Demand An Attorney General Who Can Say No To President Bush
Demand An Attorney General Who Can Say No To President Bush
Democrats and Republicans alike agree that they want an independent Attorney General, who will serve the rule of law rather than just the Bush administration.
When outgoing Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress in his January 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, he claimed that if confirmed, he would be Attorney General for not “only the White House,” but also “the United States of America and its people“:
With the consent of the Senate, I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the differences between the two roles.
Gonzales completely failed to follow through on his pledge. When the Bush administration nominates the next Attorney General, the Senate must make sure that he or she not only says they are independent, but actually acts that way. Here’s the test for the next nominee: Alberto Gonzales answered yes to the following questions, would you have said “no”?
- Would you have said “no” to Bush’s warrantless wiretapping?
- Would you have said “no” to legalizing torture?
- Would you have said “no” to the partisan firings of U.S. attorneys?
- Would you have said “no” to the politicization of the Justice Department?
- Would you have said “no” to Bush’s abuse of Presidential signing statements?
Write to your Senators and demand they ask the next Attorney General nominee if they would have said “No” to these policies. Take action HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And Bush will say “No” to you.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pmGood Luck with that one!
And, BTW, don’t look for that pony under the tree this Xmas, OK?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:13 pmLOL as if Bush is going to appoint some boot licker. I realize they are in shorter and shorter supply, but there are enough fools and idiots who will still take the job.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:15 pmHindsight is 20/20. You can’t predict what issues will come up, and the idea of using “litmus test” questions to ascertain whether a candidate is suitable for the job is absurd because in effect you will only hire the person who thinks like you, which does not necessarily mean he/she would do the job right.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI beleive all of these statements that you are saying Gonzales said yes to were taking out of context. By that I mean you didnt state the whole purpose of each. For example, the first one. You should have said ” Would you support wiretapping on potentinal terrorist? The american people would have said YES
September 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pmOne question needs to be answered: Are you going to enforce the laws or not? Even if it means prosecuting the president? yes or no?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pmis = isn’t sorry was typing a little too fast. as in As if Bush isn’t going to hire some bootlicker…
September 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pmbush will nominate Ted Olson, the ultimate g.o.p. bootlicker.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pm#5…and since everyone is a POTENTIAL terrorist…
September 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pmHow about this then JT, Congress will just demand that the person up for the job decide on the above issues and where would he/she would stand.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm# 9: Michael Weiner is that you?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI was in Virginia having fun with that black girl.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pmLove that number 9. Typical g.o.p. member. What’s is like being a minority, whitey?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pmHow about this hellinabucket,
What will that get you? A rote answer that everybody likes to hear because the questions and answers have already come up and been debated ad nauseum.
We need an AG who can think forward and respond to the issues that come up down the road, not provide “pat” answers to satiate the wolves hungry for retribution in the Congressional chambers.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pmMay I respectfully add to the list of requirements:
Constitution: Do you understand the Constitution ?
Memory: The first letter of the Alphabet is “A”. Pause 2 seconds. What is the first letter in the alphabet ?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:24 pmJT: No we need an AG who will follow the law, not his right wing handlers.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:25 pmReid just said he’d block Olson. Some light at the end of that tunnel. Who will Bushes next lemming be?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pmwell? repug apologistas? whos next on the chopping block after olson hangs by his own petard?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pmOh, should have added to #16:
Can you demonstrate and understanding of the Constitution by (at a minimum) passing a 3rd grade civics class ?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pmall you fanbois who liked olson, how is that burning feeling in your sphincter? knowing you CANT GET HIM OUT OF COMMITTEE? how does it feel to be a minority? tell us.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pmMaybe he’ll appoint Harriet Myers.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pmBush knows that if he hires a real Attorney General that his (her) first order of business will be to arrest Bush, Cheney and the entire “hole in the head” gang.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pmyou can’t speak truth to power…doesn’t work…..not when a compliant congress just doled out another trillion for bush to spend
September 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pmToday’s New York Times reports that former Solicitor General Ted Olson has emerged as President Bush’s leading choice to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. That Bush might tap the controversial Olson, a key player in the 1990’s Arkansas project targeting Bill Clinton and the man who helped win the 2000 Florida recount at the Supreme Court, should come as no surprise. It’s just another part of George W. Bush’s strategy of “maximum confrontation” guiding the remainder of his presidency.
