Saturday, July 16, 2005

Andrew Sullivan shines some light on the Bush Torture Policy...

So one of the big questions for me still remains: Is the torture of detainees an approved policy, or is it the work of a few bad apples?

Andrew Sullivan is circling in on an answer:

 

GENEVA SUSPENDED: We have new evidence that president Bush's suspension of the ban on torture under the Geneva Conventions and under American law was ordered over the objections of the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines. Money quote:
A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "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." Haynes -- through Daniel J. Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department -- wrote a memo March 17 that rescinded the working group's report, and Dell'Orto confirmed that withdrawal yesterday at the hearing. According to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post, the general counsel's office determined that the report "does not reflect now-settled executive branch views of the relevant law."
Notice how broad the original exception was. It legalized torture anywhere for any POWs - not just enemy combatants - if the president so ordered. And we now have a precedent that would permit even legitimate U.S. POWs to be tortured in retaliation. We had a president declaring himself above the law, and he got his legal lackey, Alberto Gonzales, to rubber-stamp it. Does any sane person really believe that president Bush's personal suspension of the law against torture had nothing to do with the abuses that followed in every single theater of the war on terror? Or that his decision hasn't put U.S. soldiers now and in the future at greater risk even in conventional combat? Notice also how the military's legal representatives opposed it. The secretary of state opposed it. This was Bush's choice. The line from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the White House is perfectly straight. And people are fixating on Karl Rove?



You can find Sullivan's Blog here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

6 comments:

  1. Karl Rove will be charged at least for defrauding the government, using the resources of his job to do non-job-related things.

    Regarding the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald. I have been saying from about the time Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed that it was because John Ashcroft and James Comey decided not to participate in the cover-up. I think what Comey said at his announcement of the appointment of Fitzgerald was truthful -- unlike a Bushist lie it makes sense. He and Ashcroft got a briefing from their investigation group that made them say 'Uh oh'. What exactly the briefing said I don't know, but it made their hair stand on end. So Ashcroft recused himself and Comey appointed a prosecutor _who did not need to ask Comey for permissions_ to do what needed to be done. And Comey made an appointment that would not bring shame upon him and Ashcroft. Their hands were clean.

    The short version of this, in my parlance, is that Ashcroft threw Bush to the wolves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice post on the 12th about Fitzgerald on one of your blogs, Barry. I surfed over to one of your blogs and checked it out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have torture going on mainly because Bush is sadistic. Sadism is one of the symptoms of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He demeans others to enhance his own narcissistic 'reflection'. We saw this when he mocked Karla Faye Tucker, after letting her believe until the end that there was any chance she might be spared. It is why Bush set records for executions. He is a dangerously ill man, who should have been hospitalized as a danger to himself and others, the moment he won the governorship of Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting...Oh and it appears Hippy you and I have a few more things in common. My fiance hails from a city called Moore I believe that is near Oklahoma City. Here in a few weeks we will be having a post nuptual gathering there with her family after we wed in Worchester, any suggestions on good restaurants?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the tips, but I think my wife and I have settled on the 'Pepperoni Grill'. Apparantly she's been there before and her family really likes it. Have you heard anything about that one? She said it was in a mall of somekind, Pennsquare I believe.
    Oh! And do you and The Hippy use the email address that is in your profile? If so I was going to send you an evite.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like Pepperoni Grill, and Penn Square is correct. I've been there a couple of times, and it's was pretty good. It's been awhile, so I can't remember what I had, or I would give a suggestion on what to order. I'm sure you'll have a lovely time.

    You can use the e-mail my hubby provided in the other post or ladybugfaerie@cheerful.com.

    I'm glad you think us worthy of an invite. Enjoy your time in Oklahoma, and again, congrats!

    -The Hippy's Wife :)

    ReplyDelete