| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2004 10:07:42 AM |
| Object: |
Embarrassed Bush Crime Family replaces its poisonous torture memo |
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo
that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking
excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical
suffering or lasting mental anguish.
His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any
notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt
from prosecution.
This second effort by the Bush administration to parse the legal
meaning of the word "torture" was provoked by the damaging political
fallout from the disclosure this summer of the first memo, drafted in
August 2002 and criticized by human rights lawyers and experts around
the globe.
From The Washington Post, 12/31/04:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html
Justice Expands 'Torture' Definition
Earlier Policy Drew Criticism
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01
The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition
late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and
international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized
policy memorandums drafted during President Bush's first term.
In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its
Office of Legal Counsel declares that "torture is abhorrent both to
American law and values and international norms" and goes on to reject
a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily
function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.
_______________________________________________________
The Bushies didn't expect their poison to see the light of day.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Embarrassed Bush Crime Family replaces its poisonous torture memo |
01 Jan 2005 03:41:18 AM |
|
|
That sounds completely different than the one the Mormon neocon, Judge
Jay S. Bybee, wrote for them. That one said:
"Only pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the
permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualifies, Mr.
Bybee wrote. It went on to say torture is unlawful only if the
infliction of pain is the offender's specific objective. "Even if the
defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if
causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific
intent. . . For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to
the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the
psychological harm must last "months or even years." he wrote.
The memorandum also discussed various potential defenses to criminal
prosecutions for torture, including necessity and self-defense.
Finally, it asserted that the president was free under his authority as
commander in chief to order torture notwithstanding treaties and laws
barring it."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17123
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politics/24MEMO.html?hp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