For the details, see:
September 12th, 2007 at 4:34 pm“Ted Olson and Bush’s Maximum Confrontation Strategy.”
#
#5…and since everyone is a POTENTIAL terrorist…
Comment by Menehune — September 12, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
#
Oh I’m so afraid please destroy what our country stands for…please take my rights and don’t worry about any laws including the Constitution. You are a traitor.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pmThe first thing I want to see is the nominee swearing an oath. No more of this passing on that because of deference to the status of the person — swear an oath to tell the truth.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pmTo the Democrats, there shall be no more caving in – what more do you need for us to do — we have told you we are behind you, we are at your back, pushing you forward against Bush, yet you still cower and tremble when he threatens a veto or or rejects your argument.
What more do we have to do in order for you to find your backbone, stand up and tell the megalomaniacal madman “NO!”
He is not king – the branches of government are equal. Democrats won’t lose seats in 2008 because the Repugs call them “obstructionist” Dems may lose seats because they are not obstructing Bush.
At this point anyone Bush want in that job slot should not be considered. He is simply a mob boss who wants to be king.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pmTed Olson for those of you with short memories, was head of the Arkansas Project, those pitchforks boys who went after President Clinton, as well as bush’s attorney in the bush v. Gore litigation. In other words a typical g.o.p. hack.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pmSorry “AngryOne” you beat me to the punch.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pmhis wife was killed in 9/11…this must be how he thinks he’ll be able to get olson a vote – shaming the dems. I’ll be the first to say – tuff shit olson.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pmPlease STFU. You hateful hypocrites slandered John Ashcroft when it was convenient and then turned your sights on Gonzo the second he got there. Ashcroft was too sharp for you dimwits… Gonzo – well, he’s Bush’s little buddy.
You’ll get Ted Olson and like it. You have NO say in the process. If Dems want a nasty confirmation fight to expose the hate in their base, please bring it on.
I can’t wait to examine Hillary’s record on attorney generals. Janet Reno – oversaw the slaughter of 80 civilians including women and children and stuck a gun in the face of a 7 year old boy per Castro’s request. That should be fun.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:46 pmSomeone is dreaming if they think Bush is really going to toss up in impartial AG. It’s about as likely as getting an impartial Supreme Court justice in the event someting happens to our current Judges…
http://www.beforeyougopostal.com/Slugg/
September 12th, 2007 at 4:50 pmCould this possibly look any more like Israeli psyops propaganda to start a war against Syria & Iran simultaneously?
DO YOU GET IT YET?
Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria
Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran
Ynetnews
Latest Update: 09.12.07, 14:21 / Israel News
Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,†he said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448829,00.html
September 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI can’t wait to examine Hillary’s record on attorney generals. Janet Reno – oversaw the slaughter of 80 civilians including women and children and stuck a gun in the face of a 7 year old boy per Castro’s request. That should be fun.
Comment by Hillary Whacked Vince — September 12, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
I don’t recall when Hillary was president and Janet Reno was her AG.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pmCould you please extrapolate on this.
Comment by dismal
You’ll get Ted Olson and like it. You have NO say in the process. If Dems want a nasty confirmation fight to expose the hate in their base, please bring it on.
You don’t like democracy do you? Its all about honoring your boy king, isn’t it? I think that is where you find your strength: supporting Bush. You probably don’t count for much to anyone, anywhere so you rail against anyone who questions your monarch. Little, insignificant people need somebody else to prop them up. That’s why the brown shirts in Nazi germany were so happy. they finally got to ‘be somebody’ for a little while. Well, I’ll tell you: You are a nobody with fascist leanings. probably a wife beater too. That also makes you feel strong, huh?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pmwhatever happens it wont be there when the invasion occurs. and bush will jsut say ‘Aw shucks.’
September 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pmhwv needs meds
September 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pmHWC; Republicans raised hypocrasy to an art form. e.g.
Foley pushes legislation protecting children from child molesters while he’s in hot pursuit of pages.
Hastert protects Foley.
Vitter goes to hookers and wears diapers while proclaiming GOP ‘moral values’
Gingrich pushes to impeach Clinton for a BJ while he’s having a tryst at the same time
I could go on and on, the list is endless. My father always told me that people who live in glass houses should not go around throwing stones.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:55 pmMan, the trolls on this site are getting outta hand!
