DOJ giving interrogators room to breach international law.
DOJ giving interrogators room to breach international law.
The New York Times reports that recent letters from the Justice Department state that “American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law, specifically, the Geneva Conventions:
While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman of Duke University.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Basically what they are saying; If we broke the law, we are innocent.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pmPapa Bush will protect us.
.
So,
The DOJ endorses the use of torture…
IF attempting to thwart a terrorist attack.
So then; The DOJ will argue that every case of torture is a result of attempting to thwart a terrorist attack…
… even if it didn’t result in actionable intelligence…
… or the person dies before any actionable intelligence is obtained.
… Because…
It’s not TORTURE when America does it?
.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:17 pmWe are citizens of a rogue nation and it’s up to us to change that sad fact. Leave no outrage unchallenged. Write/call/email/ harass/hound your Representatives and make it very clear that they will receive NO money, or votes, if they refuse to thwart the criminals in power. Campaign for, and contribute to (as means allow) accountable candidates at ALL levels in government.
PROTEST! PROTEST!! PROTEST!!!
If one of the guilty, ultimately, goes unpunished? We deserve the curses of civilized people everywhere.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pmJust when I think I can’t get any more disgusted with the crapfest coming out of DOJ…
Hey, Presto!
April 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pmI watched the old movie Judgment at Nuremburg tonight.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pmIt was enjoyable to imagine this fascist administration in the “dock.”
It was also impressive to hear the final deliberation by Spencer Tracy in describing WHY war crimes are despicable and must be punished.
Sadly, the note at the end indicated there were 99 tried at Nuremburg (in the late ’40’s) and by the time this movie was made in 1961, all of them were out of jail.
I, myself, would be somewhat satisfied if Bush&Co were to spend the next 20 years in a cell.
The New York Times reports that recent letters from the Justice Department state that “American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law, specifically, the Geneva Conventions
Ummmmmm…..No…..They cannot.
Getting away with it , does not make it legal or any less illegal.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pmWhen questioned, Mukasey pulled out his magic wand, waved it ceremoniously in the air, and pronounced this tactic legal, constitutional, and less filling.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pmSo if I beat the crap out of my neighbor I can claim that I was protecting the country and get off scott free…COOL!
This is just so criminal that they should got to trial for these WAR CRIMES.
Let’s see-
Is this being brought up on any of the MSM propagada machine?
NO.
Is congress going to do anything about it?
NOOooo.
Will the next administration do anything about it?
NOOOoooo.
Will the criminal gang of Bushco get off scott free?
y…e…s…they will, the country has lost it morals, ethics, and has become a rouge country.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pmSmarter, healthier, and more principled people than Brian A. Benczkowski made the laws that protect us from torture. I hope we don’t let this goofy, sick little neocon fukhead ruin their work.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:16 amBlind Lady Justice has been supplanted by the Department of Justification. The dream that was America is but a dim memory of a few peons.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:21 amLook, I’m no lawyer, but as I understand it, whether or not what you did was illegal depends on whether or not what you did broke the law, not whether or not a lawyer told you it was legal. If what you did was illegal, it was illegal, no matter what your lawyer told you. You can sue him later if he was wrong.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:23 amWayne, someone forgot to tell them that CON law is short for Constititutional Law, not …, well you get the drift…
April 27th, 2008 at 12:28 amThe Geneva Convention set these rules for a reason. A threatened terrorist attack, bombing a building, blowing up a car; it’s irrelevant, interrogation methods have to stay within the guidelines that have been set down in writing. If not, that lowers our standards to the terrorists that attacked us. There can never be a justification for torture no matter what the crime is. Or even if there is a potential threat.
Will we ever learn how to live together in peace with leaders so hellbent on destruction and greed???
April 27th, 2008 at 12:35 amOnce again the bushco crime family says “SO” to America.These bastards need to go to JAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 27th, 2008 at 1:34 amThe Geneva conventions says:
“To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever…”
“(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;”
Whatsoever means no excuses.
And it says nothing of “measuring the outrageousness of the act”. If you think you have to measure the outrageousness to know if someone is being humiliated or not, then you are seriously deluding yourself and your conscience.
April 27th, 2008 at 3:51 amOh Shrub, you shriveling, inept pile of horse shit, GO TO HELL, and take your entire administration with you, stupid fcukers.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:32 amRepublicans are degenerates.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:26 amSo criminals decide that laws don’t apply to them. Lets test this theory at the Hague.
I hate this fascist government that has turned the “beacon on the hill” into a garbage dump of lawlessness. God damned Nazi’s. They are even showing up at birthday parties for Hitler.
