Huh? You're so quick to jump on stuff, what about her article regardng the
Constitution and torture and Bush elevating himself above international and
U.S. law? eh?
.
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
13 Jun 2004 04:41:19 AM |
|
|
(KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
Huh? You're so quick to jump on stuff, what about her article
regardng the Constitution and torture and Bush elevating himself above
international and U.S. law? eh?
Bush is a creep. He violates law when it's convenient for him.
He tells the truth when it's convenient for him. He lies to
you when it's convenient for him. With enough time he'll be
trampling our civil liberties if it's convenient for him.
Did you notice his response when the whole abu ghraib thing
came out? He denied all knowledge of it, and was prepared to
let all the low-ranking army guys and girls take the fall for
it. That's the kind of guy Bush is. Now we know he had half
the DOJ lawyers working for months on legal briefs to justify
the torture of prisoners.
I don't care how much legal justification he thinks he has,
he won't get away with this one. Once the prisoners started
dying, he had crossed the line. There is no legal justification
for murdering prisoners of war, and Bush's hands are all over this
one. The DOJ doesn't spend 10 thousand man-hours on a specific
legal subject like this without directive from the executive
branch of gov't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
13 Jun 2004 07:30:52 PM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Xns9507258582082rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.148.227.77>...
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
Huh? You're so quick to jump on stuff, what about her article
regardng the Constitution and torture and Bush elevating himself above
international and U.S. law? eh?
Bush is a creep. He violates law when it's convenient for him.
He tells the truth when it's convenient for him. He lies to
you when it's convenient for him. With enough time he'll be
trampling our civil liberties if it's convenient for him.
Did you notice his response when the whole abu ghraib thing
came out? He denied all knowledge of it, and was prepared to
let all the low-ranking army guys and girls take the fall for
it.
You're confusing the Abu Ghraib thing with other interrogation
policies. Those pictures out of Abu Ghraib show a group of moronic MPs
going far beyond their jurisdiction (breaking the law) with the
prisoners. Those low-ranking army guys and girls deserve whatever
punishment they get.
That's the kind of guy Bush is. Now we know he had half the DOJ
lawyers working for months on legal briefs to justify the torture
of prisoners.
That memo consisted of recommendations TO Bush. They were not
conclusions, and were not final orders in any case. The memo cautioned
those in the military chain of command against participation in acts
of torture:
"Under both international law and U.S. law, an order to commit an
obviously criminal act, such as the wanton killing of a noncombatant
or the torture of a prisioner, is an unlawful act and will not relieve
a subordinate of his responsibility to comply with the law of armed
conflict."
Source: Los Angeles Times, Wednesday June 9, 2004
I don't care how much legal justification he thinks he has,
he won't get away with this one. Once the prisoners started
dying, he had crossed the line. There is no legal justification
for murdering prisoners of war, and Bush's hands are all over this
one. The DOJ doesn't spend 10 thousand man-hours on a specific
legal subject like this without directive from the executive
branch of gov't.
Well, I hope I've cleared up your confusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
13 Jun 2004 11:28:06 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0406131630.67cd09d4@posting.google.com...
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns9507258582082rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.148.227.77>...
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
Did you notice his response when the whole abu ghraib thing
came out? He denied all knowledge of it, and was prepared to
let all the low-ranking army guys and girls take the fall for
it.
You're confusing the Abu Ghraib thing with other interrogation
policies. Those pictures out of Abu Ghraib show a group of moronic MPs
going far beyond their jurisdiction (breaking the law) with the
prisoners. Those low-ranking army guys and girls deserve whatever
punishment they get.
Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 13/06/2004)
Exerpt:
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior
figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New
York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the
administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be
dropped.""
Full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/13/wguan13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/13/ixworld.html
New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo
Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in
Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.
The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents
implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been
passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them
public shortly.
According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will
contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed
that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior
figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New
York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the
administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be
dropped."
A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that
President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the
White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did
not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror.
Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on
interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States
attorney-general, John Ashcroft.
As the growing scandal threatens to undermine President Bush's re-election
campaign, senior aides have acknowledged for the first time that the abuse
of detainees can no longer be presented as the isolated acts of a handful of
soldiers at the Abu Ghraib.
"It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the administration
about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser to the Pentagon.
"And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now that it's in the
open, the administration is having to change that answer somewhat."
In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked
documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq,
approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and
sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu
Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of
Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign,
set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use -
including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days.
