Turley: Bush May Have Order Torture of High Value Suspects

[illinoisprogressive]

The US government began hearings on Friday to determine if 14 accused terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay can be deemed enemy combatants. The hearings, which have been closed to independent observers, are receiving heavy criticism for their secretive nature and what some are calling pre-determined outcomes.

"The administration has been almost pathological in trying to find ways to keep these people from ever seeing a real judge or a real lawyer," John Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the Associated Press, "and the reasons are obvious."

Turley, among many legal analysts, believes that the likelihood that torture tactics were used on the detainees has heightened the administration's state of secrecy for fear of public retribution. The law professor also suggested that President Bush not only knew about the torture program but may have ordered it.

"It seems pretty clear that they've been tortured," Turley told the AP, "and that the president knew they were being tortured, and may have even ordered their torture through techniques like water boarding."

Last September, CIA sources told ABC News that the harshest, technique they were authorized to use on "high-value detainees, such as the 9/11 attacks architect Khalid Sheikh Mohamed...was called 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner's face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it (pictured above) -- meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex."

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported for ABC's The Blotter that "new rules issued by the Pentagon today prohibit water boarding, though there was no clear acknowledgement that it was permitted previously," and that "CIA officers told ABC News that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk."

"It seems likely now that the president may have not only known about the torture program, but may have ordered it," Turley told the AP. "That would be truly otherwordly, where the United States could be accused of running a torture program."

The list of detainees has a number of high-profile suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and former al-Qaeda military chief Abu Zubaydah.

Having been held in a secret CIA detention facility until recently, the 14 detainees were moved to Guantanamo Bay by President Bush in September after knowledge of the CIA's "black sites" became public.

The following video report from the Associated Press contains the interview with Turley:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_begins_secret_hearings_at_Gitmo_0310.html

[napi21]

1. Why can't lawyers like Turley get together with their fellow legal

begals and file a case with the SCOTUS? I've listened to Turley many times on MANBS, and mostly on Olberman. This man teaches constitutional low, and I can't even count how many times he's said Shrub and his cohorts in crime have broken the laws of the US! SOMeBODY has to be able to do something! I'm not a lawyer...I only wish I was!

I wonder if WE THE PEOPLE can file a class action case with the SCOTUS?

Don't give the impeachment BS either. I know that's the remedy listed in the Constitution, but if someone could get a guilty verdict on him breakingconstitutional law,THAT would be the grounds for impeachment in the Congress!

[Kagemusha]

2. Standing.

If you haven't been injured as a result of secret torture then you have no standing to sue.

And of course people who HAVE been tortured are enemy combattants with no right to sue in US courts - which is why they're getting military tribunals - or allowing their stories to be told would expose US secrets so the trials must be quashed, or things of that nature.

That's why.

[napi21]

3. I understand "standing" but what I was referring to was

breaking his oath to uphold the Contstitution. IMO we've ALL been injured! This torture issue is just ONE item on the long list of crimes!

Wouldn't breakinghis oath and severly harming the US give standing to any American?

[Kagemusha]

4. Not really. There are term limits and elections, and impeachment.

The system wasn't set up so any citizen could sue a president willy-nilly for perceived constitutional violations. And your opinion that we've all been injured... it is indirect injury. Indirect injuries would break the courts by sheer weight if one could sue for all of them.

But ultimately, it's elections, term limits or impeachment.

[KoKo]

5. Well....there was Paula Jones......but then she wasn't suing for

"constitutional violations" but what she considered "harm" to herself from improper advances. And, then there was Monica Lewinsky and allegations of personal conduct.

I guess those issues were more important than a president abiding by the Geneva Conventions, though. :eyes:

[Kagemusha]

6. No, the court ruled they were of such low importance they could proceed.

Hindsight may view that as a poor decision but, it was 9-0 at the time.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Someone had better find out where our government are holding these guys families

Because you know our government has them all too. Mothers, fathers, wives, and children.

Its been in the news before but no one likes to talk about it. Probably because it sounds too Nazi like for most Americans.

Don

[Poiuyt]

8. On what basis does Turley say that Bush may have ordered the torture?

Is he just using logic, or is there some evidence?