Following scattered reports last year of harsh interrogation techniques used by the U.S. overseas, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice asking for clarification. The response came in June 2003 from Mr. Haynes, who wrote that the U.S. was obliged to conduct interrogations "consistent with" the 1994 international Convention Against Torture and the federal Torture Statute enacted to implement the convention outside the U.S.
The U.S. "does not permit, tolerate or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances," Mr. Haynes wrote. The U.S. also followed its legal duty, required by the torture convention, "to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture," he wrote.
The U.S. "does not permit, tolerate or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances," Mr. Haynes wrote. The U.S. also followed its legal duty, required by the torture convention, "to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture," he wrote.
Lying to Congress doesn't count any more, I guess. Congress wants to be lied to. (She likes it when I get rough. And I must say that the American public behaves in ways consistent with battered wife syndrome.)
The Convention Against Torture was proposed in 1984 by the United Nations General Assembly and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," and that orders from superiors "may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
Well, that's going to shoot down Lynndie England's defense. And damn that Clinton. He really is responsible for us losing this war if we can't torture.
There seems to be a lot of nits picked about what is or is not torture these days, but if Mr. Haynes' statement to Congress about the "other acts" prevented by the "torture convention" is correct, I don't see how there is any argument about any of the "interrogation methods" being used. They were all cruel and degrading, at the very least.
The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute, which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment if the victim dies.
What a wonderful pass. The President can do whatever the fuck he wants, and no court of law, no other branch of the government can interfere. Do these people read the Constitution? What the hell do we have laws for? What a fricking waste of time on that federal Torture Statute. By that law, there are some people bound for life imprisonment at this very moment who are not serving that sentence.
I don't know about you, but I think I'd settle for 20 years for the Law-breaker in Chief.
Digby comments on why this kind of executive power grab hasn't happened before in our country:
Perhaps this weakness in our system is only likely to be exploited by a special kind of chief executive, the kind who takes office in an anomolous fashion and then governs radically without a mandate from the people; the kind who sees his legitimacy stemming from God rather than the ballot box; the kind who is convinced that he is leading a great crusade rather than running a democracy on behalf of it's citizens.
Perhaps it took the unique combination of an attack on the country and a president of limited intellect and legitimacy to go that extra mile.
Perhaps it took the unique combination of an attack on the country and a president of limited intellect and legitimacy to go that extra mile.
Read the WSJ article to get more of the report. It's absolutely amazing. And makes crystal clear the benefit of packing the Supreme Court. If we American citizens are going to permit this blatant lawlessness and destruction of the Constitution by the thugs who currently occupy the White House, then I don't think we can expect any sympathy when they declare a federal emergency and cancel the November elections altogether.
In some countries, the people actually march on the palace and dethrone the rulers when they've taken such liberties.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
