The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America's war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee Tuesday.
At times flustered and searching for words, Ashcroft was grilled by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about reports that memos by Bush administration lawyers concluded the president can legally order interrogators to abuse or even kill terrorist suspects in the interests of national security.
While Ashcroft refused to answer repeated questions on whether such memos were penned by the Justice Department for the White House and he denied Congress access to such memos, he maintained President Bush never authorized torturing terrorist suspects.
Salt Lake Tribune article
At times flustered and searching for words, Ashcroft was grilled by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about reports that memos by Bush administration lawyers concluded the president can legally order interrogators to abuse or even kill terrorist suspects in the interests of national security.
While Ashcroft refused to answer repeated questions on whether such memos were penned by the Justice Department for the White House and he denied Congress access to such memos, he maintained President Bush never authorized torturing terrorist suspects.
Always protect the King.
Asked whether he personally believed torturing terrorist suspects to protect America from a potential attack was acceptable, Ashcroft replied: "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."
But, legally, it's permitted.
Posted at Anatole Popadopoulas
Republicans, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah, endeavored to praise Ashcroft and defend the president while avoiding any tacit endorsement of torture as a legitimate means of interrogation.
"We live in a dangerous world and our commander-in-chief must have the proper amount of authority to act decisively to protect the public," said Hatch. "As well, we need more discussion about where and by whom the line should be drawn between permissible aggressive interrogation techniques, and when interrogation becomes torture and whether torture is ever justified."
"We live in a dangerous world and our commander-in-chief must have the proper amount of authority to act decisively to protect the public," said Hatch. "As well, we need more discussion about where and by whom the line should be drawn between permissible aggressive interrogation techniques, and when interrogation becomes torture and whether torture is ever justified."
Maybe, you amoral idiot, it's a dangerous world in part because torture is considered justified in some cases. And, we've had that discussion, and the answer was "no". That's how we got that law that your slimeball "leader" has broken.
Ashcroft said because the al-Qaida terrorist network is not a "high contracting party" to the international treaties known as the Geneva Conventions that prohibit physical abuse of prisoners of war, the treaties' protections do not apply to members of the militant Islamic group.
But Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, retorted that "there's a reason why we sign these treaties -- it's to protect my son in the military" in the event he is ever captured by enemy forces.
But Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, retorted that "there's a reason why we sign these treaties -- it's to protect my son in the military" in the event he is ever captured by enemy forces.
I was wondering who was the one Washington politician who had a child in the military. I don't suppose the kid is on the front lines, though.
"Y'all better come up with a good rationale [not to release the memos] or otherwise it's contempt of Congress," Biden warned Ashcroft.
When Congress starts actually handing out sentences....oh never mind. You know that's never going to happen. They might someday be on the receiving end of them.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
