Justice: See? The lawyers said we could!

The good thing is that it doesn't exempt them from subsequent prosecution, should anyone be found with the political will to pursue a legal remedy against this corrupt administration. But it will provide a measure of cover for allegations of willfulness or reckless disregard.

I personally would like to see their cumulative asses barbecued in molasses.

[UpInArms]

5. also he was in on the writing of the USA PATRIOT Act

http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/968.html

excerpt:

One of the four, law professor John Yoo, helped write the Patriot Act as a deputy assistant attorney general. He told a University of Virginia conference that most of the law’s provisions are common-sense amendments to previous laws allowing the government to easily adapt to new communications technologies in surveillance techniques.

“There is no constitutional right to privacy of records not in your possession,” said Yoo, a University of California law professor who questioned why librarians “are all upset about” the law’s provisions allowing the seizure of business records, including library business records, under a cloak of secrecy. He said terrorists have used public library computer terminals for research and have the ability to send e- mails and change e-mail addresses every two to three minutes.

“It seems to me a very modest bill. There is no revolutionary change,” said Yoo, the staunchest defender of the law among the scholars who outlined legal history and constitutional law at the Miller Center of Public Affairs conference. About 130 people attended the four-hour event, some spilling into overflow rooms with large television monitors.

Yoo said civil liberties have been growing in America and that emergency measures curbing liberties tend to be reversed or mitigated over time. He said that the nation should engage in “better debate about how we should be fighting this enemy and not the last enemy.”

...more...

[For PaisAn]

7. This was the last straw for my husband

He sent me a scathing E-mail today after reading the following article today on this issue:
"Bush Administration Disavows Torture Memo
White House Releases Documents on Prisoner Policies"
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040622122109990011

He was totally apolitical pre-Bush and although over the past 3+ years his concerns about Bush have grown, up until today he considered me to be somewhat radical and extreme in stating that Bush is the greatest menace to the world today.

Here's his E-mail, this from a man whose E-mails typically consist of only the words yes, no & maybe:

"This is the most amazing article I have read to date about these moronic radical Republicans. In one sentence they say that they are going to rewrite a memo that was issued by the justice department because it may be misinterpreted. That means that they gave specific orders approving the use of torture but now that they are being questioned they are going to change them. I guess they feel that changing the memo somehow reaches back in time and takes back the torture that has already been used on prisoners.

On top of that Bush feels that he can override the Geneva Convention and authorize the use of torture. I hope the American people understand that the Iraqis as well as Al Qaida are at war also which means that they are not bound to the Geneva convention either. The whole reason for the Geneva convention was to insure humane treatment of prisoners DURING WARTIME. Now that we are at war and the Geneva Convention should kick in Bush feels that he has the authority to disregard it. Unfortunately if we can disregard it than so can our enemies. We are just going to have to accept the beheadings as part of war being our President has decided to declare the Geneva Convention null and void. Once again he has single handedly changed the future of the world by disregarding the Geneva convention and telling the whole world that torture should be and is acceptable during times of war.

For decades this country as well as others have gone through the pains of implementing rules and policies and treaties to not only avoid war but when it does happen to somehow keep it as humane as possible. Bush has disregarded the War Powers Act of 1976 by sending us into war without the authority to do so and then disregards the Geneva Convention by authorizing the use of torture. I find it mind boggling not only that Bush has disregarded 140 years of progress in Geneva Convention and almost 30 years of the War Powers Act but the fact that no one can seem to stop him from doing so. If that's not a dictatorship then I don't know what is."