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.

 

Classified Documents Explained

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
With the Rumsfield memo released by the washington post ( you can see it here: www.washingtonpost.com...) we 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: )

www.koreaherald.co.kr...


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 War.



[edit on 14-6-2004 by J0HNSmith]




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
A few more quotes and sources on the subject:

"This administration rejects torture," Ashcroft said. Later, he added: "I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."

Nonetheless, Ashcroft said, Bush issued a directive requiring that Taliban and al Qaeda captives be treated under the same principles as other soldiers. Most of those prisoners are held on a U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and testimony at hearings on the Abu Ghraib abuses said Bush had ordered that their treatment be "consistent with" the Geneva principles.

www.cnn.com...

"President Bush spoke on the issue of torture Thursday, saying he expected U.S. authorities to abide by the law. He declined to say whether he believes U.S. law prohibits torture."

www.washingtonpost.com...

"Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism"

www.msnbc.msn.com...


I know it's an old topic, but the facts here put it into a whole new light.



new topics
 
0

log in

join