It would almost be worth the price of an airline ticket to Brussels to
see Bush/Cheney sitting in their little cages, as the squirm and lie.
EconomicDemocracy Coop wrote:
> Q: Can you talk about this ABC News revelation about this Principals
> Committee, all the names that I just gave=EF=BF=BDyou know, Condoleezza
Ri=
ce,
> Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Attorney General John
Ashcroft=EF=BF=
=BD
> first time senior White House officials linked to an explicit group
> authorizing the CIA interrogation program, one top official recounting
> Ashcroft was the lone cabinet member to raise doubts? The official
> quoted Ashcroft as saying, =EF=BF=BDWhy are we talking about this in the
W=
hite
> House? History will not judge this kindly.=EF=BF=BD
>
> A: I think it=EF=BF=BDs a very im****tant revelation. Of course, it deals
n=
ot
> with the military interrogations that I focused on, but with the CIA
> interrogations, but they went hand-in-hand, and it=EF=BF=BDs plain that
th=
ey
> were all part and parcel of a decision taken at the top. It confirms
> my investigation, as a consequence; it=EF=BF=BDs namely that this came
> straight from the top.
> ..
> "the administration has spun a narrative that this was a bottom-up
> thing, they were simply reacting to requests from people on the
> ground. And what I=EF=BF=BDve discovered, and what was the center of the
> gravity of what I said to the subcommittee, is that=EF=BF=BDs a false
> narrative. It came from the top down. A crime was committed in
> relation to the detainee that I=EF=BF=BDm looking at. ..He was abused.
He =
was
> probably, almost certainly, tortured in violation of international
> law. But the biggest story may well be the cover-up, the spin, that
> this came from the bottom up, when in fact it was top-down. And that
> seemed to have resonated with the committee.."
>
> - -
>
> In April, ABC News re****ted Vice President Cheney, former National
> Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
> and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and
> Attorney General John Ashcroft all discussed and approved how [those]
> suspected of leader****p with al-Qaeda would be [tortured] by the
> CIA.
>
>
> - - -
>
> orge Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft all discussed and
> approved how [those] suspected of leader****p with al-Qaeda would be
> [tortured] by the CIA.
>
> - -
>
> Interview with Philippe Sands, British attorney and professor at
> University College London. He is the author of the new book Torture
> Team: Rumsfeld=EF=BF=BDs Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. His
las=
t
> book was Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global
> Rules.
>
> - - -
>
> ...AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with
> General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of
> his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact,
> that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I
> told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which
I=EF=BF=BDm=
> about to share with you, and she was disbelieving=EF=BF=BDshe listened
to =
the
> tapes=EF=BF=BDand said absolutely.
>
> There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took
> a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any
> rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was
> unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that
> Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery
>
> [That's putting it mildly -- General Myers, the Chair of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, believes the Geneva Conventions do apply, and George
> W. Bush takes it upon himself to claim they don't apply...(bad
> enough..) without the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being made
> aware..
>
> But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through
> the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that
> these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They
> were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally
> dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the
> United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of
> what had been decided.
>
> [Either that or he's an extremely good actor and liar, which is a
> worse scandal for the Republican Admin?]
>
>
> AMY GOODMAN: We=EF=BF=BDre talking to Philippe Sands. His book is
Torture =
Team=EF=BF=BD
> it is just out this week=EF=BF=BDRumsfeld=EF=BF=BDs Memo and the
Betrayal =
of American
> Values.
>
> I want to ask you about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia=EF=BF=BDs
rec=
ent
> statement that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth
> Amendment=EF=BF=BDs ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Scalia=EF=BF=BDs =
comment came
> during an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS=EF=BF=BDs 60 Minutes.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: I don=EF=BF=BDt like torture.
I=EF=BF=BDm=EF=
=BF=BDalthough
> defining it is going to be a nice trick. But, I mean, who=EF=BF=BDs in
fav=
or
> of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the=EF=BF=BD
> everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision
> of the Constitution.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: If someone=EF=BF=BDs in custody, as in Abu Ghraib,
and=
> they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the
> expression, =EF=BF=BDcruel and unusual punishment,=EF=BF=BD
doesn=EF=BF=BD=
t that apply?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Cruel and unusual punishment?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: To the contrary. You think=EF=BF=BDyou
think=
> that you would=EF=BF=BDhas anybody ever referred to torture as
punishment?=
I
> don=EF=BF=BDt think so.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Well, I think if you=EF=BF=BDre in custody and you
hav=
e a
> policeman who=EF=BF=BDs taken you into custody=EF=BF=BD
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And you say he=EF=BF=BDs puni****ng you?
