Legalities

I'm counting on Hillary Clinton to put an end to this nonsense when she becomes President of the United States of America! God Bless America! God Bless Hillary Clinton!

I realize one activist believes this memo led to Abu Ghraib, but individuals believe all sorts of silly things. Every indication and testimony has been that those troops in charge of the prisoners acted without order or instruction from above. So, since the memo argues for presidential authority to conduct torture, and the Abu Ghraib guard's weren't authorized, this memo is irrelevant to that tragedy.

Anyone remember the Geneva Conventions? Bam! They are gone.

Or how about this one: Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, ***shall be the supreme Law of the Land***; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Bam! The Article 6 of the US Constitution is gone!

Or the power of Congress to pass laws, the powers of the President to veto a bill and the Congress to override the President's veto?

Bam! The checks and balances intended to keep tyranny from the land are gone!

John Wu is said to have describe his memo as 'boilerplate'. He is right, it is boilerplate fascism.

Terrorist killed over 3,000 Americans that were doing nothing more than trying to make a living. I personally don't care if they did torture suspected terrorist if it helped save a single American life. I've been to the middle east and I can tell you that they don't think the same way we do, at all. The only way to stop terrorism to to make it too expensive for the terrorist and which such a bunch of whiners we obviously don't have the backbone to do that. So go ahead, whine at the awful things Bush has done trying to save your worthless hides.

Two questions come to mind: Do I care about the treatment of terrorists and do terrorist follow guidelines put forth in a memo?

The answer is no in both cases. At the end of the day, if identified terrorists are tortured or even killed to glean information that might save American lives, I say job well done.

DonteS and ChrisH. Evedently, you don't understand what this means. So, what happens when there are Americans protesting, say against the war and your government wants you to stop. All they have to do is lable you as an, "enemy combatant" and you're gone. American? So what. Never broke the law? So what. No lawyer, no right to due process. You in prison and being tortured and there is NOTHING you or your family can do. You think that's ok? If you don't think that can happen, think again. It already has...

So I gather the two previous posters would have no problem if their sons or daughters or mothers or fathers were mistakenly identified as terrorists and brutally tortured by the US government?

Because after all, if the govermment suspects someone, they must be guilty, right?

To err is human. Mistakes will happen, and this is just part of life.

It seems that most people have misconstrued what it means to be free. Freedom is not a right, but a privilege. Sacrifices have been made for hundreds of years so that we as Americans can be free. Ensuring our freedom involves due diligence escpecially when it comes to the matter of terrorists.

I see no reason why we should extend our rights and freedoms as Americans to terrorists and foreign enemy combatants. They surely will not honor the Geneva Convention and other honored codes of conduct.

> I'm counting on Hillary Clinton to put an end to this nonsense when she becomes President of the United States of America!

Since these were rescinded in 2004 (4 years ago) what is there for her to end?
Is there any evidence that any American citizen (or anyone at all) was every tortured or even mistreated based on the reasoning in these memos? Since they were "highly controversial within DOJ" what actual affect did they have?

DonteS and ChrisH:
Since none of the rules (e.g., Geneva Conventions) apply any more, clearly you accept that our troops will be treated in the same fashion by the enemy, since we have descended to their level and have no moral basis for expecting anything better.

Given what these memos have enumerated, Americans have no basis for complaining about the treatment of our troops. If our troops are tortured, it is obviously now acceptable.

What infuriates me the most is the fact that John Yoo and this administration is not being brought before the courts for crimes.

Let's not belittle the meaning of torture.....what happened at Abu Graib can hardly be classified as torture. Humilation yes but torture..no. I have seen worse at Frat parties. Torture would include things like breaking bones, burning, poking eyes out.....putting ladies underwear on someone's head doesn't even come in the top 1000 things that could be done to a person and would be life scaring....if not eventually fatal.

Tom,

It has been a variety of organizations that have come up with the various definitions of what is and what is not torture. Many of these definitions have come into existence because of things that were done to American soldiers in previous conflicts. The people who developed these rules are experts in the field.

Since you've stated that what happened at Abu Graib is not torture, could you please tell us all what your expertise is?

>Since none of the rules (e.g., Geneva Conventions) apply any more, clearly you accept that our troops will be treated in the same fashion by the enemy, since we have descended to their level and have no moral basis for expecting anything better.