April 27th, 2008 at 6:35 am“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman of Duke University.
No, what they are saying is that the ends justify the means.
What particular part of “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” don’t these yahoos understand?
April 27th, 2008 at 7:38 amPost 9/11 cowardice and fear caused the Cheney-Bush administration’s leadership to lose any remnant of a moral compass it may have had and given terrorism a huge victory over us.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:49 amThat is what Jeremiah Wright was saying:
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
April 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am“America’s chickens have come home to ROOOST!”
April 27th, 2008 at 9:39 amThe “legal” reasoning is laughable but the real question is whether the next administration or the international community will have the guts to prosecute all our accomplished and aspiring war criminals and their facilitators, from Bush, CHeney, and Rice down to Mukasey, Yoo, Addington, etc.
What’s ridiculous about this whole thing, and typically CON, is that we don’t need to make torture legal for individuals to use it under extreme conditions. As long as they’re willing to face the consequences. But Bush and his CON cronies are never willing to do anything that Daddy with his lawyers, connections, and money can’t get them out of. The definition of cowardice…
April 27th, 2008 at 10:31 amhow is it possible that a nation founded on the rule of law can tolerate at the core of its government the exact opposite: the rule of power – I can, therefore I will no matter what the law says. That the criminal bush and many criminals of the bush regime weren’t in prison long ago is a permanent disgrace on the US.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:32 amThe US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution makes plain that the US is bound by the foreign treaties it signs, not just internationally but domestically too.
In signing the Geneva Convention the US agreed to abide by its definitions of torture and abuse. Now it ignores those definitions but refuses to provide definitions of its own and refuses to have those definitions examined and tested by others.
This neat little discussion about “outrages on personal dignity” is beside the point—but it serves the DOJ’s need to obfuscate the principal matter which is that torture in as many forms as the US wants to apply has become institutionalized. Torture is policy.
The title of the NYT article adheres to the DOJ’s strictly rhetorical and semantic arguments:
Letters Give CIA Tactics a Legal Rationale
NO legal rationale is being provided—the word should be legalistic, or else ‘legal’ shouldn’t be there at all.
“The legal interpretation…sheds new light…”
The interpretation is not ‘legal’, it is just an interpretation provided by lawyers of one side. It has not been adjudicated or subject to any actually legal process or test.
The DOJ has decided it doesn’t like the laws it is supposed to be bound by, so it refuses to abide by them, but it also refuses to replace the existing laws with new ones to its liking, according to due process.
The criminality of the Bush administration and all its flunkies clearly knows no bounds.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:36 amSince this is technically the ThinkFast thread (from Raw Story):
Anti-war Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan wants to snatch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat from her in November, but first she’s going to need the help – and signatures – of 10,198 friends and supporters.
Sheehan was at San Francisco City Hall on Friday to take out papers for her independent run for Congress, but without those signatures from voters in the district, her name won’t show up on the ballot.
“It’s an uphill battle,” said Sheehan, who vowed to run against Pelosi in July after the speaker refused to start impeachment proceedings against President George Bush. “But I’m excited about the signature-gathering process. It’s going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign.”
Good. This will put Pelosi on the defensive, and force her to deal with her constituents’s concerns, which she has overlooked to push her agenda.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:38 amFrom the New York Times:
Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats
FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.
But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.
Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
[...]
“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
At the July meeting, Major Welborn told the soldiers they had disgraced those who had died for the Constitution, Specialist Hall said. When he finished, Major Welborn said, according to the statement: “I love you guys; I just want the best for you. One day you will see the truth and know what I mean.”
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
But Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”
April 27th, 2008 at 10:50 ambarfly Says:
Anti-war Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi
Good. This will put Pelosi on the defensive, and force her to deal with her constituents’s concerns, which she has overlooked to push her agenda.
I hope she’s forced to spend a butt load of hush money to save her own political a$$.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:07 amOh yea…..and FAILS to do so.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:07 amSituational ethics, brought to you by the Bush administration.
Also adopted by Hillary Rove Clinton.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:08 amI never thought I’d actually see the day that America became the country that tortured. If we remain under repuke rule, how long until torture is used against American citizens. Perhaps it is already.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:12 amI hope she’s forced to spend a butt load of hush money to save her own political a$$.
Oh yea…..and FAILS to do so.