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Sure.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: What=EF=BF=BDs he puni****ng you for? You
pun=
ish
> somebody=EF=BF=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Well, because he assumes you, one, either
> committed a crime=EF=BF=BD
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: =EF=BF=BDor that you know something that he wants to
k=
now.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Ah, it=EF=BF=BDs the latter. And when
he=EF=
=BF=BDs=EF=BF=BDwhen
> he=EF=BF=BDs=EF=BF=BDwhen he=EF=BF=BDs hurting you in order to get
informa=
tion from you=EF=BF=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Yeah?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: =EF=BF=BDyou don=EF=BF=BDt say
he=EF=BF=BDs =
puni****ng you.
> What=EF=BF=BDs he puni****ng you for? He=EF=BF=BDs trying to
extract=EF=BF=
=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Because he thinks you=EF=BF=BDre a terrorist, and
he=
=EF=BF=BDs
> going to beat the you-know-what out of you.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Anyway, that=EF=BF=BDs my view. And it
happe=
ns
> to be correct.
>
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, being questioned by
> 60 Minutes=EF=BF=BDs Lesley Stahl. Philippe Sands?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: I=EF=BF=BDm not an expert on US constitutional law.
I=EF=
=BF=BDll talk
> about what I know, which is international law. The US is a party to
> all of those conventions that prohibit torture. That is a shocking
> statement by a serving justice, who I know is very partial to the
> television program 24, along with his colleague Clarence Thomas.
It=EF=BF=
=BDs=EF=BF=BD
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Explain 24.
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: 24 is a television program in which the use of torture
> is essentially rejoiced in as a technique for producing meaningful
> information. It had an effect down at Guantanamo. One of the things I
> discovered in my conversations was that people watched it, people were
> influenced by it, probably apparently as Antonin Scalia is.
>
> But that is a shocking statement. And I put it in these terms. If
he=EF=BF=
=BDs
> going to express that view, that the United States president is free
> to authorize torture, then why isn=EF=BF=BDt the Iranian president free
to=
> authorize torture against American nationals? Why isn=EF=BF=BDt the
Egypti=
an
> president free to organize=EF=BF=BDauthorize torture? The logic of the
> argument is really surprising and, frankly, outrageous.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, Philippe Sands, about the
> possibility of US officials being charged with war crimes. You were
> quoted in a New York Times piece on Tuesday: =EF=BF=BDMr. Sands, a
British=
law
> professor, said two foreign prosecutors, whom he did not name, asked
> him for the materials on which his book Torture Team was based.
=EF=BF=BDI=
f
> the US doesn=EF=BF=BDt address this,=EF=BF=BD he said, =EF=BF=BDother
coun=
tries will.=EF=BF=BD"
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: That=EF=BF=BDs an accurate account, and I describe, in
one=
of
> the concluding chapters of the book, conversations I had with a
> European prosecutor and a European judge. And the committee was very
> interested in that, in relation to a question they asked me and the
> other witnesses giving testimony: =EF=BF=BDWhat should this committee
do?=
=EF=BF=BD And
> the answer that I gave was, =EF=BF=BDLook, it=EF=BF=BDs not for me to
make=
> recommendations on precisely what you do and don=EF=BF=BDt do, but what
ne=
eds
> to happen is the United States needs to get involved in an accounting
> process. The committee needs to establish the facts. And if the United
> States doesn=EF=BF=BDt, others will do it.=EF=BF=BD And I have no doubt,
n=
o doubt
> whatsoever, that investigations will take place, if they=EF=BF=BDre not
> already taking place, and that some of these individuals, if they
> travel outside the United States, will face a very real threat of
> investigation.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: And the legality of what President Bush said, or the
> implications of it, when he said to ABC News, =EF=BF=BDWe started to
conne=
ct
> the dots in order to protect the American people. Yes, I=EF=BF=BDm aware
o=
ur
> national security team met on this issue, and I approved=EF=BF=BD?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, it appears to be an admission that the President
> of the United States authorized torture, that he authorized
> waterboarding. The convention prohibiting torture, the Geneva
> Conventions are absolutely clear: there are no cir***stances in which
> torture is permitted. And if the account is accurate, the President
> is, in effect, owning up to the fact that he has committed a war
> crime. And under the torture convention, there is an obligation to
> investigate any person who has committed a war crime. So it was a very
> surprising admission. I wonder if it was fully thought through. If
> it=EF=BF=BDs accurate, it is deeply disturbing.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Philippe Sands, you talked in your testimony before
> Congress about torture and what Britain learned in its fight with the
> IRA, with the Irish Republican Army.