September 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pmI would be happy with a few dems that can say no to Bush, let alone an AG.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pmWill Farrrell did a great Janet Reno impression.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThere’s a convicted felon who needs a job and maybe he might say no now that he is a free man.
Scooter Libby is available for the job of Attorney General.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pmTP seems fairly good at devising leading questions. Here’s one for you:
Would TP have subjected Mohammad Atta to waterboarding IF the information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks??
September 12th, 2007 at 5:24 pmThanks for the info Ace!
Just what we need, wars all over the freaking place.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:27 pmFirst of all straw person diana – do you really, deep in your dark little heart, think that Atta would have confessed anything? I seriously doubt it and I suspect so do you.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm“diana” – have you seen Syrianna yet? I recommend it for you.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThanks so much for your cool widget that allows us to sent e-mails to our representatives. Now, how about putting that technical knowledge to getting a registration system going!
September 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pmWould TP have subjected Mohammad Atta to waterboarding IF the information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks??
Comment by dauntless diana
That would have to assume that torturing people gives good intel which is not the case. All experts say that you are not likely to get good information when you torture people. If we were to get good information, then why have they not tried any of the people in Guantanamo who were tortured. If it worked, one would think that our government would have evidence to use against the people they are holding indefinitely with no charges being filed against them.
But, if you want my opinion, I’ll tell you what it is. No, I would not want you to torture Atta under any circumstances because torture is a slippery slope. Doesn’t it bother you that now that we have legitimized torture for our government, it is opening our soldiers up to being tortured if they are ever captured. We certainly could not protest if Iran captured our soldiers and then tortured them. We lost that moral high road when Bush defied the Geneva Conventions and authorized torture.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pmHindsight is 20/20. You can’t predict what issues will come up, and the idea of using “litmus test†questions to ascertain whether a candidate is suitable for the job is absurd because in effect you will only hire the person who thinks like you, which does not necessarily mean he/she would do the job right.
Comment by JT
Which is exactly what Bush has done. He has only hired (or nominated) people who think exactly like he does and we all know how well that works out. Don’t you think that we have the right to have an AG who represents us, you know, we the people instead of who represents the President of the United States. That’s how it is supposed to happen.
I hope that the Democrats refuse to confirm anyone as AG until such time as they can finish their investigation into the US Attorney firings.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:53 pm“diana†– have you seen Syrianna yet? I recommend it for you.
Comment by margaret
Yes, I did….as well as another “prog” favourite, “The Constant Gardener”. The good news…..I was a guest of a friend from the Academy and didn’t have to spend a dime of my hard earned money…..
Margaret, I recommend you explain to the American people EXACTLY what would happen to the US economy if we pull the plug on foreign oil before we transition fully to alternative energy sources…….
September 12th, 2007 at 5:56 pm“First of all straw person diana – do you really, deep in your dark little heart, think that Atta would have confessed anything? I seriously doubt it and I suspect so do you.”
Comment by margaret
Margaret – I never take it upon myself to ASSume I know as much about interrogation thru waterboarding as you seem to. But I do KNOW Khalid Sheik Mohammad sang like a dolphin after a thorough dunking……….
September 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pmYes, I did….as well as another “prog†favourite, “The Constant Gardenerâ€. The good news…..I was a guest of a friend from the Academy and didn’t have to spend a dime of my hard earned money…..
Comment by dauntless diana — September 12, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Translation; my group home had an outing and I got to see a movie. They included a soda, but I don’t get to have straws.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pmAttorney General Bruce Fein
BLOG | Posted 08/28/2007 @ 6:41pm
It is likely — though not entirely certain in these tumultuous times for the dangerously adrift Bush-Cheney administration — that the next Attorney General of the United States will be a conservative.
The question is whether he or she will be a conservative who disregards the Constitution — as did the disgraced and disgraceful Alberto Gonzales — or a conservative who respects the document.
Richard A. Viguerie, the political direct-mail pioneer who has been referred to as “the funding father of the conservative movement,” ought to understand the distinction better than just about anyone.
Viguerie has been at odds with the Bush-Cheney administration for the past several years — arguing, appropriately, that the current president and vice president have abandoned conservative principles in order to expand the power and authority of the federal government.
