Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush (NYT)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?pagewanted=1&hp

June 8, 2004
Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, June 7 — A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

(snip)

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.


Kate Zernike contributed reporting for this article.

[gristy]

1. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x608757

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Not dupe--WaPo and NYT are both on this story. n/t

[gristy]

3. Additional links and comments should be posted to the existing thread

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. I don't understand. My story (NYT) is a different one than the

Washington Post one. Because it's on the same topic means I have to append to that thread?

Furthermore, the content is a bit different. The NYT article includes the last paragraph pointing out the inconsistency between Bushco claiming that GTMO is both IN US jurisdiction (to say that torture there doesn't apply to laws against US torturing overseas) and OUT of US jurisidiction (to say that it doesn't apply to US law).

[gristy]

5. The rules state that you don't start a new thread on the same "topic"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#disruption

"Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted."

Your valid observations on the NY Times article would best be added to the ongoing discussion in the other thread. The whole idea of this rule is to get into the same "room" (or thread) all the people interested in and talking about a given topic.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. Fine, mods feel free to lock/delete. Story posted on other thread. n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

12. Good there shouldn't be any more Reagan threads then!

[molly]

7. I don't care if it's a dupe - which it is not

2 very credible newspapers getting this out to the public is a wonderful thing. I hope Rush picks it up.

[KoKo]

8. How can it be a dupe when it's a separate article for a different

newspaper? Yesterday's article was from WSJ, now we have WapPo and NYT's giving different angles.

Thanks for the post.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Can everyone say, Malpractice?

Poor widdle Bush. He surrounded himself by the very best & brightest and oh, how they let him down. The CIA misled him, his lawyers misled him, his daddy's neo-con buddies misled him, his v-p's energy buddies misled him. Oh, dear, oh, dear. Sometimes the end doesn't justify the means.

[KoKo]

10. They used a term "invoking the doctrine of necessity" and check out this

clip from the article:

Scott Horton, the former head of the human rights committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said Monday that he believed that the March memorandum on avoiding responsibility for torture was what caused a delegation of military lawyers to visit him and complain privately about the administration's confidential legal arguments. That visit, he said, resulted in the association undertaking a study and issuing of a report criticizing the administration. He added that the lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.

Jamie Fellner, the director of United States programs for Human Rights Watch, said Monday, "We believe that this memo shows that at the highest levels of the Pentagon there was an interest in using torture as well as a desire to evade the criminal consequences of doing so."

[Demeter]

11. One Way Ticket To the Hague!

All aboard the Bush Express--I am Dubya, your Ranger for the trip, and I will guide you through the ins and outs of Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and general all around pain in the assness.

[AndyTiedye]

13. I am Sure the Bush* Gang Will be Well Treated There