Posted by: BobT | Apr 2, 2008 11:00:07 AM

The enemy has always treated our captured troops in the same fashion: torture, beheadings, and death.

I don't expect the enemy to alter their standard operating procedure by any means.

When OLC/DOJ interpret the law for the executive branch with a written legal opinion, it gives the executive binding legal authority.

Under AG Mukasey, DOJ will not investigate or prosecute executive law-breaking authorized by an OLC opinion.

To he untrained eye, Bush has once again gamed the system by using OLC as a tool of power rather than relying on its well-grounded legal wisdom. There is a train wreck of bad lawyering that has occurred in that office during this administration that goes beyond coincidence (see Frontline.)

Said another way, OLC is meant to be a safeguard on the rule of law, not a tool to make any executive action legal.

Irrespective of the executive's regard for the law, and given that the AG will not investigate, and given that the executive continues to keep these opinions classified, how will this country adjudicate these extra ordinary and perhaps unconstitutional powers that the Bush-Cheney presidency has assumed? And how will consequences of law-breaking, if any, be applied so that we may call this republic, a republic of laws and not of men?

Walter, the problem is you let organizations do your thinking for you. Try using some freaking common sense here. When you let "organizations" who are politacally driven define what torture is you belittle and demean those that have actually suffered at the hands of real torture. Ladies briefs on your head is NOT torture and to equate that with someone who had a eye put out with a red hot poker, or a woman who is repeated raped or someone who had a hand put through a shredder is absurd.

"Since none of the rules (e.g., Geneva Conventions) apply any more,"Try reading the Geneva convention. It deals solders in uniforms and flagged nations. Terrorists do not fall into either of these categories. If either of those conditions were to exist the convention would be followed. Since they do not wear uniforms and act without the consent of a government they could actually lawfully be shot on sight at the time of capture. Taking them prisoner was our option and we chose it.

Tom,

Two things.

The idea that "detainees" do not fall under the various treaties we have signed is also contained in Yoo's memos. Never applied before. Of very dubious legality. He has a history of writing memos that meet someone's agenda rather than addressing the legal issues. He also has a very nasty habit of using his previous letters, etc. as justification for his opinions as opposed to citing legal precedent.

I'm letting organizations with a political agenda for my opinions? Care to tell me the agenda of the Red Cross? The other organizations that came up with these treaties are world organizations that brought together experts in the laws of war. Not exactly organizations with a political agenda. As a matter of fact they try to avoid that type of thing.

Back to my original question to you. What is your expertise in these matters. And if you lack any expertise, what are the legal sources you have used to come up with your opinions?

If you seriously and straight faced can tell me that ladies briefs on your head is the same as having each and every finger broken then there is no hope for you. You may be educated but clearly no common sense what so ever. My sympathies.

@Nessuno:

"I realize one activist believes this memo led to Abu Ghraib, but individuals believe all sorts of silly things. Every indication and testimony has been that those troops in charge of the prisoners acted without order or instruction from above. So, since the memo argues for presidential authority to conduct torture, and the Abu Ghraib guard's weren't authorized, this memo is irrelevant to that tragedy."

To respectfully disagree, I don't believe that "every indication" points to the guards acting without order or instruction. the famous "Vietnam" Torture photo indicates that untrained prison guards received instruction in torture and abuse from somewhere. The guards themselves testified that they were under orders. The photos linked to above include a few that show several guards in tan and an individual in green US military clothing . . . an individual the guards testified was a CIA interrogator that told them to do it.
So there were both indications and testimony thet they were directed by CIA interrogators. Unless CIA agents snuck into Abu Grahib on their own dime, it's a reasonable conclusion that they were ordered to go there. Oddly, military and administration investigations can't seem to find any information about the CIA interrogators, although they also can't seem to identify the individuals in the green camo in the photos . . . I'd have thought they would be a little more concerned that a "mystery individual" was wandering around a secure military location, apparently present and watching when abuse was occuring by military guards just feet from him. Oh well. I'm sure if the administration investigation did find any evidence that the administration had ordered abuse and torture, they surely would have told us, right? The guards must have been secretly teaching themselves specific torture techniques in their spare time.