Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by U.S. and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.

The 56-page memo to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war," overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," stated the memo, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.

These assertions, along with others made in a 2002 Justice Department memo, drew condemnation from human rights activists who accused the administration of hunting for legal loopholes for using torture.

"It's like saying the Earth is flat. That's the equivalent of what they're doing with saying that the prohibition of torture doesn't apply to the president," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Media reports of the memos prompted a fierce exchange in a congressional hearing, at which Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to release the documents while Democrats accused the Bush administration of undermining prohibitions on use of torture.

The administration says it observes the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and other situations where the treaty applies and that it treats terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in a way consistent with the spirit of the accords.

"Our policy is to comply with all our laws and treaty obligations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"We have detained some dangerous al Qaeda terrorists. ... While we will seek to gather intelligence from these terrorists to prevent attacks from happening, we will do so consistent with our laws," McClellan added.

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

The March 2003 memo was written by a "working group" of civilian and military lawyers named by the Pentagon's general counsel.

It came to light as the Pentagon reviewed interrogation techniques used on foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid concerns raised by lawyers within the military and others about interrogation techniques approved by Rumsfeld that deviated from standard practice.

The memo labeled as unconstitutional any laws "that seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States."

The memo recommended a presidential directive from Bush allowing for exercise of this power by "subordinates," although it remained unknown whether Bush ever signed such a document.

"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit criminal acts," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.

"They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law may say," Malinowski added.

Amnesty International called for a special counsel to investigate "whether administration officials are criminally liable for acts of torture or guilty of war crimes."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld in April 2003 approved 24 "humane" interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, four of which required Rumsfeld's personal review before being used. Whitman said 34 techniques were considered by a working group of Defense Department legal and policy experts before Rumsfeld approved the final list.

"None were determined to be tortuous in nature (by the working group). They were all found to be within internationally accepted practice," Whitman said.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
Once again, the Bush campaign is shoring up its base. His core constituency will follow the leader who demonstrates the most vulgar contempt for authority. Sound like a paradox? This way he can outmaneuver the putative outsider, John Kerry. To understand the situation, you have to be familiar with the phenomenology of psychogenic paranoid disorder.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
American Voice said:
Once again, the Bush campaign is shoring up its base. His core constituency will follow the leader who demonstrates the most vulgar contempt for authority. Sound like a paradox? This way he can outmaneuver the putative outsider, John Kerry. To understand the situation, you have to be familiar with the phenomenology of psychogenic paranoid disorder.

I think Bush has this disorder in addition to many more disorders that I have no room here to list.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
I'm gonna post something I saw on another Canadian forum today.. hold on, let me get it.

Ok, posted at: http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about1013.html


Now.. Regarding this article, we've been through all of this before. There was a thread earlier, I think, about the USA going against the Geneva convention? Hmm, maybe not.

Either way, I see the US and President Bush paying in the end for their warcrimes, their actions against basic human rights, torture, etc. The list goes on and it is NOT isolated to the prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay (sp?). They are a very brutal regime, who's main aim is total world domination economically and military, regardless of the price they have to pay for it.. If that means torturing their enemies without a fair trial, don't put it past Bush or any of his uneducated criminal administration friends.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
I like that. Well said Andem. I like your style. The truth is here ladies and gentlemen. Crooks running the Whitehouse.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
They are criminals, internationally and domestically. When the American people come to their senses, whether that is this time around or the next, Bush and his cronies should be fully and completely tried for their crimes. That is the only way I can see of the US repairing the damage these guys have done to its credibilty.

American Voice: Since you seem to be up on the psychological aspects of Bush....Do you you think his statements that God wants him to lead the country and his constant praying indicate that Bush has a messiah complex?
 

gnuman

Electoral Member
Dec 4, 2002
245
0
16
Montreal, Quebec
Bush is a terrorist leader of the most ruthless group of all Al-America!

Bush should be abdicated, I mean Clinton didn't do anything as bad as a Bush does.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
Reverend Blair said:
American Voice: Since you seem to be up on the psychological aspects of Bush....Do you you think his statements that God wants him to lead the country and his constant praying indicate that Bush has a messiah complex?

When I made reference to paranoid disorder, I was referring to Bush's core constituency, not to Bush himself. I'm sorry, my remark was ambiguous.

As for Bush's religion, its entirely rhetorical, I believe. It's schtick. It appeals to that particular aforementioned constituency. Should those people ever suspect that he is only "making fun of them," they would literally tear him limb from limb. I have a fantasy in which Bush is standing near a hot mike without realizing it. "God, look at these morons," he says to an aide, "I hate this Jesus shit." Looks of stunned amazement among those in the audience who caught it.

It's like when Nicolai Caucescu stood on the balcony of the palace overlooking the crowd gathered in the square in Bucharest in December '89, as he'd done innumerable times before--though always to exuberant applause. This time the crowd is staring in sullen silence. He utters a few words. Then the first booes begin. He's stunned. He's incredulous. He's pulled from behind and hustled off the balcony.

Actually, I'm kind of leaning toward Bush. The prospect of seeing him impeached in a second term would be worth the price of admission. I came of age during Watergate, and many of the current administration are tied to the old Nixon crowd.

I remember when Nixon died, the only drama surrounding his funeral was the question who would be willing to sit next to Spiro Agnew. Agnew? Nixon's first vice president, resigned when indicted for accepting kickbacks in cash from contractors to whom he'd steered highway construction work when he was governor of Maryland. He was stung receiving cash right there in his office in the Executive Office Building. What panache! What charm! Like a four-day old fish charm. There are questions about current V.P. Cheney and Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Just vague murmurs, at present. Could be, though--one day the sky will darken with chickens coming home to roost.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Do you read a lot of Hunter S. Thompson, American Voice? It sounds like you'd enjoy it. Your dream of seeing Bush mess up in front of an open mic sounds a lot like on of his stories...the one about Why Muskie (?) broke down while giving a speech. Thompson said he heard a rumour that Muskie was on some weird drug. The fact that Thompson had started the rumour wasn't really noted for a couple of decades.

If Bush does win a second term and does face impeachment for his lies/crimes/belligerence/incompetence, will it have a more lasting effect on US politics than Watergate had. Everybody was predicting the demise of the Republican Party after that, but 4 years later they were back with many of the same players.
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
Briefly, Rev. Blair, let me say you've got me thinking. One important point you need to understand about the American system--well, okay, two important points you need to understand are that while the U.S. Constitution defines a system that is not so responsive as the parliamentary one, it is inherently more stable. The second point is this, that although since the period of the Cold War the term "imperialism" has come into disrepute, if you examine the Constitution and observe the expansion and evolution of the U.S., just within the confines of the North American continent, you will clearly see that the United States is, by design, an innately imperialist entity. Don't assume I'm being derogatory here, now. It calls for a certain Machiavellian sensibility. In terms of naked statecraft, it's a pretty impressive accomplishment. Am I being of a bit a Devil's advocate? Yes, surely. But, it is a devilishly shrewd thing. There is an article by James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, that may interest you. Check out No. 10 of "The Federalist." Absolutely brilliant!
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I'll defintely check that out, Voice.

I have no problem with the idea of the US being an imperialist force. I do not look at that neutrally though, I see imperialism as being wrong no matter who perpetrates it. The US is the biggest offender in the modern world though and it has become much worse under Bush.

I do think that the US Constitution is one of the finest documents ever written, right up there with the Magna Carta, and that the US could act as a benevolent influence through its power and wealth.