Her constituents aren’t satisfied with her performance, and she hasn’t faced a challenger from the left in a very long time. While she is very visible, and can push pork to her constituents, there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with her refusal to actually to the hard work of holding this administration accountable for their acts.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:16 amDo these idiots realize that the laws or opinions they are making are only valid here in the US? What a bunch of maroons.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:27 amThis confuses me. No law or even pardon can shield anyone from war crimes charges. According to international law and the Geneva Conventions it does not matter that the Justice Department “gave them legal cover”. That’s bullshit.
This whole story smacks of propaganda to make people think that what was and will be done is “legal”, when in fact it is not.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:28 amExit Stage Left…
“If we remain under repuke rule, how long until torture is used against American citizens.”
Jose Padilla is an American citizen. They tortured him, slowly.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:35 amI’m glad it is all on record. I mean, they didn’t manage to destroy this evidence of a WAR CRIME!
April 27th, 2008 at 11:48 amJose Padilla is an American citizen. They tortured him, slowly.
I also had heard the same of John Walker Lindh.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
“Situational ethics”
It’s the same mind-set and excuse that got the NYC police officers acquitted after pumping 50 bullets into Sean Bell and his friends: ‘If you think there’s the tiniest chance that you’re in danger, shoot to kill.’ It’s all in the cop’s or, in this case, the interrogator’s, mind.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pmbarfly Says:
Her constituents aren’t satisfied with her performance, and she hasn’t faced a challenger from the left in a very long time. While she is very visible, and can push pork to her constituents, there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with her refusal to actually to the hard work of holding this administration accountable for their acts.
Unfortunately Cindy Sheehan waited a little too long to do this. She should have taken Pelosi on as a primary opponent. She would have had a much better chance of success if she had done that. I don’t know why she didn’t.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm5th Estate Says:
Jose Padilla is an American citizen. They tortured him, slowly.
They not only tortured him, they broke him. Jose Padilla was incapable of providing a defense when they tried him. He had actually come to believe that his captors and torturers were his friends.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pmJane said “Jane E. Schneider Says:
——————————————————————————–
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
“Situational ethics”
It’s the same mind-set and excuse that got the NYC police officers acquitted after pumping 50 bullets into Sean Bell and his friends: ‘If you think there’s the tiniest chance that you’re in danger, shoot to kill.’ It’s all in the cop’s or, in this case, the interrogator’s, mind.
IMO, this is not relevant, and a poor representation.
Cops on the street have to decide in a split second whether they choose to protect themselves from emininent danger.
An Interigator is NOT in any danger from a Captive.
The incident in NYC is/was unfortuntate. Even so, you are mistaken in trying to equate the actions of the police in that situation, with the actions Bushco and the DOJ are trying to get away with.
Next time you need to call 911, try calling yourself and see how far that gets you.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pmRandomChaos Says:
IMO, this is not relevant, and a poor representation.
Cops on the street have to decide in a split second whether they choose to protect themselves from emininent danger.
An Interigator is NOT in any danger from a Captive.
The incident in NYC is/was unfortuntate. Even so, you are mistaken in trying to equate the actions of the police in that situation, with the actions Bushco and the DOJ are trying to get away with.
Next time you need to call 911, try calling yourself and see how far that gets you.
BullCarp!! It has everything to do with it. My dad was a NYC cop for 25 years, and I work with retired cops. They all say that today’s cops AND criminals are largely out of their minds with violence. What happened in the Sean Bell case is a re-enactment of the Emmett Teal case. African Americans and Immigrants are commiting crime at the highest rate on record. Cops see no problem in killing unarmed people. New Cops that are coming back from Iraq have the same “Pre-Emptive mentality as our Psycho-In-Chief. Now cops can simply say, “I thought he had a gun”, or the New-Fascists can say “We thought they had WMD’s or Nukes”. Same insanity, different levels of destruction.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pmBrain From Planet Arous Says: Now cops can simply say, “I thought he had a gun”, or the New-Fascists can say “We thought they had WMD’s or Nukes”. Same insanity, different levels of destruction. April 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Exactly my point. Thanks for stating it more clearly.
“…Cops on the street have to decide in a split second whether they choose to protect themselves from emininent [sic]danger…” And they’re supposed to rely on their best judgment and training to make that split-second decision, not shoot 50 times first and, if the alleged criminal is lucky enough to survive, ask questions later.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pmUsed to be that a night stick to the shins, belt to the jaw, or at worst a bullet in the leg would suffice. Now the military/police state mentality of our culture makes torture and pre-emptive killing justified. The tasering we are witnessing is simply another form of legal torture. The most troubling aspect of this is that brain-damaged criminals that have become soldiers are coming back as cops. Rapists, armed robbers, murderers, and crack dealers are now allowed to join the military. Then again, I may get in trouble with the politically correct “Support the troops, but don’t support the war” crew, but the current military is a rogue gang working for a criminal organization know as the Military-Industrial Complex, with the Likud Party calling the Foreign Policy shots. Of course it will trickle down into the culture. More violence with both cops and street criminals. Add to that more blue and white collar crime.