Last year, Viguerie authored a smart book on the subject, Conservatives Betrayed — How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books). This year, he signed on with an even smarter initiative, the American Freedom Agenda, an effort by conservative leaders to reassert basic Constitutional principles by prohibiting warrantless spying, restoring habeas corpus, banning extraordinary rendition and torture, barring presidential signing statements and renewing open government protections.
The American Freedom Agenda, led by Viguerie, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, American Conservative Union chair David Keene, Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein and Viguerie has bluntly assessed the failings of the Bush-Cheney administration when it comes to defending the Constitution and the Republic it serves. “Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law,” it declared. “The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.”
In April, Viguerie, Keene, Barr, Fein and their allies signed a letter to President Bush calling for the firing of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution’s time-honored checks and balances. He has brought rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm,” they declared. “He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice.”
Now that Bush has fired Gonzales — and, make no mistake, the timing of the Attorney General’s exit on the eve of what will likely be Bush’s roughest month as president, confirms that this is not a willing exit — Viguerie is proposing a list of candidates to fill the nation’s top law-enforcement job.
Disappointingly, most of the names of Viguerie’s list are individuals who have sided with the Bush-Cheney administration in assaulting the Constitution. For instance, Viguerie suggests Chris Cox, the current chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. But in October, 2001, when he was serving in the House, Cox voted for the USA Patriot Act. House Republicans such as Texan Ron Paul and Idaho’s Butch Otter opposed the act because they recognized that it attacked basic Constitutional protections. By any reasonable measure, Cox failed the most critical Constitutional test of his congressional tenure.
The same goes for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a Patriot Act supporter in 2001 and defender in the years that followed. In 2006, Santorum also voted for the Military Commissions Act, which the American Freedom Agenda campaign has made a prime target of its criticism. From a Constitutional perspective, Santorum would be an atrocious choice to follow Gonzales.
Ted Olson, the Bush-Cheney administration’s Solicitor General from 2001 to 2004, failed at every critical turn to defend individual liberties, as did former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, who chaired a congressional commission on terrorism that did a miserable job when it came to balancing security concerns and the duty to defend basic freedoms.
If Viguerie and other conservatives are serious about undoing the damage Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have caused to the Constitution, they need to come up with better choices than these.
Where to begin? Why not with Bruce Fein, the chairman of the American Freedom Agenda?
Fein is qualified. A much-published Harvard Law School graduate who served as an associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 and as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission, he has frequently been called on by Republicans and Democrats to help them sort through prickly Constitutional issues.
Fein is a true conservative, and he would serve as a very conservative Attorney General. But he would take his oath of office seriously, particularly the section requiring him to defend the Constitution rather than the political whims of the president and vice president.
So why did Viguerie refrain from proposing the name of Fein, a candidate who would do everything that Viguerie and other true conservatives know must be done to remake and renew the Department of Justice as an agenda that respects the Constitution?
Unfortunately for his own ambitions, Fein is an sincere conservative. As such, the man Ronald Reagan trusted to enforce the laws of the land has called, most recently in an appearance we did together on “Bill Moyers’ Journal,” for the opening of impeachment hearings targeting President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Additionally, he was working with a Democratic congressman on articles of impeachment against Gonzales at the time of the Attorney General’s resignation.
Fein’s willingness to put principle above politics undoubtedly disqualifies him from consideration by Bush as a successor for Gonzales. But Viguerie and other Constitutional conservatives owe their compatriot — and their country — better. Anyone who is serious about cleaning up the mess at the Department of Justice knows that the job will not be done by lawyers who have, by their actions, shown that they do not understand the basic intentions or values of the nation’s founding document.
Bruce Fein’s name belongs on the list of conservatives who would make appropriate replacements for Alberto Gonzales. Indeed, Fein’s name should be at its top.
———————————————————————
John Nichols’ new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=227562
September 12th, 2007 at 6:13 pmBut I do KNOW Khalid Sheik Mohammad sang like a dolphin after a thorough dunking……….
Comment by dauntless diana — September 12, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
I heard he admitted to killing JonBenet Ramsey as well.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pmKrazy – Please answer the question:
Would you have subjected Mohammad Atta to waterboarding IF the information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks??
September 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pmWould you have subjected Mohammad Atta to waterboarding IF the information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks??
