Is the Marquis de Rumsfeld about to be tipped over?

[Jacobin]

The WH is dumping volumes of (re-manufactured and re-drafted) torture memos allowing as how el Presidente does have the legal right to torture if he feels like ordering it, but OH NO, he'd never order such a thing, with the almost simultaneous release of information that the Marquis de Rumsfeld DID in fact authorize and direct some "mild torture"(kinda like being a little pregnant?).

June 30 is coming up and bedlam reigns supreme in that Wolfowitz petri dish called IraqNam, and things will shortly be spinning so far out of control that SOMEONE must be found to blame (certainly not el Presidente).

Will they throw the Marquis de Rumsfeld to the wolves to save Smirky?

[seemslikeadream]

1. But - Text of order signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002

Prisoner Abuse Bush Order

From the Associated Press


Prisoner Abuse Bush Order

Wednesday June 23, 2004 1:31 AM


By The Associated Press

Text of order signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees:

1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, (Geneva) to the conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving ``High Contracting Parties,'' which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of ``regular'' armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our nation recognizes that this new paradigm - ushered in not by us, but by terrorists - requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.

2. Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

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. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to ``armed conflict not of an international character.''

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4234234,00.html

[seemslikeadream]

2. more

3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. 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.

4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.

5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4234234,00.html


Note that this is signed before we invaded Iraq

and from
Devils Advocate NZ (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-23-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message

8. What a fool

That document PROVES that George W Bush is a war criminal.

Why do I say this? The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 requires, in case of doubt, that POW status be granted until a 'competent tribunal' has made a final determination.

Bush and the US Justice Department DO NOT count as a 'competent tribunal' - only the ICC or some other tribunal formed by the UN would meet that specification.

Otherwise, Al Qaeda could claim THEY formed a 'competent tribunal' and determined that US contractors are 'illegal combatants' and therefore have no rights and can be legally beheaded.

Also, by defining Al Qaeda as 'unlawful combatants' they fall under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and enjoy its protections, including customary Human Rights protections.

This order constitutes a prima facie case against George W Bush for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

[Jacobin]

3. I realize that, but the truth and the alternative universe of

WH spin is re-making "reality" are two different things (as usual).

Their "position" is that Smirky had the authority to do so but didn't but that Rumsfeld DID.

The WH "position" is all that will be reported in the U. S. "media", not the truth.

So, the question remains. Will Rumsfeld take the fall for this

[oblivious]

6. "I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants"

They were soldiers defending their country against an invading force. How can they be unlawful combatants?

That's so illogical even an ape would hoot.

[Kahuna]

4. LOL. "Marquis de Rumsfeld?" Is is yours?

I like it!

[Jacobin]

5. I'm not sure

It came to mind this morning, but I probably heard it/read it elsewhere on this board and it just popped back into consciousness.

It is fitting though, no?

:-)

[randr]

7. In his last State of the Union speech

* all but admitted he knew we were out of bounds. We do know he had at that time been briefed about the issue from within his administration and from organizations such as the Red Cross.
His arrogant smirk as he said "others have met a different fate" tells it all.

[Insider]

8. where for art thou, donald?

haven't seen him in a while. haven't heard his name attached to 'media darling' in a while.

and i challenge anyone to find him on his own www.defenselink.mil. i swear i see 'wolfowitz' all over. but it is tough to find his honorable rumsfeld on that site.