Dept. of Defense says Bush has inherent power to TORTURE

[Eric J in MN]

Dept. of Defense says Bush has inherent power to TORTURE people, under the "Commander in Chief" clause of the Constitution.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/07/0988582

Please email the above article to your Congressperson and Senators.

[wellstone_democrat]

1. Josh marshall covered this well today

Basically the document says that the President is ABOVE the law. Read Marshall for the Jeffersonian take on this abominal "theory" courtesy no doubt of Gonzalez: your next SC justice.

It might be the most sickening thing I've read yet about the torture issue in Iraq.

[Eric J in MN]

15. Please email Congress. Ask for an investigation.

Please email Congress.

Ask for an investigation.

There are forms for emailing Senators at their official websites.

If you don't know the official website of your Senators, you can find their official websites by typing their names at: google.com

If you don't know their names, find them at:
www.vote-smart.org

using the tools on the top-left of vote-smart.org

[Tellurian]

2. I doubt a Court of Law would agree...

The tortures were deliberately and specificly laid out to target Arabs. The pResident conspired with a government attorney to circumvent the Laws of the Land..

BIG..NO NO!

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Big no no, but are you surprised?

These are the same criminals who encouraged 5 Republican SCOTUS judges to break the law and decide a Presidential election. Scalia's own defense of his ruling was that counting ballots would "cause irreparable harm to Mr Bush"

Yeah, well no shit, Fat Tony. Instead, we got irreparable harm to the entire fucking country :grr:

[Tellurian]

26. Yep, and now that we know how low they will go...

to Win...

we have to meet their challenge. All of us together,
standing toe to toe with them. And fight for whats right.

[Warpy]

3. I guess those old boys never read the part of the

constitution that says any treaties negotiated shall become the law of the land. Bush is as bound by the Geneva Conventions as the military is. Heads need to roll over this one, and the first one should belong to Bush, not that he'd miss it.

[Eric J in MN]

13. There are federal statutes against torture, in addition to

There are federal statutes against torture, in addition to the Geneva Convention.

But the Dept. of Defense attorneys are claiming the Constitution puts the President above the law regarding war.

[spanone]

4. Here's the Wall Street Journal story

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

[maggrwaggr]

20. darn, gotta be a subscriber

I was hoping to have a WSJ link to it to send around. To have this coming right a right-wing rag would be great.

[Eric J in MN]

23. You can use the link in the top post to read the article.

Or click below for the article:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/07/0988582

[gratuitous]

6. Could this be part of the missing pages?

Remember a couple of weeks ago, the Pentagon sent its report on torture in Iraq over to Capitol Hill? A couple of thousand pages were missing, and when it was noticed and brought up, the spokesman for the Pentagon said, Gee, we'll get those pages right over to the distinguished gentlemen! Merely an oversight on our part. They'll be there in a jiffy.

It's been over two weeks, and the missing portions of the report still haven't quite made their way across town. Part of the missing pages, it is surmised, have to do with the command structure, and who did or did not authorize certain actions at Abu Ghraib and other prisoner and detainee sites.

The memorandum referenced in this story has to do with the legal mechanism the Bushistas hope to use to excuse torture at Guantanamo, but you can bet that such stellar legal research won't be wasted on just one situation.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Maybe. Good point. (nt)

nt

[Just Me]

7. A repulsive display of tyranny!!!

The more I know, the worse I feel about the state of this nation.

If the pendulum doesn't begin to swing back, I am seriously concerned that the clock of democracy will be broken.

[shraby]

9. Congress is supposed to

be the people's watchdog as a counter balance to the executive and judicial branch. Methinks congress is part of the problem.

[Eric J in MN]

11. At least Lindsay Graham and John McCain are opposing

At least Lindsay Graham and John McCain are opposing torture, among Republican Senators.

[tom_paine]

17. Congress is, but they've been "gleitschlaung", as the nazis put it

(still works for the situation in Imperial Amerika today)

It means "brought (bringing) into line".

Like a nice envelope full of anthrax or a phony Ricin Scare after which all your evidence disappears from senate computers, etc etc etc.

Congress has very good reasons to fear for their reputations and even their lives, although I suspect the Wellstone assassination was the last they'll pull for awhile?