Brings back memory of this video from the 80s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzEwojYen0
or this song from the 60s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keZZrubiPtE
April 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pmBrain From Planet Arous Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pmBullCarp!!
Right back at ya Brian.
I also work with police on a daily bases. What I see first hand does not jibe with your comment that “Cops see no problem in killing unarmed people. ”
I am personally very progressive and have hated Chimpy from day one. The majority of the officers I work with are conservative, and initially, as one might expect, were for Bush. However, this administrations attitudes and policies have had a very negative impact on many Now-ex-supporters down at this level.
Especially, since it is completely different to C
RandomChaos Says:
——————————————————————————–
Brain From Planet Arous Says:
BullCarp!!
Right back at ya Brian.
More to come, gotta go.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:11 pmRandomChaos Says:
I also work with police on a daily bases. What I see first hand does not jibe with your comment that “Cops see no problem in killing unarmed people. ”
I am personally very progressive and have hated Chimpy from day one. The majority of the officers I work with are conservative, and initially, as one might expect, were for Bush. However, this administrations attitudes and policies have had a very negative impact on many Now-ex-supporters down at this level.
Especially, since it is completely different to C
Your view of reality vs my view. Since I live in the most populated area of our country, and in the middle of a major city, I can say for sure that what you are saying is not true. NYPD has a record of abuse and murder. You also do not seem to get the connection between Bush Pre-emptive policies and the current police “I thought he had a gun”policy, whether or not they do. The argument for the Police State advocates that say, “Two officers were Black and one Lebanese”, so racism was not an issue, is a narrow, blind train of thought. These people work for racist masters. Anyone who does not think that racism, homophobia, and hatred are still alive and well in this country is, needs to be checked for brain damage.
Yes, some cops are decent, caring people, even Progressives. However, with the brain-damaged Iraqi Vets joining the force, and our violent culture, the 10% that are nuts, are very dangerous.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Also this is the “ticking time bomb” scenario straight from 24. Problem is that we’ve never had such a scenario. Worse, seasoned FBI agents swear torture does not work compared to other non-torture techniques. One hopes the Times and members of Congress are educated on the facts. Not some fantasy world pushed by this Administration.
Then again, this document is just another piece of evidence that will be used at the Hague in a war crimes trial. The evidence is piling up, the names of the perpetrators are clear. If I were Bush, Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Powell, Armitage, Rice, Feith, and all the others, I would not travel outside of the US. And I’d vote for McCain and do everything possible to get him elected to avoid being hauled up on charges here in the US.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pmBrain,
Your first comment is so true. However, since I also live in the “Next” most populated area of our country(Bay Area California) in a state that is very Progressive and Liberal. I can only say for sure that what you see there is different from what I see and experience here. Although I agree that things are only getting worse with the influx of the criminal eliment being inducted/accepted to our great services. I can state I know for a fact that Police departments here in the Bay Area do not recruit or hire a sworn officer with prior criminal convictions. This is certainly not true everywhere though, as you point out. And, I agree there may be a weak link between the policies of the misadministration and your so-called “I thought he had a gun” Policy of NYCPD, I don’t agree that it is rampant among all agencies at this point.
Even so, I still stand by my comment that Officers in the heat of the moment have a split second to make that life or death decision. And unless you or Jane have ever been in that situation (I have more than once) I do not think that you or anyone else can sit there using broad generalistic brush strokes to paint all Peace enforcement officers in the same picture.
I digress though, back to my original point. I stated that the Sean Bell case was very unfortunate, it may even be a travisty in allot of peoples veiw. But, I still disagree that it has anything to do with this topic.
Interagators have no emmediate threat to themselves or this country from a captive. This is in no way the same as an officer on the ground in the heat of a situation having to make a life or death decision.
On just about everything else you point, I agree.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:14 pm“Hell, there’s no reason to rough ‘em up. You give ‘em a hot meal and they’ll give you Hitler’s address. Give ‘em a beer and they’ll introduce you to their sister”.
