JLF: When the U.S. Does It, It Isn't Torture
Johnny Lead Foot here, and I'm pissed...
That's right.
The Justice Department, in your name, has pissed on everything sacred in this country. No one would be more upset at this than the Founding Father John Adams himself.
I'm so freakin' HAWT right now, I'm about to break my computer.
Why did we get access to this memo that had been hidden away since its release? Well, no one has been more secretive than this administration, hiding all kinds of documents. How did this one get through the cracks and see the day of light? The American Civil Liberties Union had to sue the Bush administration. It took a lawsuit for us to see how our government has been running the war on terror.
They hide a lot of memos and withhold information because they claim that would embolden the enemy. That's such horse crap. The enemy knows what's happening to it RIGHT NOW. The enemy knew about the torture in Abu Ghraib before we did. The real reason the Bush administration hides its work is because it breaks the law, spits on the international community and tarnishes the reputation of the people it represents. Oh, it drives me freakin nuts.
So, the memo. It was written by John Yoo (right), who was the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Council at the time. In the memo, he wrote, "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." The president is free to override international law? In addition, the president's wartime power would not be limited by the U.N.'s treaties against torture. Again, the president's power isn't limited by INTERNATIONAL LAW? WHAT?!
That's not even the cream of the crop. Get ready. The memo outlined legal justification for military interrogators to use torture against detainees overseas... as long as they do not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Holy. Crap.
Luckily, 9 months after the memo was sent to the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes, it was rescinded by Yoo's successor and remained locked away from the public until this law suit.
Am I the only one who's furious about this? When the U.S. tortures, it's acceptable because they don't MEAN it to be torture?
I'm watching John Adams on HBO and the first episode covers the Boston Massacre. Adams was a lawyer in Boston at the time, and he stood up for the soldiers, saying they, like anyone else, had the right to a fair trial. Adams defended them, in a court of law, and WON. He got the charges on the red-coats dropped. Adams was then hated in Boston, but he never regretted his actions. He argued that the Colonies were getting ready to build a country where everyone was treated equally and had the same right for legal representation. (For the record, Adams did not have any slaves, and payed those who helped work his farm.) If the law devolved to barbaric mob massacres, that wouldn't be a nation he'd want to live in, much less build.
What would he think now? George Bush might be waiting for history to judge his actions, but that memo is something time won't change. No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the U.S.'s approached the invasion will only be categorized as arrogant, condescending and short-sighted. His administration bull-dozed through the U.N. procedure, ignoring the world's pleas to see some proof of weapons of mass destruction. Then, when Embassdor Wilson didn't play along with the administration, saying there was no proof Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from Niger, they outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
This all helped create a culture where they could boss-hog their way around anything. As we see in Yoo's memo, this disrespect has been carried to the highest levels. They still refuse to say torture isn't being used on "prisoners of war." In fact, they won't even say waterboarding, a method of torture, is torture because the waterboardee never thinks he is going to die.
I can't take more of this administration.
Someone else get in there, right away, and remind us what it's like to be treated with respect, whether a U.S. citizen or an international one.
Always your pleasure.
- JLF
Find me on Facebook.com, and join the HAWTaction.com Reader group. My name there is Johnny LeadFoot (they didn't allow the space).
Why did we get access to this memo that had been hidden away since its release? Well, no one has been more secretive than this administration, hiding all kinds of documents. How did this one get through the cracks and see the day of light? The American Civil Liberties Union had to sue the Bush administration. It took a lawsuit for us to see how our government has been running the war on terror.
They hide a lot of memos and withhold information because they claim that would embolden the enemy. That's such horse crap. The enemy knows what's happening to it RIGHT NOW. The enemy knew about the torture in Abu Ghraib before we did. The real reason the Bush administration hides its work is because it breaks the law, spits on the international community and tarnishes the reputation of the people it represents. Oh, it drives me freakin nuts.
So, the memo. It was written by John Yoo (right), who was the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Council at the time. In the memo, he wrote, "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." The president is free to override international law? In addition, the president's wartime power would not be limited by the U.N.'s treaties against torture. Again, the president's power isn't limited by INTERNATIONAL LAW? WHAT?! That's not even the cream of the crop. Get ready. The memo outlined legal justification for military interrogators to use torture against detainees overseas... as long as they do not specifically intend to torture their captives.
Holy. Crap.
Luckily, 9 months after the memo was sent to the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes, it was rescinded by Yoo's successor and remained locked away from the public until this law suit.
Am I the only one who's furious about this? When the U.S. tortures, it's acceptable because they don't MEAN it to be torture?
I'm watching John Adams on HBO and the first episode covers the Boston Massacre. Adams was a lawyer in Boston at the time, and he stood up for the soldiers, saying they, like anyone else, had the right to a fair trial. Adams defended them, in a court of law, and WON. He got the charges on the red-coats dropped. Adams was then hated in Boston, but he never regretted his actions. He argued that the Colonies were getting ready to build a country where everyone was treated equally and had the same right for legal representation. (For the record, Adams did not have any slaves, and payed those who helped work his farm.) If the law devolved to barbaric mob massacres, that wouldn't be a nation he'd want to live in, much less build.
What would he think now? George Bush might be waiting for history to judge his actions, but that memo is something time won't change. No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the U.S.'s approached the invasion will only be categorized as arrogant, condescending and short-sighted. His administration bull-dozed through the U.N. procedure, ignoring the world's pleas to see some proof of weapons of mass destruction. Then, when Embassdor Wilson didn't play along with the administration, saying there was no proof Iraq was buying uranium yellowcake from Niger, they outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
This all helped create a culture where they could boss-hog their way around anything. As we see in Yoo's memo, this disrespect has been carried to the highest levels. They still refuse to say torture isn't being used on "prisoners of war." In fact, they won't even say waterboarding, a method of torture, is torture because the waterboardee never thinks he is going to die.
I can't take more of this administration.
Someone else get in there, right away, and remind us what it's like to be treated with respect, whether a U.S. citizen or an international one.
Always your pleasure.
- JLF
Find me on Facebook.com, and join the HAWTaction.com Reader group. My name there is Johnny LeadFoot (they didn't allow the space).
It's only torture if you ignore the "special code word".
maybe they are saying they aren't bound by international law so they can't be tried as war criminals.
Maybe. But the bottom line is war criminals are judged in an international court, not judged on the creativity of the papers their lawyers could concoct.
Oh, I'm full HAWT.