[Wickerman]

8. Hell, he tortures me every time he opens his yap eom

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. Hitler was also, at all times, above the law

So it isn't surprising that the Bushtapo's lawyers would concoct such an outrageous defense.

:puke:

[phiddle]

14. A Question for Congress and the Courts

The WSJ article says that "To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

The question is simply " Did Bush issue such a directive?" If I were a defense lawyer for one of the GI's accused in the Abu Graib torture cases, I'd subpoena the White House for such a directive, and hang up the whole trial until this question was definitively resolved.

[mike_c]

16. that's secret-- they'll neither confirm or deny, and cite...

...national security needs. Then they'll throw the lawyer into a Navy brig forever.

[Eric J in MN]

25. It will be interesting to see what comes out (nt)

nt

[Mechatanketra]

29. It's a moot point, because the whole theory is bullhockey.

The WSJ article says that "To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Every man, woman, and child in America with access to a media outlet who gives a damn about keeping this country free needs to start screaming as loud as possible that this "inherent in the President" line is the foulest, rankest pile of s*** this Administration has ever tried to foist on the country. It's just plain wrong -- not just wrong-headed or morally wrong, but absolutely contrary to facts. It's Orwellianly backwards.

"He (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States." -- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3

Not only is abrogating the law not "inherent to the President", but ensuring that no law is ever "set aside" is one of the President's explicit duties.

If Bush did issue such a directive, it's not a defense of the crime -- it's evidence of Bush's complicity in that crime. In a sane nation, it would be absolute certain impeachment -- there can be no higher crime for the President than complete reversal of his Constitutional duties.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Please let Congress know you want an investigation (nt)

nt

[maggrwaggr]

18. Good Lord. From the Wall Street Journal no less

I don't know what to say

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Dictators always believe they're above the law.

[Eric J in MN]

22. The US Constitution says CONGRESS writes law for the military.

Article I, Powers of Congress

Section. 8, Clause 14:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[killbotfactory]

21. Umm...

No. Nope. That's not right. Not right at all.

[indigobusiness]

24. He's been torturing us all for years....

inherently.

But, if they pass a law against torturing the English language, he's doomed.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. There is a specific Constitutional prohibition against

"cruel and inhuman punishment".

The president takes an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution"

The Constitution does not give the president the authority to override its provisions.

Presidential sanction of torture is clearly a violation of the Constitution.

The Contitution provides for the removal of a president who commits "high crimes and misdemeanors"

[Eric J in MN]

28. The Eighth Amendment is relevant because the Convention

The Eighth Amendment is relevant because when the US signed the Convention Against Torture, it specified that it covered the type of activities which would violate the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

[Disturbed]

30. ACLU

W keeps saying that it was only a few and they will be brought to justice. BushCo & most the Right Wing Congress are trying everything they can do to shove this down the memory hole.

I am surprised that the ACLU has not brought a case against the US Gov. for War Crimes. A case like that would prolly go all the way to the SC.

[Eric J in MN]

32. The ACLU has a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (nt)

nt

[Q]

33. To those who suggest we should 'email congress' about this...

...there's a good chance that they already know about it...and condone it. Perhaps you haven't noticed...but most of our representatives have already given up and allow Bush* to do anything he wants...as long as it doesn't mess with their careers.

[Eric J in MN]

34. some do, some don't. Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and others

some do, some don't.

Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, and others care about civil liberties.

Lindsay Graham and John McCain seem interested in investigating torture.

[bobthedrummer]

35. Truth Serums And Torture-FROM JUNE 2002.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/060402a.html

[Eric J in MN]

36. "it's a slippery slope" and the Bush Administration went down that slope

nt

[Cleita]

37. No one has a right to torture.

That's trying to justify tyrannical behavior on the part of our leaders. Nothing excuses nor justifies torture, NOTHING.

[Eric J in MN]

38. I agree. Torture is always wrong.

I agree.

Apologists for torture like Alan Dershowitz like to say, What if torturing someone would prevent another 9/11?

But interrogators never know enough about what a suspect knows for such a decision, so it's a bogus question.

[Cleita]

39. Information received under torture is unreliable anyway.

A carrot often works better.