George “Blood-n-Guts” Patton: Speaking about treatment of German prisoners. 1943
April 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pmRandomChaos, I think you are missing the point of an old axiom, “As Above, So Below”. With criminals running the government, criminals in the armed forces, murder rates very high, police brutality very high, and perpetual war, ala Orwell as the modus operandi, there is a direct link. This is not Coincidence or Conspiracy Theory. This just takes common sense. I would also venture to guess you do not talk to many African Americans about what they think. Tasering someone for a traffic ticket is becoming normal, as if we are all supposed to submit to any form of torture local police or the government tell us. Are you waiting for SS Troops, Jackboots, Mustached Austrians, or another Kent State to convince you? We are in a Full Blown “Soft” Police State, and to think otherwise is simply feeding the situation we find ourselves in. Criminals are in the streets, in the police departments, in Board Rooms, in the army and marines, and in the White House. American society is living on life support, and denying reality is accelerating the de-evolution. The only hope for this country is to throw out violent people from the top tiers, enforce laws to prevent corporate robbery, and adopt Green Technology to take the lead in the world.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:22 pm“Interagators have no emmediate threat to themselves or this country from a captive.”
Chaos, you’re still looking at this from a skewed perspective. The interrogators are being allowed the excuse of possible immediate or imminent threat to this country, not to themselves, to justify torture. The threat itself is not from the captive himself, but, based on someone’s idea that the captive has information that could foil an imminent threat to this country. That idea may just be someone’s overblown imagination, or it might be based on the flimsiest of evidence, but the idea of a threat, real or not, now absolves torture. The same as the idea that a perp might have a weapon now apparently absolves shooting that perp to death.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pmtest
April 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pmBrain,
There once was a time when pretty much everyone would not lock thier doors. They were willing to help a stranger in distress, and Law Enforcement was considered an Honorable and Heroic career path.
I think and agree that you have hit the nail on the head. Just FYI, I live in a very diversely, racially mixed neighborhood here, and have quite a few friends of different nationality and color.
But, what has changed? What is the reason that our society feels the need to lock our doors or refrain from giving a helping hand? Scorn the Police and/or authority and treat other humans like garbage?
It is indeed a sad state we are in. Given that our trust is being constantly trampled upon by the criminals above us. It is no wonder how we got where we are. People feel like there is nothing that can be done. That it will never change because we can’t approach or touch the creetons at the top.
What I see happening is the acting out of this frustration and hatred for what is being done to us against the only people of “The Establishment” that we are able to confront. That being the Peace Officers down in the trenches with the rest of us.
One thing I think many forget is that most of them are in the same boat as the rest of us. But because of thier position, they have this gigantic Bullseye on thier backs. A huge catch 22 situation. So I ask you this, How well do you think most normal people would feel being in this type of situation on a daily basis? How would deal with a life and death situation knowing that circumstances have put this gorilla on your shoulders?
Don’t kid yourself. The “I thought he had a gun” defense doesnt always fly.
I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything you say Brain. But it starts at the Top. We as a country, as a society need to change how we are Goverened. Get rid of the Criminals in charge. Rebuild the trust with the citizens. Re-establish ourselves as a True Nation of Laws. And then maybe we can earn back the respect we have lost and someday we can again unlock our doors, and Law Enforcement will be a honorable and respected vocation.
Thats all I have to say.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pmPeace
Jane E. Schneider Says:
Jane, I may be wrong, but didn’t Sean Bell almost run over one of the officers with a car?
April 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pmDidn’t someone in the group say something about a gun?
I think that is why they were acquitted, is it not?
A very tragic mistake. But the fact is if Sean and the rest of the group had obeyed the officers in the first place. I believe he would still be alive.
What else should one expect from a country that bombs apartment buildings in a mad quest to kill suspected terrorists?
April 27th, 2008 at 9:38 pmSome maladministration flack/prison guard character from a “B”-grade drive-in movie:
“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
The Convention Against Torture:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.
[...]
Article 2
[...]
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm#5 Marie:
Sadly, the note at the end indicated there were 99 tried at Nuremburg (in the late ’40’s) and by the time this movie was made in 1961, all of them were out of jail.
In fairness, some left the premises in small wooden boxes with ligature marks on their necks.
But it should also be noted that the Nürnberg prosecutors went out of their way to ensure just and fair trials (and ones that would be seen to be such), and that some of the defendants were in fact found “not guilty”. Not so our Guantánamo “show trials”. Click the link for the details.
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm#27 barfly:
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
This is on the same page as the torture justification: “When you lie for Jesus, it isn’t a lie.”
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pmRE: Convention Against Torture.
See more recent article on TP on what Scalia says on the bans against torture in the constitution (spelled with little c be cause of what we’ve done recently).
Bottom line, the bans against torture are strictly tied to punishment. They don’t say a thing about what you can and can’t do during the interrogation phase.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm