CNN just said there's a report that Bush can approve torture!

[Cannikin]

No links yet..just heard it. They said something about a memo from Guantanamo...but they're covering Condi right now.


Ok..they brought it up, but ended up doing a story on how W is like Reagan! Unbelievable!!!

[Spazito]

1. Can approve it or did approve it?

*

[slinkerwink]

2. I'm hoping "did approve it"

[Spazito]

4. Me too!

It would mean there was a "presidential finding" authorizing it and that would lock him into any war crime trials.

[bryant69]

3. Can approve it wouldn't mean much

Of course it's possible our adherance to the Geneva convention was an act of congress, in which case he couldn't. But I think it was an executive order--need to go back and check.

International laws only have force in so far as the United Nations is empored to enforce them or the member nations agree to uphold them. But we all know that already.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[KoKo]

7. Here's the DU link to the WSJ article about this. Bush's lawyers said

it was okay to torture:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=607293&mesg_id=607293

[Walt Starr]

10. Not in the case of the Geneva Conventions

Under the constitution, treaties are consider federal law. An executive order which countermands a treaty Congress has approved is unconstitutional.

[Spazito]

12. Disagree, not according to US Code, Title 18, Section 2441...

and US Code Title 50, Section 413b, Here are the links:

War Crimes Act Title 18, Section 2441:

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1070+0++%28War%20Crimes%20Act%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%282441%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Section 413b. Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iii/sections/section_413b.html

[Timefortruth]

14. Wasn't this an issue before the Supreme Court, when the

constitutionally of the "enemy combatant" issue was argued. If there were a press the fact that the government claimed the US doesn't torture would be pointed out.

[bryant69]

16. Actually I saw it mentioned in about five or six different places

Including mainstream sources (NYTimes, MSNBC).

[Timefortruth]

21. I must have also, but it is a critical issue in the debate

and imo it is not covered as such.

[question everything]

19. Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture - WSJ

Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued

By JESS BRAVIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 7, 2004; Page A1

Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department. The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners.

(snip)

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply.

(snip)

A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said. Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were saying President Bush could claim.

(snip)

Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?"

(snip, sorry, am following the rules)

Write to Jess Bravin at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108655737612529969,00.html

[Straight Shooter]

28. Josh Marshall has excellent insight on the WSJ article at TPM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

When you consider the implications of this "approval," it will make your hair stand on end. Or catch on fire.

[jean]

5. Not only can he, but he did and does as long as it's not caught on film

[seemslikeadream]

9. Who does he get that athority from? Oh that's right - God

[Trajan]

6. Did Bush cancel Moral Ethics ? ...

Or did he just choose to violate them ? ..

Sorry: Bush cannot 'alter' ethics: .... he can only choose to act within or without ethical and moral guidlines ...

Torture is amoral ...

Bush can only choose to be moral or amoral ....

He chose the latter ...

[Hepburn]

8. Holy fucking shit!!!!!!!!!!!

With the Plame leak stuff that is going on and with Bush already "lawyering up", Cheney being interviewed by Fitzgerald on the Grand Jury probe into the Plame leak.......this IMO is the fucking kiss of death if there is ANYTHING that Bush actually approved any kind of prison abuse/torture. Fuck he is dead if this happens.

I am hoping that the rat bastard was dumb enough to put something in writing. Fingers crossed here and praying.

Thanks for the info and will watch for anything on this!!

:bounce: :smoke: :bounce: :smoke: :bounce: :smoke: :bounce:

[goclark]

15. Does he know how to write?

I can't remember seeing or hearing about his writing ability.
You must be talking about GWB signing his name... :)

[Hepburn]

18. LOL...

Actually, I was thinking about him dictating a memo. Funny that you would say that cuz the thought of Bush actually writing something himself never crossed my mind when I was thinking about this issue.

[nostamj]

11. the bush* WH created "enemy combatants"

which NEVER existed before in order to IGNORE the Geneva Conventions.

this apparantly gave them legal cover.

also explains withdrawing from the ICC.

[Walt Starr]

13. The Geneva Convention specifically states

if there is doubt as to whether someone is covered, they're covered.

