Torture memo CONTRADICTS Bushist USSC argument that Gitmo is non-US.

The Bushists have argued that the US has no jurisdiction over Guantánamo, so the prisoners are not protercted by the US constitution. But that's not what the memo okaying torture in Guantánamo argued.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?pagewanted=2&hp


The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction.

:kick:

and the media so rarely calls them on their contradictions.

But then who trusts the SC to serve justice anymore?

We don't need a torture memo to know that the Bushies are responsible for events at Guantanamo. Bush is putatively the President of the United States, therefore he has the power of the Commander and Chief of US armed forces; Guantanamo is a US naval base. Therefore, Bush has the ultimate command responsibility for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo. To say otherwise is to say that the Commander in Chief is does not command the armed forces.

The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions; they apply in all territory under US jurisdiction, including US military bases overseas, and to all agents of the United States government, including military personnel overseas.

When the Bush junta goes to a court and argues that torture carried out by those under his command is okay as long as it takes place on US bases in Afghanistan or Guantanamo but not if it takes place at Camp Lejeune or Fort Leavenworth, he is merely attempting to escape the responsibility for his actions, which were to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. The argument is nonsense.

Bush is responsible for the circumvention of the Geneva Conventions and that makes him a war criminal.

BUt what really worries me about the Memo released to the WSJ is the idea that Presidential Authority supersedes laws or international agreements. I mean, if that is so, what's to stop President Bush from claiming we are in a state of emergency and can't go on with the election cycle.

"This is no time for the terrorists in the world to suppose that they can strike fear in the American People. We all know that America's enemies throughout the world are praying for a Kerry Victory. As your commander in chief, I cannot allow that to happen. The election will be postponed until such time as all evil in the world is elminated."

Now I still give this a pretty low chance of happening (less than 5%) but a lot mroe than I would have yesterday.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

it is almost like a first year law student wrote them after having been given a task of justifying breaking the law in the US. Unbelievable! The USSC is supposed to hand down their ruling re Gitmo by the end of the month. Their decision will be the final determination whether the US is still a country that lives by the rule of law or whether it is, in fact, a dictatorship, imo.

:toast: :scared:

they are using oposite arguments for the same issue.


Here they are by name.

were considered American Soil. Any attack upon a US military base or US Embassy was an attack on America itself and grounds for WAR.

or else someone MIGHT have noticed this.....

he said the President rejects torture but if you read the memos, they "redefine" torture outside of what the Geneva Conventions and US statutes define it. So is Ashcroft saying bush rejects torture based on the definition in the memos or based on the international definition of torture. My guess is he was parsing his answer and it reflects the "new" definition of torture.