Comment by dauntless diana — September 12, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
a completely stupid and useless question. This isn’t a hollywood movie or TV show. Information garnered by torture is unreliable at best.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pmYou know nothing of the sort, liar.
Comment by ronjazz — September 12, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Give her a break, ron… ya never know, she might have helped do the torturing…. ;-D!!!
September 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pmComment by bilbobaggins — September 12, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
You make excellent points in your post at #49.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pmI would also like to add, if I may, what can happen to the soul of a person who administers torture. He may disconnect from humanity. He risks losing empathy with others for the remainder of his life. He may suffer from inner demons. He can reach a point where he can’t handle interpersonal relations because he has lost touch with himself.
Being on the receiving end of torture is a horrible, horrible condition. Being on the administration end of torture may also be horrible; it just takes longer to die.
Marie and Bilbo – excellent points, both.
The other compelling argument against torture is that if an enemy on the battle field thinks he might be subjected to torture, he will be more likely to fight on hopelessly and less likely to surrender. This puts our soldiers at greater risk.
Your arguments are more moral, but for those who care most about “supporting the troops”, torture is still a bad idea.
It is vital to refute the “ticking time bomb” fallacy as well. This is a story line intended to scare the public into thinking that there are ticking bombs around every corner. None of the “terror plots” were uncovered in an especially advanced stage.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI have NOTHING against Ted Olson, but give me LARRY THOMPSON, instead!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/u-s-attorney-general-list-is-narrowed.html#links
September 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pmWould you have subjected Mohammad Atta to waterboarding IF the information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks??
Comment by dauntless diana — September 12, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
a completely stupid and useless question. This isn’t a hollywood movie or TV show. Information garnered by torture is unreliable at best.
Comment by Krazny
I’ll take that as a “No”…….
September 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pmHey losers, we voted Bush in twice for a reason. And we want people who vote his way. So just say “Yes”!
BTW: For you global warming nuts. You won’t see this in the liberal press -
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
ROTFL
September 13th, 2007 at 7:55 amHarry Reid has told us that he will oppose Olson’s nom….but hey, when’s the next Congressional recess…??
September 13th, 2007 at 11:38 amThis is too easy – Re “Hillary Whacked Vince” troll’s statement about Ashcroft being too smart.
As I remember it, Ashcroft ran for political office against a dead man, and ultra-conservative Missouri still had enough sense to vote for the stiff.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:52 am#57
September 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pmDiana, I’m going to tell you about a conversation I had recently which contains similarities to your argument about torture. I was recently in a nightclub and was asked by a drunk Catholic if I supported “pre-emptive strike.” I replied, “It depends. What exactly are we talking about here?” He said, “I’m simply asking you straight out, do you support a pre-emptive strike or not?!” I then asked him, “I normally don’t answer a question with a question, but in this case I feel it’s justified.” He said, “Sure, go right ahead, as long as you answer MY question next.” I said, “Tell me this, are you married?” He replied that indeed he was. I then asked him, “Well then, have you stopped beating your wife?” He wouldn’t speak to me after that, which proves that when you provide a logical (or not so logical) counterpoint which disproves or discredits a “conservative’s” way of thinking, they go into fatal error mode and simply shutdown. Diana, have you stopped beating your husband?
Regarding the Senate confirmation hearing question for the next AG, “Would you have have said “no” to legalizing torture?”
Example critical corollary questions to this are,
“What legal definition would you use for the term “torture?”"
“Would you use the 1975 UN Declaration against Torture definition -
1. …torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2. Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”?
“Would you use 1984 UN Convention against Torture definition -
1. …“torture†means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.”?
“Would you use the -the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): “‘Torture’ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”?
There are also others. The issue is that it doesn’t much matter whether public officials condemn ‘torture’ if virtually nothing is included in its definition when someone is treated to the severe pain & suffering intentionally inflicted by public officials who thereby aren’t held accountable for what they did to another human being.
e.g http://ghosdog.podbean.com
DoJ declared that the treatment you can hear here that went on for hours without justification is not a criminal civil rights violation. They also refuse to consider federal laws broken outside of this specifically chosen viewpoint. Prosecutors for the State refuse to charge anything…or actually even investigate…not even simple assault. I disagree and have published some of the recorded statements. Feel free to comment. I want to know what people think.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 am