The White House has ordered a damage-limitation exercise to try to prevent
the abuse row undermining President Bush's re-election campaign. Donald
Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, has ordered that all deaths of detainees
held in US military custody are to be reported immediately to criminal
investigators. Deaths in custody will also be reported to the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and to Mr Rumsfeld himself.
The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of
inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links
with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert
Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme
interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not
going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is
finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."
A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into abuse at
Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by a more
senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not have
the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that the
Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven
military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees.
Legal and constitutional experts have expressed astonishment at the
judgments made by administration lawyers on interrogation techniques. In one
memo, written in January 2002, Mr Gonzalez told President Bush that the
nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on
questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions".
Scott Silliman, a former US air force lawyer and the director of the Centre
for Law Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said: "What you
have is a culture of avoidance of law rather than compliance with it."
A separate memo, written by Pentagon lawyers in March 2003, stated that "the
infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental is
insufficient to amount to torture. [The pain] must be of such a high level
of intensity that it is difficult for the subject to endure".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
17 Jun 2004 08:29:17 AM |
|
|
(Steven Douglas) Spat the Words
That memo consisted of recommendations TO Bush. They were not
conclusions, and were not final orders in any case.
We haven't seen that order yet, but give it some time. I'm
sure the Congressional Oversight Committee would love to get
it's hands on more of those secret Bush communiques. Better
yet, how about some direct testimony from some of the Bush
cabinet members. For reasons only Bush knows, he wishes to
keep this type of questioning to a minimum.
The memo cautioned
those in the military chain of command against participation in acts
of torture:
Yes we've heard about the hundreds of legal documents attempting
to provide legal justification for torturing detainees.
"Under both international law and U.S. law, an order to commit an
obviously criminal act, such as the wanton killing of a noncombatant
or the torture of a prisioner, is an unlawful act and will not relieve
a subordinate of his responsibility to comply with the law of armed
conflict."
No argument from me there. Killing a prisoner of war during
interrogation is murder. Explain to me again why the DOJ felt
it necessary to create so much legal justification for torturing
detainees if they never intended to torture them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KJ Ayau" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
13 Jun 2004 06:47:22 PM |
|
|
kjayau@aol.com (KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
Hey, man, I didn't spit nothin'!
Huh? You're so quick to jump on stuff, what about her article
regardng the Constitution and torture and Bush elevating himself above
international and U.S. law? eh?
Bush is a creep. He violates law when it's convenient for him.
He tells the truth when it's convenient for him. He lies to
you when it's convenient for him. With enough time he'll be
trampling our civil liberties if it's convenient for him.
Did you notice his response when the whole abu ghraib thing
came out? He denied all knowledge of it, and was prepared to
let all the low-ranking army guys and girls take the fall for
it. That's the kind of guy Bush is. Now we know he had half
the DOJ lawyers working for months on legal briefs to justify
the torture of prisoners.
I don't care how much legal justification he thinks he has,
he won't get away with this one. Once the prisoners started
dying, he had crossed the line. There is no legal justification
for murdering prisoners of war, and Bush's hands are all over this
one. The DOJ doesn't spend 10 thousand man-hours on a specific
legal subject like this without directive from the executive
branch of gov't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tony! Any Response to the Ivins Article? |
17 Jun 2004 08:14:02 AM |
|
|
(KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
(KJ Ayau) Spat the Words
Hey, man, I didn't spit nothin'!
Don't take it personal man. Everybody I respond to is spittin
something out their mouth.
Huh? You're so quick to jump on stuff, what about her article
regardng the Constitution and torture and Bush elevating himself
above
international and U.S. law? eh?
Bush is a creep. He violates law when it's convenient for him.
He tells the truth when it's convenient for him. He lies to
you when it's convenient for him. With enough time he'll be
trampling our civil liberties if it's convenient for him.
Did you notice his response when the whole abu ghraib thing
came out? He denied all knowledge of it, and was prepared to
let all the low-ranking army guys and girls take the fall for
it. That's the kind of guy Bush is. Now we know he had half
the DOJ lawyers working for months on legal briefs to justify
the torture of prisoners.
I don't care how much legal justification he thinks he has,
he won't get away with this one. Once the prisoners started
dying, he had crossed the line. There is no legal justification
for murdering prisoners of war, and Bush's hands are all over this
one. The DOJ doesn't spend 10 thousand man-hours on a specific
legal subject like this without directive from the executive
branch of gov't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
