And it just keeps getting deeper...

[bullypulpit]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture. This time, it comes in the form of "Well gosh, if it's for the good of the country it's okay...".

<blockquote>While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. - <a href=>NYT</a></blockquote>

It is worth noting, since Mr. Benczkowski brought up the Geneva Convention, that Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Convention states the following:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <b><i>in all circumstances</i></b>.</blockquote>

Article 2, para3 of the General Provisions of the Convention goes on to say:
<blockquote>Although one of the Powers in conflict <b><i>may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations</i></b>. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.</blockquote>

In short, Mr. Benczkowski's attempts to assert legal authority where none exists falls as flat as the rest of the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent US law and treaty obligations regarding the issue of torture. There is no exception under US law or treaty obligation which grants the Bush administration the authority to order the torture of detainees.

For a summary of US law and treaty obligations regarding torture, go <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>HERE</a>.

[theHawk]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

[manu1959]

I could really care less what international laws say about torture. In today's world we need to leave all option on the table. We should revoke all these stupid treaties because all they end up doing is tying our hands behind our back.

Would you want a terrorist attack to be carried out on US soil because some law stops us from preventing it? We all know that any Presdient, Republican or Democrat, will use torture to extract intell in a dire situation.

totally agree.....if they are cutting the heads off reporters, hiding in mosques, hanging bodies from bridges.......they should expect to have dogs bark at them, women give them lap dances, be stacked naked, forced to stay up late and listen to rock and roll and prentend to be drowned....god help them if the every attack a frat house.....

[retiredman]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

[semi liberal girl]

New information has surfaced regarding the Bush administration's search for legal rationale to justify the use of torture. This time, it comes in the form of "Well gosh, if it's for the good of the country it's okay...".

<blockquote>While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. - <a href=>NYT</a></blockquote>

It is worth noting, since Mr. Benczkowski brought up the Geneva Convention, that Article 1 of the General Provisions of the Convention states the following:

<blockquote>The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention <b><i>in all circumstances</i></b>.</blockquote>

Article 2, para3 of the General Provisions of the Convention goes on to say:
<blockquote>Although one of the Powers in conflict <b><i>may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations</i></b>. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.</blockquote>

In short, Mr. Benczkowski's attempts to assert legal authority where none exists falls as flat as the rest of the Bush administration's attempts to circumvent US law and treaty obligations regarding the issue of torture. There is no exception under US law or treaty obligation which grants the Bush administration the authority to order the torture of detainees.

For a summary of US law and treaty obligations regarding torture, go <a href=http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm>HERE</a>.

OMG I wish my party would give this up. No wonder the Democrat Congress is in the low 20's to teens in apporval ratings

The US does NOT torture - unless you include liberal moonbats who torture us with BS like this thread topic

[semi liberal girl]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

[manu1959]

those who would deliberately ignore treaties that the US government has signed and ratified are nothing less than domestic enemies of our constitution.

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

[semi liberal girl]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR

[manu1959]

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR

as long as they form a circle and he is in the squad.....

[retiredman]

I see the "preacher" is worried about the rights and comfort of terrorists who want to kill us

Given your previous posts I have read, I am not in the least bit surprised

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

[retiredman]

unless those treaties are not in the best intrests of the people and the welfare of the nation.....in which case it is my right to speak up and challenge your claim.....to protect this nation.....and its people....

no. your right, as a citizen, is to take steps to get treaties abrogated. until they are, they should be obeyed as the supreme law of the land.

[retiredman]

Now you did it - MFM will now call you an enemy of the state and form the firing squad as he wanted to do to RSR

so "semi liberal girl" is a new screen name, I take it. what was your old one?

[semi liberal girl]

if we decide, as a nation, that we no longer wish to abide by a treaty, we can abrogate it. Article VI(2) states quite unambiguously that treaties entered into by our government become the - quote- SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - unquote.

I have no desire to provide any of our enemies with any special rights. I DO, however, want to abide by our constitution. Those who would piss on our constitution are, by definition, domestic enemies thereof.

I am sure the terrorists will abide by international law, and follow all the rules of society

I will never figire out why Democrats like you have taken over my once and proud party, and turned it into a party of pussies and wimps

All your ilk are worried about is getting more poltical power, even if it means selling out our national defense and security

I see where Hamas has endorsed Sen Obama, and other terrorists groups ahave endorsed Hillary

I understand why they are backing the Democrats this year - pussies like you will do nothing to stand up to them - and they know it

[semi liberal girl]

so "semi liberal girl" is a new screen name, I take it. what was your old one?

RSR sent me here - and everything he told me about you was 100% correct

[retiredman]

I am sure the terrorists will abide by international law, and follow all the rules of society

I will never figire out why Democrats like you have taken over my once and proud party, and turned it into a party of pussies and wimps

All your ilk are worried about is getting more poltical power, even if it means selling out our national defense and security

I see where Hamas has endorsed Sen Obama, and other terrorists groups ahave endorsed Hillary

I understand why they are backing the Democrats this year - pussies like you will do nothing to stand up to them - and they know it

what anyone living outside america does or does not do regarding international law does not change the fact that the constitution is quite clear about the importance of upholding all treaties.

Again...if we get into a treaty that we no longer like, we can abrogate it. Do you understand what that means?