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: In many ways, that was actually the most interesting
> exchange that I had, because I had it with some seemingly very
> sensible Republican congressmen, who were very interested and came up
> and talked to me about that afterwards. What I shared was that the
> experience of Brits across the political spectrum=EF=BF=BDit=EF=BF=BDs
not=
a left-
> right issue, as I explained=EF=BF=BDderives from the experience we had
in =
the
> early 1970s, in which the United Kingdom moved to aggressive
> interrogation. And they used pretty much the same techniques of
> interrogation: hooding, stress, humiliation. And it backfired
> terribly. On all military accounts, it extended the conflict by
> between fifteen and twenty years,... And no one in the United Kingdom,
> literally no one from any of the main political parties or across the
> political spectrum will in any cir***stances sup****t what has been
> apparently authorized by [GW Bush]"
>
> - -
>
> Interview with Philippe Sands, British attorney and professor at
> University College London. He is the author of the new book Torture
> Team: Rumsfeld=EF=BF=BDs Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. His
las=
t
> book was Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global
> Rules.
>
> - - -
>
> ...AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with
> General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of
> his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact,
> that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I
> told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which
I=EF=BF=BDm=
> about to share with you, and she was disbelieving=EF=BF=BDshe listened
to =
the
> tapes=EF=BF=BDand said absolutely.
>
> There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took
> a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any
> rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was
> unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that
> Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery
>
> [That's putting it mildly -- General Myers, the Chair of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, believes the Geneva Conventions do apply, and George
> W. Bush takes it upon himself to claim they don't apply...(bad
> enough..) without the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being made
> aware..
>
> But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through
> the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that
> these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They
> were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally
> dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the
> United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of
> what had been decided.
>
> [Either that or he's an extremely good actor and liar, which is a
> worse scandal for the Republican Admin?]
>
>
> AMY GOODMAN: We=EF=BF=BDre talking to Philippe Sands. His book is
Torture =
Team=EF=BF=BD
> it is just out this week=EF=BF=BDRumsfeld=EF=BF=BDs Memo and the
Betrayal =
of American
> Values.
>
> I want to ask you about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia=EF=BF=BDs
rec=
ent
> statement that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth
> Amendment=EF=BF=BDs ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Scalia=EF=BF=BDs =
comment came
> during an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS=EF=BF=BDs 60 Minutes.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: I don=EF=BF=BDt like torture.
I=EF=BF=BDm=EF=
=BF=BDalthough
> defining it is going to be a nice trick. But, I mean, who=EF=BF=BDs in
fav=
or
> of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the=EF=BF=BD
> everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision
> of the Constitution.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: If someone=EF=BF=BDs in custody, as in Abu Ghraib,
and=
> they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the
> expression, =EF=BF=BDcruel and unusual punishment,=EF=BF=BD
doesn=EF=BF=BD=
t that apply?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Cruel and unusual punishment?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: To the contrary. You think=EF=BF=BDyou
think=
> that you would=EF=BF=BDhas anybody ever referred to torture as
punishment?=
I
> don=EF=BF=BDt think so.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Well, I think if you=EF=BF=BDre in custody and you
hav=
e a
> policeman who=EF=BF=BDs taken you into custody=EF=BF=BD
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And you say he=EF=BF=BDs puni****ng you?
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Sure.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: What=EF=BF=BDs he puni****ng you for? You
pun=
ish
> somebody=EF=BF=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Well, because he assumes you, one, either
> committed a crime=EF=BF=BD
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
>
> LESLEY STAHL: =EF=BF=BDor that you know something that he wants to
k=
now.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Ah, it=EF=BF=BDs the latter. And when
he=EF=
=BF=BDs=EF=BF=BDwhen
> he=EF=BF=BDs=EF=BF=BDwhen he=EF=BF=BDs hurting you in order to get
informa=
tion from you=EF=BF=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Yeah?
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: =EF=BF=BDyou don=EF=BF=BDt say
he=EF=BF=BDs =
puni****ng you.
> What=EF=BF=BDs he puni****ng you for? He=EF=BF=BDs trying to
extract=EF=BF=
=BD
>
> LESLEY STAHL: Because he thinks you=EF=BF=BDre a terrorist, and
he=
=EF=BF=BDs
> going to beat the you-know-what out of you.
>
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Anyway, that=EF=BF=BDs my view. And it
happe=
ns
> to be correct.
