posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM
With the Rumsfield memo released by the washington post ( you can see it here: www.washingtonpost.com...
now know that Bush and his cronies have not only been fighting the war on terror dirty but have attempted to find a way to make torture legal through
claims of ignorance. Now that the document that was supposed to be kept classified for 10 years has leaked out and specifically details how the
administration intended to carry this war crime out and have not accountability a lot of people including myself would like a laymen's term
explanation of this 50 page internal memo written by Donald Rumsfield. I found a site that breaks the argument down that the administration was
trying to use to legally get away with torture, here it is and I hope the helps everyone get a better understanding of how nasty our government really
is and what they are capable of (i.e. plotting and spending our tax dollars to find ways to legally torture people, sick if you ask me: )
Student: When deciding which torture is legal, what guidelines should we use?
Professor: The rule is, if the prisoners are held without a lawyer, then you don't have to read them their rights.
Student: Is there anything on the books that says a person, while being tortured, can invoke the Fifth Amendment so he won't incriminate himself?
Professor: An intelligence officer will refuse to accept that because the United States Constitution doesn't apply to Iraqis or member of al-Qaida.
Student: So there is nothing in the Constitution about torture?
Professor: Not in so many words, but the founding fathers didn't reject using it against the British when we were fighting during the Revolutionary
[edit on 14-6-2004 by J0HNSmith]