[chicagomom]

Quote:

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

(emphasis added)

This, from a Pentagon report (discussed in a recent WSJ article) on Presidential powers vis a vis torture.

Josh Marshall talks about this. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Fox News talks about how this is being applied today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122061,00.html

 

[captain optimism]

I want to know who wrote that memo! This is some scary stuff!

I know that this administration does not respect the rule of law. They are certainly one of the LEAST conservative administrations in some respects.

It's not that I think US law is perfect, but I believe in the rule of law as a principle of a just society. How can we have freedom and equality if there is one person who is more equal than the rest of us.

 

[Joyce in the mts.]

And if this doesn't scare you, you just aren't paying attention.

Inherent in The President, is the right to set aside law to fit his whim according to all this! Isn't this what this all means?

(cough...*bullshit*...cough!)

I think they are stretching here and making it up as they go along to avoid liability for war crimes and TREASON!

And let me just add, that Mr. Reagan couldn't have timed his passing any better, could he? I mean unless people ARE actually paying attention to other than goings-on about Mr. Reagan's death, they won't know what's going on with this. How coincidentally convenient.

edited to add a link to more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm

January 5, 2005 can't get here soon enough!!!
Joyce in the mts.

(edited once more to add a bit of respect for the dead)

 

[librarymom]

The NY Times also has this story and my eyes were

, my jaw

. I cannot believe that we neede a special investigation for a blow job & failed real estate dealings, but not INTENTIONAL disregard for truth, justice and the American way. HOLY COW! What Constitution is he sworn to uphold???

 

[chicagomom]

And, after spending more than three hours with the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Ashcroft refuses to hand over the memos written to the CIA and Rummy about it, despite members of the committee explicitly telling him he was obstructing their work. I heard some of it on c-span today - blew me away.

Quote:

"You are not allowed under the Constitution to not answer our questions," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "You all better come up with a good rationale because otherwise it's contempt of Congress." Asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. R-Utah, whether the memos were classified, Ashcroft conferred for a long moment with an aide sitting behind him. "Some of these memos may be classified in some ways for some purposes," he began. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., interrupted him. "Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect that is a complete evasion," Durbin said. Durbin said the president either had to invoke executive privilege or Ashcroft had to cite a statutory provision allowing him to withhold the memos. Ashcroft steadfastly refused to do either Tuesday. "I am refusing to disclose these memos because I believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president have the opportunity to get information from his attorney general that is confidential," he said.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...8872653.htm?1c

 

[JessicaS]

Awsome.

Ashcroft is becoming the Dem's best friend lately.

That first memo is just freaky, what are they? Making this crap up as they go along?

 

[chicagomom]

The original WSJ article is now on the free web, for those who may not have been able to get a hold of it:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/storie.../06/07/0988582

 

[TiredX2]

Quote:

Making this crap up as they go along?

Apparently and...

Quote:

can the President set aside law?

Apparently.

More than changing law, though, he can hide and twist law as he sees fit and control the people who are supposed to be guaranteeing its (the law) implementation. If you don't acknowledge a laws validity (Geneva anyone?) you can't break it.

 

[Marlena]

Hey, folks. I've not had time to hang out here much, but I wanted to post a link to the following site:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...va_Conventions

It contains a lovely summary of the Administration's arguments concerning the applicability (or alleged lack thereof) of the Geneva Convention to various target groups, along with links to the source documents. Happy reading!

 

[sohj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain optimism I want to know who wrote that memo! This is some scary stuff!

According to yesterday's NY Times, several memoranda (January, 2002) were written by John C. Yoo, a law professor from the U. of California (don't know which school) who was working in the State Department.

Also, Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel, gave commentary on the Jan., 2002, stuff and agreed that the Taliban and Al Quaida could be considered outside the Geneva Convention.

Colin Powell and William H. Taft IV both wrote stuff flatly contradicting the above and were VERY worried about the ramifications of us throwing out a treaty.

In April, 2003, Rumsfeld wrote to Gen. James T. Hill outlining "24 permitted interrogation techniques; 4 of which were considered stressful enough to require [...] Rumsfeld's explicit approval."

No information on the authors of all the other memoranda.