>
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, being questioned by
> 60 Minutes=EF=BF=BDs Lesley Stahl. Philippe Sands?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: I=EF=BF=BDm not an expert on US constitutional law.
I=EF=
=BF=BDll talk
> about what I know, which is international law. The US is a party to
> all of those conventions that prohibit torture. That is a shocking
> statement by a serving justice, who I know is very partial to the
> television program 24, along with his colleague Clarence Thomas.
It=EF=BF=
=BDs=EF=BF=BD
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Explain 24.
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: 24 is a television program in which the use of torture
> is essentially rejoiced in as a technique for producing meaningful
> information. It had an effect down at Guantanamo. One of the things I
> discovered in my conversations was that people watched it, people were
> influenced by it, probably apparently as Antonin Scalia is.
>
> But that is a shocking statement. And I put it in these terms. If
he=EF=BF=
=BDs
> going to express that view, that the United States president is free
> to authorize torture, then why isn=EF=BF=BDt the Iranian president free
to=
> authorize torture against American nationals? Why isn=EF=BF=BDt the
Egypti=
an
> president free to organize=EF=BF=BDauthorize torture? The logic of the
> argument is really surprising and, frankly, outrageous.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, Philippe Sands, about the
> possibility of US officials being charged with war crimes. You were
> quoted in a New York Times piece on Tuesday: =EF=BF=BDMr. Sands, a
British=
law
> professor, said two foreign prosecutors, whom he did not name, asked
> him for the materials on which his book Torture Team was based.
=EF=BF=BDI=
f
> the US doesn=EF=BF=BDt address this,=EF=BF=BD he said, =EF=BF=BDother
coun=
tries will.=EF=BF=BD"
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: That=EF=BF=BDs an accurate account, and I describe, in
one=
of
> the concluding chapters of the book, conversations I had with a
> European prosecutor and a European judge. And the committee was very
> interested in that, in relation to a question they asked me and the
> other witnesses giving testimony: =EF=BF=BDWhat should this committee
do?=
=EF=BF=BD And
> the answer that I gave was, =EF=BF=BDLook, it=EF=BF=BDs not for me to
make=
> recommendations on precisely what you do and don=EF=BF=BDt do, but what
ne=
eds
> to happen is the United States needs to get involved in an accounting
> process. The committee needs to establish the facts. And if the United
> States doesn=EF=BF=BDt, others will do it.=EF=BF=BD And I have no doubt,
n=
o doubt
> whatsoever, that investigations will take place, if they=EF=BF=BDre not
> already taking place, and that some of these individuals, if they
> travel outside the United States, will face a very real threat of
> investigation.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: And the legality of what President Bush said, or the
> implications of it, when he said to ABC News, =EF=BF=BDWe started to
conne=
ct
> the dots in order to protect the American people. Yes, I=EF=BF=BDm aware
o=
ur
> national security team met on this issue, and I approved=EF=BF=BD?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, it appears to be an admission that the President
> of the United States authorized torture, that he authorized
> waterboarding. The convention prohibiting torture, the Geneva
> Conventions are absolutely clear: there are no cir***stances in which
> torture is permitted. And if the account is accurate, the President
> is, in effect, owning up to the fact that he has committed a war
> crime. And under the torture convention, there is an obligation to
> investigate any person who has committed a war crime. So it was a very
> surprising admission. I wonder if it was fully thought through. If
> it=EF=BF=BDs accurate, it is deeply disturbing.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Philippe Sands, you talked in your testimony before
> Congress about torture and what Britain learned in its fight with the
> IRA, with the Irish Republican Army.
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: In many ways, that was actually the most interesting
> exchange that I had, because I had it with some seemingly very
> sensible Republican congressmen, who were very interested and came up
> and talked to me about that afterwards. What I shared was that the
> experience of Brits across the political spectrum=EF=BF=BDit=EF=BF=BDs
not=
a left-
> right issue, as I explained=EF=BF=BDderives from the experience we had
in =
the
> early 1970s, in which the United Kingdom moved to aggressive
> interrogation. And they used pretty much the same techniques of
> interrogation: hooding, stress, humiliation. And it backfired
> terribly. On all military accounts, it extended the conflict by
> between fifteen and twenty years, because it creates such resentment
> in the community that is associated with the people who are being
> abused that it served to generate further opposition and people moving
> to violence. So basically the message is: it doesn=EF=BF=BDt work. And
no =
one
> in the United Kingdom, literally no one from any of the main political
> parties or across the political spectrum will in any cir***stances
> sup****t what has been apparently authorized by the President in this
> country."
