You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
This post over at Whiskey Bar is frightening to say the least. It's in response to a Wall Street journal (`entry_id`,`time`,`title`,`body`,`topic`,`description`,`delicious`) article about Abu Ghraib; a copy of the article can be found here.
The nub of it is that in March of 2003, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, Rumsfeld asked for, and received, a 100-page legal memorandum that specificially sought to establish a legal basis for use of what the Red Cross now calls "practices tantamount to torture":"The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street journal (`entry_id`,`time`,`title`,`body`,`topic`,`description`,`delicious`) , passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013.
The draft report ... deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawfull. 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. |
Yeah. That's what it says. OOOOOH but there's more!| "Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no moral choice was in fact possible." |
Finally, there's apparently a new idea of executive power."The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued...
A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture - to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said...
The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere...
Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity of purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress"...
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." (emphasis added) |
Billmon goes on to suggest that though conspiracy theories are usually crazy, there's no reason to think that with this kind of assertion of Presidential power, the administration won't try some sort of martial law BS in order to hold onto power. Well, hopefully we don't have to worry about that. Hopefully.
|