01 April 2008
Pentagon Releases "Harsh Interrogation" Memo
Of course, it's being spun as a "Torture Memo" even though nothing in it constitutes torture except in the addled minds of leftists.
I'm sure they meant "captives"... slip of the tongue there.
So not giving a captive a second cup of morning coffee isn't necessarily torture, even if Amnesty International or the European Union claims it is. The United States is sovereign and not bound by anti-American opinions of what means of interrogation are acceptable. Who knew?
Never happened. Just because the media keeps saying it did, doesn't mean it ever happened. I was there and I know what I saw, I know what the detainees claimed officially, and what they said outside the eye of the media. I never saw anything happen while I was there and never saw any record that would indicate detainees were abused as a result of any policy.
I really hate the MSM and stories like this are why. *spit* Oh, and Senator Leahy can kiss my ass.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal
justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas — so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.
I'm sure they meant "captives"... slip of the tongue there.
"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is
not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his
discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy
assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
So not giving a captive a second cup of morning coffee isn't necessarily torture, even if Amnesty International or the European Union claims it is. The United States is sovereign and not bound by anti-American opinions of what means of interrogation are acceptable. Who knew?
Haynes, the Defense Department's longest-serving general counsel,
resigned in late February to return to the private sector. He has been
hotly criticized for his role in crafting Bush administration policies
for detaining and trying suspected terrorists that some argue led to
prisoner abuses at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Never happened. Just because the media keeps saying it did, doesn't mean it ever happened. I was there and I know what I saw, I know what the detainees claimed officially, and what they said outside the eye of the media. I never saw anything happen while I was there and never saw any record that would indicate detainees were abused as a result of any policy.
I really hate the MSM and stories like this are why. *spit* Oh, and Senator Leahy can kiss my ass.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at
20:44:14
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The problem is that the administration is claiming these powers. Actual use of them is secondary. It's claiming powers it shouldn't have, according to the Constitution. Moreoever, it's claiming the sole right to define what those powers are. This is known as the James I theory of government. You'll remember how well that went over when Charles I tried to put the theory into practice.
And furthermore, when faced with the question, 'are you using those powers', its response is "trust me". I believe there's no abuse going at Gitmo. That's because I trust you, not because I trust any government official.
And furthermore, when faced with the question, 'are you using those powers', its response is "trust me". I believe there's no abuse going at Gitmo. That's because I trust you, not because I trust any government official.
Posted by: kishnevi at 02 April 2008@19:29:16 (VRY8/)
2
Hi kishnevi,
What powers are they claiming that they don't really have? I haven't seen a single claim of power by the Administration that is prohibited by the Constitution. I've seen plenty of claims about what the Administration claimed, but nothing by the Administration itself. The problem, it seems to me, is that people keep screaming about what the Administration means by what it says rather than listen to what it's actually saying.
Remember that the Executive Branch is supposed to be co-equal, not subordinate to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Congress has been trying to claim oversight for a long time, which is what the Administration has been resisting... and they're right to do so. Congress has mechanisms in place to check and balance the power of the Executive Branch, but they'd rather do it by politics and spin instead of by the Constitution.
What powers are they claiming that they don't really have? I haven't seen a single claim of power by the Administration that is prohibited by the Constitution. I've seen plenty of claims about what the Administration claimed, but nothing by the Administration itself. The problem, it seems to me, is that people keep screaming about what the Administration means by what it says rather than listen to what it's actually saying.
Remember that the Executive Branch is supposed to be co-equal, not subordinate to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Congress has been trying to claim oversight for a long time, which is what the Administration has been resisting... and they're right to do so. Congress has mechanisms in place to check and balance the power of the Executive Branch, but they'd rather do it by politics and spin instead of by the Constitution.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@19:54:25 (tarqT)
3
That's because I trust you, not because I trust any government official.
Btw, thank you for that... and for coming back here so often. I always value our discussions.
Btw, thank you for that... and for coming back here so often. I always value our discussions.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@19:59:01 (tarqT)
4
The government has claimed and taken powers that are unconstitutional but it is the legislative and judicial branches that have done so. The executive branch has not greatly worried me since 2000.
Posted by: Machinist at 02 April 2008@21:54:55 (yFIK0)
5
Actually, except for Kelo, I've been pretty happy with the Judicial Branch. Kelo was a travesty though. Why should anyone be able to take my property against my will for someone else's profit? It goes against everything I believe about property rights.
I understand eminent domain when there is an over-riding "public interest", although it should be an exceptionally compelling interest even then... but for another private citizen who wants to develop my property? No way.
I understand eminent domain when there is an over-riding "public interest", although it should be an exceptionally compelling interest even then... but for another private citizen who wants to develop my property? No way.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@22:20:01 (tarqT)
6
I agree on that case but I am more disturbed by judges imposing taxes, mandating legislation, interfering in elections, creating constitutional rights and ignoring others that the founding fathers wrote. When you allow these powers to unelected, unaccountable people you are courting disaster. In California we had the 9th Circuit Court of appeals. They considered themselves God's Regents.
Posted by: Machinist at 02 April 2008@22:39:46 (yFIK0)
7
Except for the 9th Circuit, I have trouble coming up with any examples since 2000. Especially from the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@22:44:49 (tarqT)
8
Now, the SC did have Hamdan, which I didn't like but understand their reasoning. It didn't seem to be judicial activism in any case.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@22:48:30 (tarqT)
9
The present supreme court is a comfort to me. I would be more comfortable with one more justice who believed in the constitution.
Posted by: Machinist at 02 April 2008@23:04:26 (yFIK0)
10
Just when the USSC gets balanced (in so many ways, heh), we are facing this election season which will give us two out of three Branches unbalanced again.
:sigh:
:sigh:
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@23:17:14 (tarqT)
Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008
26kb generated in CPU 0.02, elapsed 0.0429 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.0277 seconds, 110 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
59 queries taking 0.0277 seconds, 110 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