>
> - - - -
>
> AMY GOODMAN: You live in Britain. Your book is Torture Team, though,
> about the United States and international law. The people involved
> that you=EF=BF=BDre talking about go across the gamut, now a number out
of=
> office. You have John Yoo, for example, who=EF=BF=BDs a law professor at
> University of California, Berkeley. You have Douglas Feith,
who=EF=BF=BDs =
now
> teaching at Georgetown. What are your thoughts about this?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: John Yoo=EF=BF=BDs dean at Berkeley has been subject to
> intense criticism for not firing him, and indeed there was even an op-
> ed, an opinion, an editorial, in the New York Times, saying he
> basically shouldn=EF=BF=BDt be teaching there anymore. Dean Edley wrote
an=
> interesting letter, in which he said, look, there=EF=BF=BDs freedom of
> expression, that includes freedom of views, and under the rules at
> Berkeley, you can only fire someone if they=EF=BF=BDve been convicted in
a=
> court of law of committing a criminal offense. And John Yoo has not
> been convicted of committing a criminal offense. And in our system,
> you are innocent until proven guilty.
>
> I=EF=BF=BDve laid out the reasons why I believe John Yoo has
participated =
in
> authorizing torture, and that exposes him to investigation. But I
> entirely accept that until he is actually condemned by a court of law,
> he is perfectly entitled to carry on peddling views, even if I
> violently and fundamentally disagree with those views.
>
> As regards Doug Feith, I spent time with him. He=EF=BF=BDs an
entertaining=
> character, but he=EF=BF=BDs a scary character. I=EF=BF=BDve read his
book,=
900 pages
> on war and decision, five pages devoted to the issue of
> interrogations. And you read that book, and you have no idea that this
> man was deeply involved in the decisions that I write about.
It=EF=BF=BDs
> spin. It=EF=BF=BDs whitewash. There=EF=BF=BDs a failure to accept
responsi=
bility. And
> that, I think, is what is going to cause them in difficulty, because
> it=EF=BF=BDs essentially a cover-up.
>
> - - -
>
>
> AMY GOODMAN: We invited Douglas Feith on the show, but we didn=EF=BF=BDt
g=
et a
> response. Can you talk about the significance of the 1947 case, United
> States of America v. Josef Altstoetter?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: It =EF=BF=BDs a delicate case. It=EF=BF=BDs one of the
cas=
es known as
> the Justice Cases, the only time that lawyers have ever been convicted
> of international crimes for carrying out their professional
> activities.
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Lawyers?
>
> PHILIPPE SANDS: Lawyers. The focus was on lawyers. I included
> reference to that case in my book, because I found it ironic that the
> theory that lawyers could cross a line and be investigated,
> prosecuted, and convicted for committing international crimes was a
> theory that was drawn up by the United States military itself, and
> then we come full-circle sixty years on, and we find that, with Mr.
> Rumsfeld=EF=BF=BDs hand, abuse is authorized and permitted by the US
milit=
ary
> in plain violation of international rules, but also in plain violation
> of President Lincoln=EF=BF=BDs disposition, going back to 1863, that the
U=
S
> doesn=EF=BF=BDt do cruelty.
>
> But the case is an im****tant one. It=EF=BF=BDs not a bang-on point, and
I=
=EF=BF=BDm
> absolutely not drawing analogies. I=EF=BF=BDm not saying that these
lawyer=
s
> are equivalent to those lawyers or this regime is equivalent to that
> regime. What I=EF=BF=BDm interested in is the cir***stance, in when does
a=
> lawyer cross a line into criminality?
>
> And coming back to an earlier question that you raised, the European
> judge and the European prosecutor that I met, when I laid out all the
> materials for them, they came back with a most startling conclusion.
> They said, =EF=BF=BDPhilippe, the bottom line of it is, there is no
> distinction between the man or woman who interrogates and the man or
> woman who authorizes by law an abusive interrogation. They are both
> subject to investigation. They are both subject to prosecution.=EF=BF=BD
A=
nd I
> think that=EF=BF=BDs the way the law has gone, and it=EF=BF=BDs a law
that=
is right,
> and it is a law that the United States has helped put in place.
>
>
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/8/torture_team_british_attorney_philipp=
e_sands
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D
> STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. COR****ATE MEDIA
> IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
> =3D =3D =3D =3D
>
>
> =3D =3D =3D =3D
> Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
> FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/
(peace)
> http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html
(Climate)
> And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/
(general)
>
> ** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com
|
