The New York Times > Washington >Lawyers Decided Bush Could Ignore Bans on Torture



*Remember how the Iraqi Prison abuse was just the work of a few bad eggs?
*Remember the administration testifying before the Supreme Court that the US refrains from "torture and that kind of thing." because "The last thing you want to do is torture somebody or try to do something along those lines" (this mere hours before the photos hit the air).
*Remember the memos suggesting high-level approval sanctioning torture?
*Remember the Berkeley law professor who, in 2002, worked to find loopholes in international law regarding the treatment of prisoners? (HEY! wasn't that about the time bush was backing us out of international courts and war crimes treaties? HMMMMM...)

WELL, there's MORE!

See, the Wall Street Journal saw a copy of a classified memo to Rumsfeld describing how the President is somehow NOT BOUND by U.S. and International laws that forbid torture! From the Article:

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than 'obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens,' normal strictures on torture might not apply. The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the 'necessity' of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or 'superior orders,' sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no 'moral choice was in fact possible.'

it continues...

"A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert 'presidential power at its absolute apex,' the lawyer said. Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were saying President Bush could claim."

Great. So bush could set aside our LAWS when it suits his needs. you know, someone should take

The Legislative probe looking into the abuses demanded Ashcroft hand over this memo. He refused, arguing that this is protected info. When asked if the president was evoking "Executive Priviledge," he said no. When ask to give one law or constitutional provision that allows this position he had none.

DON'T WORRY DEAR READERS...POLLY & THE MOOCH HAVE IT RIGHT HERE! See how YOU TOO can commit torture and slither your way out of responsibility!

novel word. responsibility....

of course, today the Reagasm continues, so who knows if this story has legs...?