[KoKo]

17. Here! "Lawyers said Bush not Bound by Laws Prohibiting Torture! WSJ 6/4

Lawyers said Bush not bound by torture laws-WSJ
07 Jun 2004 07:23:29 GMT

NEW YORK, June 7 (Reuters) - A Pentagon report last year concluded President George W. Bush was not bound by laws prohibiting torture and U.S. agents who might torture prisoners at his direction could not be prosecuted by the Justice Department, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The findings were part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by top civilian and uniformed military lawyers who also consulted with other agencies, the newspaper said.

The report was compiled after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that they were not getting enough information from prisoners through conventional methods, according to the Journal.

The document outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by considerations for national security or legal technicalities, the newspaper said.
(snip/...)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07593183.htm

[kentuck]

20. Yeah he wanted to bounce them up and down on a blanket and...

put firecrackers in their butts - like he used to do to the little froggies...

[banana republican]

22. I am surprised that these reports are not being subpoenaed

by the soldiers on trial for the Abu Ghraib tortures

[elf]

23. Major German Magazine DER SPIEGEL has a big story about this!

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,303108,00.html

[seemslikeadream]

24. translation

MEDIUM REPORT

Pentagon appraisal confesses Bush torture instruction too

A study from the US Ministry of Defense, emerged again, loads
the government. According to "barrier Street journal" contains it of references, as American laws and international standards against the torture to be
gone around can. Therefore president Bush is not bound to laws and contracts to the
prohibition of torture.



REUTERS
Bush (rh) and Rumsfeld: Legal legitimacy for torture?
New York - which has US president as a commander in chief of the
troops the right, to approve of approximately any physical and psychological procedure
with verhoeren, including the torture, so the appraisal, in a draft the "barrier Street journal" is present.

According to the appraisal of the US Ministry of Defense also persons
can, on the basis of arrangements of the US president torture, legally not to be sued. The newspaper reports, the appraisal was provided by prominent civilian and military lawyers
for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The report throws a new shade on the white house. Was the torture desired of prisoners of highest place? The report nevertheless contains a list of US laws and international
agreements against torture and states, as these could be gone around under reference purposefully at national
security and legal Formalia. Is unclear, whether Bush read the paper ever, the newspaper writes.

The appraisal was provided according to the sheet, after commanders on the US military base Guantanamo Bay had weighted, that they did not receive sufficient information with the conventional
methods from their prisoners. The lawyers would have justified their result thereby, that there would be nothing more important, to receive as "secret service information, for the protection of innumerable American citizens are essential ". As a commander in chief the president is authorized, to approve the application of all physical and psychological means. This includes the torture.

The "barrier Street journal" according to own data a draft of the
appraisal is present, on the 6. March 2003 is dated. The newspaper wants to have experienced from informed circles, that the argumentation differs in this draft not substantially from
the final version from April 2003. With reference to circles of the US Secretary of Defense it meant, some military lawyers would have expressed themselves against certain
methodmethod methods, the document however nevertheless signs.

Rank-high US generals rejected reproaches, with verhoeren of prisoner methods to have approved of, the conventions Geneva against those offend. In the Iraqi prison Abu Ghureib had abused and had degraded US soldier
prisoner. The US government called this the acts particular.

The USA hold than 600 humans on Guantanamo on Cuba more, in the course of the fight against the terror, proclaimed by Bush,
were imprisoned taken. They do not have a contact to lawyers and members. The highest Court of Justice of the USA is concerned to time with
their status.


http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/translate

[Karenina]

25. Kick!

THIS is important news. :kick:

[elf]

29. Thanks for the translation,

it's such an important article, and very interesting, that the main political media in at least Germany are following this closely!


:yourock:

[Walt Starr]

26. authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."


Frightening development. The Pentagon basically says Bush is above the law.

:scared:

[starroute]

27. The president is not above the law

There is a good analysis of the point at http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086610719

Presidents have tried to claim this before, and the Supreme Court has swatted them down.

[Walt Starr]

30. I know, but this wasn't the president trying to claim it

It was the PENTAGON!

Which I consider to be a most frightening development in this mess.

[PretzelWarrior]

32. why didn't Clinton use that defense? would have saved some grief

dammmit. (J/k..tongue in cheek...grain of salt and other assorted cliches)

[spanone]

31. Oh, in that case I AM proud to be an American. NOT!!!!

[spanone]

33. Here's a KICK and a LINK

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108655737612529969,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus