It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MEMO: Bush is not Restricted by Torture Bans

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
In a memo to Donald Rumsfeld it is pointed out that in a time of war the president is not held to domestic and international bans on torture such as the geneva convention.


"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.



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 came to light when the Pentagon began investigation interogation practices at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

news.yahoo.com.../nm/20040608/ts_nm/security_torture_memo_dc_1




posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I also heard this story on radio a long way away a couple of days ago.

It concluded that the Bush administration "never received" this advice. They have no option but to say that, as the advice was insane and the decision to act on the advice was insane.

Just another nail in the coffin.


scf

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
What makes this story current, and interesting is the recent updates:

www.thehill.com...

Not only is Ashcroft refusing to hand over the three memos in question, but Ashcroft refused to answer when asked if the President gave any direct instruction as to interrogation techniques. (Not in the article, unfortunately, I heard audio of the interview on the local public radio station. Will edit with link, when full story is posted.)



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I t most likely was agreed on that it s ok, but you know what I could care less and I think most other Americas could care less also, if by doing so we save our backsides. For anyone out there that dosn't get it yet your an infidel dog the lowest of the low and you will be killed no matter how much you say you feel their pain.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen
For anyone out there that dosn't get it yet your an infidel dog the lowest of the low and you will be killed no matter how much you say you feel their pain.


And, at times, it pays to read the motto of the site, to avoid bizarre generalizations. Why should we feel anyone's pain, or inflict pain on them?



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen
For anyone out there that dosn't get it yet your an infidel dog the lowest of the low and you will be killed no matter how much you say you feel their pain.


Dude,

Chill out man. Nobody took a pee in your cherrios, its just a discussion board but discussion doesn't get too far that way.


scf

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen part I
I t most likely was agreed on that it s ok, but you know what I could care less and I think most other Americas could care less

True, but most Americans aren't necessarily getting there news here, it's an Alt/news site.


Originally posted by Waffen part II
also, if by doing so we save our backsides.

How long before the gov comes after your backside for just reading this anti-establishment stuff? (let me guess. "They wouldn't do that, reading isn't illegal." The answer to that is simple, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" Yeah, the government doesn't go on witch hunts against law abiding citizens.)


Originally posted by Waffen part III For anyone out there that dosn't get it yet your an infidel dog the lowest of the low and you will be killed no matter how much you say you feel their pain.

It's supposed to be an open forum. Too much talk radio can be bad for you.



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Before the Iraqi prison abuse scandal, the US got a 1-year petition approved to exempt the US and its soldiers from the Geneva Convention as well. The rationale was that the US would take care of its violaters because if left up to the UN they might be a victim of political terrorism within the agency's ranks. This coupled with the current thread and with the fact that in the Patriot Act, terror suspects may be detained for an indefinte amount of time leaves some serious issues to ponder how far this may go. Is it possible that prisoners may be tortured and then detained forever/killed so they do not reveal information upon their release? Its just a possibility and seems the government is trying to cover their ass for some horrendous planning on their part.
Also, does anyone think the government will try to make prisoners commit to crimes they did not commit with this? How can they be assured about other information they may receive?
It just seems like this can be used in a similar fashion as the Red Scare to flush out anyone who may be potentially a terror suspect in their eyes, even if its not necessarily true...



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Before the Iraqi prison abuse scandal, the US got a 1-year petition approved to exempt the US and its soldiers from the Geneva Convention as well.



Is that so? Approved and all? Who do you pay to absolve you of any responsibility for how you treat your fellow creatures? I never knew there was such an authority accepting such bribes anywhere on this planet.

Link please.



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
www.commondreams.org...

In this article, they say how the US is trying to extend the exemption...



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Heres another:
www.nytimes.com... 05/23/international/middleeast/23IRAQ.html?ex=1086926400&en=0efaf7600dfabccb&ei=5070&8br

one more:
www.detnews.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
OK.

Exemption from punishment through the War Crimes Tribunal is not the same as exemption from adherence to the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a permanent subscriber.

I would not expect the US to appear again in any international human rights bodies, U.N. or otherwise, for several decades.




posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
OK, there's this one little bit...


In recent public statements, Bush administration officials have said that the Geneva Conventions were "fully applicable" in Iraq. That has put American-run prisons in Iraq in a different category from those in Afghanistan and in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, where members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been declared unlawful combatants not eligible for protection


I guess I was more going on the declaration of illegal combatants not tied with a government. Funny thing is, I thought the Taliban was the government in control in Afghanistan.

I thought the War Crimes Tribunal was the enforcement for the Geneva Convention?

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join