Bush official claims his memo against the use of torture was destroyed

[JimH52]

Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques - Political Punch

The noose tightens...

 

[Iriemon]

Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques - Political Punch

The noose tightens...

"I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable," Zelikow writes. "My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."

Wow.


Zelikow asserts that the "underlying absurdity of the (Bush) administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. ... In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution."

Interesting point, I hand't thought about that.

 

[jreeves]

Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques - Political Punch

The noose tightens...

"I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable," Zelikow writes. "My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."

Wow.


Zelikow asserts that the "underlying absurdity of the (Bush) administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. ... In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution."

Interesting point, I hand't thought about that.

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

 

[Iriemon]

Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques - Political Punch

The noose tightens...

"I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable," Zelikow writes. "My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."

Wow.


Zelikow asserts that the "underlying absurdity of the (Bush) administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. ... In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution."

Interesting point, I hand't thought about that.

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

 

[jreeves]

"I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable," Zelikow writes. "My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."

Wow.


Zelikow asserts that the "underlying absurdity of the (Bush) administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. ... In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution."

Interesting point, I hand't thought about that.

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

 

[NOBama]

Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques - Political Punch

The noose tightens...

"I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable," Zelikow writes. "My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."

Wow.


Zelikow asserts that the "underlying absurdity of the (Bush) administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. ... In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution."

Interesting point, I hand't thought about that.

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

We don't need to do all that to torture Americans, when somebody gets out of line these days we just zap them with a taser. We even taser prisoners when they get out of line. It’s our own little form of torture neatly packaged as a non-lethal form of law enforcement.

"As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning." Both political parties knew about it: http://www.usmessageboard.com/1175930-post100.html

 

[Iriemon]

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Bullshit.

 

[jreeves]

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Bullshit.

How intellectual of you. How so?

 

[Iriemon]

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Bullshit.

How intellectual of you. How so?

The fact that a doctor is there does not make something not torture. It's not uncommon to have doctors present because interrogators don't want the guy to die, that defeats the purpose.

 

[jreeves]

Bullshit.

How intellectual of you. How so?

The fact that a doctor is there does not make something not torture. It's not uncommon to have doctors present because interrogators don't want the guy to die, that defeats the purpose.

Permanent injury wouldn't necessarily hurt ascertaining information though. The doctors were there to prevent death and permanent injury....

 

[Iriemon]

How intellectual of you. How so?

The fact that a doctor is there does not make something not torture. It's not uncommon to have doctors present because interrogators don't want the guy to die, that defeats the purpose.

Permanent injury wouldn't necessarily hurt ascertaining information though. The doctors were there to prevent death and permanent injury....

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

 

[jreeves]

The fact that a doctor is there does not make something not torture. It's not uncommon to have doctors present because interrogators don't want the guy to die, that defeats the purpose.

Permanent injury wouldn't necessarily hurt ascertaining information though. The doctors were there to prevent death and permanent injury....

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

It's in the memos and others that were there stated it was so. It's not torture if you're not causing permanent injury.

 

[JimH52]

But not all Americans were hung from a ceiling naked, sleep deprived, waterboarded now were they? Only terrorists who wanted to blow apart the Brooklyn Bridge and commit other terror attacks. As a matter of fact Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats were briefed about the use of tough questioning. This was a huge misstep by the Obama adminstration, releasing the memos. By the time this is over, Bush will appear to be a hero.

Fortunately not, there are enough of us that object to using torture.

We shall see how it unfolds. Amazing stuff.

It's not torture when you have medical personnel on hand to prevent harm to the terror suspects. This will definitely harm Obama's presidency.

Are you a frigin lunatic? Doctors are also available at executions. Can we stop calling these procedures executions and start calling them interrogations? That is the Bush mentality...or lack thereof.

Obama will not be hurt. Maybe the moral standing of our country will be restored. What is amazinf is that the majority of the people who support the Bush definition of interrogation are "so called" Christians. How do we explain that?

 

[Iriemon]

Permanent injury wouldn't necessarily hurt ascertaining information though. The doctors were there to prevent death and permanent injury....

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

It's in the memos and others that were there stated it was so. It's not torture if you're not causing permanent injury.

If waterboarding is not torture because it doesn't cause permanent injury, then why did we sentence Japanies persons who did it to Americans in WWII 15 years hard labor for war crimes for doing it?

 

[Yurt]

Permanent injury wouldn't necessarily hurt ascertaining information though. The doctors were there to prevent death and permanent injury....

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

It's in the memos and others that were there stated it was so. It's not torture if you're not causing permanent injury.

while i agree with almost everything you say, especially waterboarding not being torture....the UN treaty on torture that the US signed defines torture as:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

...

United States of America20
Upon signature :

Declaration:

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

OHCHR - Committee against Torture

in my opinion, the waterboarding methods used do not constitute torture under this treaty

 

[Iriemon]

I wasn't there. I'll take your word for it. Great. So what.

It's in the memos and others that were there stated it was so. It's not torture if you're not causing permanent injury.

while i agree with almost everything you say, especially waterboarding not being torture....the UN treaty on torture that the US signed defines torture as:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

...

United States of America20
Upon signature :

Declaration:

II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

OHCHR - Committee against Torture

in my opinion, the waterboarding methods used do not constitute torture under this treaty

If waterboarding is not torture because it doesn't cause permanent injury, then why did we sentence Japanies persons who did it to Americans in WWII 15 years hard labor for war crimes for doing it?

 

[Yurt]

did the japanese waterboard the same exact way? was it solely waterboarding they were convicted for? laws and times change, my understanding is they were not convicted on a statute rather just convicted and if so, are you claiming that is precedent? i don't think the law works that way. was it the scotus? who convicted them and on what grounds?

 

[eots]

Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.


Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

 

[amrchaos]

Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.


Obama Backs Bush On Bagram Detainees

If this is true, then it is a good Idea to work against Obama starting now.

 

[Iriemon]

did the japanese waterboard the same exact way? was it solely waterboarding they were convicted for? laws and times change, my understanding is they were not convicted on a statute rather just convicted and if so, are you claiming that is precedent? i don't think the law works that way. was it the scotus? who convicted them and on what grounds?

Yes the waterboarded the same way and yes some were convicted solely for waterboarding. Cites posted earlier in these threads about waterboarding:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...to-info-that-aborted-9-11-style-attac-20.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/74682-torture-poll.html

I'm not sure how it might apply as legal precedent.

But our nation unequivocally said that when someone else does it to our guys, its torture and a war crime and you will be punished for it.