Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Timeline on terror prisoners' treatment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 05:53 AM
Original message
Timeline on terror prisoners' treatment
Timeline on terror prisoners' treatment
By The Associated Press | January 6, 2005

Developments and Bush administration memos concerning the treatment of prisoners in the fight against terrorism:

--Jan. 9, 2002: Justice Department lawyer John Yoo and special counsel Robert J. Delahunty advise the Pentagon that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Taliban or al-Qaida.

--Jan. 16: The first suspected al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners arrive at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

--Jan. 22: Then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee writes to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales arguing that the conventions do not apply to the Taliban or al-Qaida because one is a failed state and the other is an outlawed terrorist network. European Union officials and human rights groups criticize the treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

--Jan. 25: Gonzales writes a memo to President Bush arguing that the terrorism fight "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," such as requiring that prisoners get advances on their salaries. At an appearance in Cincinnati, Vice President Dick Cheney says the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners "is probably better than they deserve."

~ cont'd ~

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/06/timeline_on_terror_prisoners_treatment/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Bybee,associate counsel
to Pres. George Bush, #41.
http://magazine.unlv.edu/Issues/Fall99/action.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Quaint.
Definition:

1. strange in an interesting or pleasing way; "quaint dialect words"; "quaint streets of New Orleans, that most foreign of American cities"

2. very strange or unusual; odd or even incongruous in character or appearance; "the head terminating in the quaint duck bill which gives the animal its vernacular name"- Bill Beatty; "came forth a quaint and fearful sight"- Sir Walter Scott; "a quaint sense of humor"

3. attractively old-fashioned (but not necessarily authentic); "houses with quaint thatched roofs"; "a vaulted roof supporting old-time chimney pots"


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=quaint
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. he'll be confirmed
and everyone who votes to confirm him will be guilty of supporting torture....will be guilty of supporting war crimes.

and there's no rationalizing that away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brundle_Fly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. and if they vote against him
the repukes call it "racism"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That doesn't change their duty to do the right thing
them getting called names is nothing compared to them supporting torture

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
5. Gonzales also said that *Co didn't have to have Congressional approval
to invade Iraq

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/3938859.htm?1c

Posted on Mon, Aug. 26, 2002

Bush's lawyers OK plan to attack

WASHINGTON - Lawyers for President Bush have concluded that he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

At the same time, some administration officials are arguing internally that the president should seek lawmakers' backing anyway to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. If Bush took that course, he would still probably assert that congressional consent is not legally necessary, the officials said.

<snip>

"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," said a senior administration official involved in setting the strategy. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."

<snip>

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales had his deputy, Timothy Flanagan, develop the administration's legal position on questions surrounding a war with Iraq.

...more...

This sack of shit has been undermining our Constitution for a very long time.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. And they have the gall to talk about tort reform and trial lawyers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Gonzales is a spineless, yes man.
He has no regard for human rights or human beings, much less the Constitution. Any in Congress that vote for him do not deserve to be members of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I absolutely agree with ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. the slime belongs in a prison cell for treason
against the US

undermining the Constitution should carry grave consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. These big wigs are writings letters and waiting for answers
on issues that concern life and death? I thought the horse and buggy days were over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC