U.S. Military Law prohibits torture, regardless of what Rumsfeld says.
Why did Bush and Rumsfeld make such a major point of REPEATEDLY saying these 'detainees' were not POW's or normal prisoners?
Actually, U.S. Military Law prohibits this kind of treatment of ANYONE by ANYONE in the U.S. military, civilian contractors, or anyone else... regardless of what Bush and Rummy want to call the 'detainees' and regardless of their secret memoes.
They both deserve to be prosecuted.
'A defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control.' Leaves a lot of room for interpretation wouldn't you say? Or how about this:
'The Department of Justice has opined that [the federal war-crimes statute] does not apply to conduct toward al-Qaida or Taliban operatives because the president has determined that they are not entitled to the protections of Geneva and the Hague Regulations.' Circular logic if I ever saw it.
You may also like the following bit of legal prose:
' Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President. ? Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield'
In other words, the President can ignore laws he doesn't like by declining to prosecute them.
Actually, U.S. Military Law prohibits this kind of treatment of ANYONE by ANYONE in the U.S. military, civilian contractors, or anyone else... regardless of what Bush and Rummy want to call the 'detainees' and regardless of their secret memoes.
They both deserve to be prosecuted.
'A defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control.' Leaves a lot of room for interpretation wouldn't you say? Or how about this:
'The Department of Justice has opined that [the federal war-crimes statute] does not apply to conduct toward al-Qaida or Taliban operatives because the president has determined that they are not entitled to the protections of Geneva and the Hague Regulations.' Circular logic if I ever saw it.
You may also like the following bit of legal prose:
' Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President. ? Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield'
In other words, the President can ignore laws he doesn't like by declining to prosecute them.
posted by Gary at 11:22 PM
<< Home