Bush gives OK to torture (again)

[weenie]

<p>

WASHINGTON, July 20 — After months of behind the scenes wrangling, the White House said Friday that it had given the Central Intelligence Agency approval to resume its use of some harsh interrogation methods in questioning terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas.</p>

<p>With the new authorization, administration officials said the C.I.A. could now proceed with an interrogation program that has been in limbo since the Supreme Court ruled last year that all prisoners in American captivity be treated in accordance with Geneva Convention prohibitions against humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20cnd-intel.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20cnd-intel.html?hp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Yuk.</p>

[mini]

<p>Supreme Court? eh. Geneva Conventions? eh. Who cares?</p>

[weenie]

<p>And how about this little Executive Order slipped in quietly:</p>

<p><a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

<p>Basically, if the White House decides that any person is in any way “undermining efforts” in Iraq, the Treasury Department (!) is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc. Hmmm. Can you believe this stuff goes on and no one even notices?</p>

[dadofsam]

<p>Not quite; the order refers to committing or supporting acts of violence, not jjust undermining efforts.</p>

[willmingtonwave]

<p>It is just so horrible, because it pretty much says to terrorists: we will torture you if we catch you, so you might as well do the same. We are sinking to their level. Torture is just barbaric and is never justfied.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>The executive order says all that? Where?</p>

<p><a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

<p>

i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:</p>

<p>(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;</p>

<p>(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;</p>

<p>(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;</p>

<p>(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109 366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109 148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109 163);</p>

<p>(E) willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or</p>

<p>(F) acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual;

</p>

<p>Actually, quite a bit of that is a direct quote from the Convention.</p>

[conyat]

<p>I think Weenie is talking about something else.</p>

<p>But since you brought it up, that particular executive order (the one you’re quoting, Strick11) makes no penalty for breaking it, specifically says that it offers no remedy or redress to those who experience breaches of it, and indeed specifies that if such breaches occur, any information obtained by torture can still be used against the individual tortured.</p>

<p>So in other words, don’t do it, but it’s ok if you do.</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>I confess. I will tell you anything and everything you want to know. Just don’t make me hear or watch another of W’s press conferences. And I am full Republican too.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>

I think Weenie is talking about something else.</p>

<p>But since you brought it up, that particular executive order (the one you’re quoting, Strick11) makes no penalty for breaking it, specifically says that it offers no remedy or redress to those who experience breaches of it, and indeed specifies that if such breaches occur, any information obtained by torture can still be used against the individual tortured.</p>

<p>So in other words, don’t do it, but it’s ok if you do.

</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure this is the executive order the post is referring to. I also note that it specifically does not grant any kind of immunity from prosecution for anyone who violates it. Instead, it makes specific references to US law and the Geneva Conventions and states that the order is simply an interpretation of them. The US laws in particular have teeth. If the CIA violates them, there is recourse.</p>

<p>Perhaps the Reuters article on the same subject is more objective (though what’s the world coming to when Reuters is the objective source?):</p>

<p>[Bush</a> puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2029519720070720]Bush”>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2029519720070720)</p>

[conyat]

<p>Reuter’s raises a good point that Bush is still allowing water-boarding. But the article was really not very comprehensive. It totally left out any mention of the loophole:</p>

<p>

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.</p>

<p>(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order.

</p>

<p>This was the Center for Constitutional Right’s explanation of it:</p>

<p>“In the past, the Bush administration has taken the position that even if some legal restrictions on interrogation methods applied, they were unenforceable in court,” the group’s press release said. “According to CCR attorneys, that problem exists with today’s Executive Order, as the last section states it does not create any rights or benefits that are enforceable in court — except for CIA officers defending themselves from charges of abuse.”</p>

<p>Another analyst raises a good point too about E.O.</p>

<p>

In other words, if a form of violence is not already prohibited by federal criminal law, and is not “comparable” to the forms of violence prohibited by the WCA, the CIA is not prohibited from using it.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/cia-interrogation-executive-order-well.html[/url]”>http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/cia-interrogation-executive-order-well.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[weenie]

<p>Sorry - I am referring to two different executive orders. The second one (that provides for the White House to be judge and jury) says (in part) this:</p>

<p><a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:</p>

<p>(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or</p>

<p>(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;</p>

<p>(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or</p>

<p>(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.</p>

<p>(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.</p>

<p>Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.</p>

<p>(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

</p>

<p>Sufficiently all-encompassing to violate the rights of just about anybody for just about any (unproven) reason. Again, this is about the White House acting in a judicial manner, and the Treasury imposing a sentence. Yikes.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>Sorry, weenie, I see you are quoting a different executive order, though one that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with torture. Basically, the one you’ve listed says that we’ll confiscate money and property we believe is donated or used to support terrorism, the way we already confiscate money and property used in drug deals or one community towed away the cars of people they busted during a recent prostitution sting. </p>

<p>Perhaps I’m confused about what you meant to post. This bridge, Federal agencies becoming judge and jury without benefit of trial related to property, was crossed a very long time ago. Do you see this as some how different? </p>

<p>OK, I admit the drug deal thing was passed by Congress in the 80s (I believe), but, still, the courts have ruled the FBI and DEA can confiscate nearly any property they want based on their claim it’s drug related and you have no recourse.</p>

<p>

In other words, if a form of violence is not already prohibited by federal criminal law, and is not “comparable” to the forms of violence prohibited by the WCA, the CIA is not prohibited from using it.

</p>

<p>conyat, are you suggesting that current federal laws or the Geneva Conventions don’t adequately prohibit the use of certain forms of violence? Doesn’t that give the Democratically controlled Congress the option to rectify any gaps that might be left? If they do, this executive order would require the CIA to automatically comply. Are you suggesting they should have to comply with laws that haven’t been written yet?</p>

<p>As for the other section you quote, an order to commit an illegal act is no defense in a court of law. Nothing may prevent someone from attempting to use it as a defense, but no self-respecting judge would allow it.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

conyat, are you suggesting that current federal laws or the Geneva Conventions don’t adequately prohibit the use of certain forms of violence?

</p>

<p>Bush and Cheney have said over and over that they believe water-boarding is legal and acceptable, and this E.O. doesn’t prohibit it, so apparently not. </p>

<p>

Doesn’t that give the Democratically controlled Congress the option to rectify any gaps that might be left?

</p>

<p>Congress is Democrat-majority but not Democrat-controlled. It’s simple mathematics. Democrats do not have enough seats for control.</p>

<p>They cannot pass anything meaningful in the Senate because the Republican Senators continually demand that 60 Senators, rather than a simple majority, agree before a vote can even be taken! There are not 60 Democrats in the Senate, and there simply are not enough Republican Senators willing to side with the American people over the Bush administration to provide the additional votes needed. In effect, the Republican minority is controlling the Senate by refusing to allow majority-rule votes on important issues. Legislation that would pass is denied because of insufficient votes to overcome the minority filibuster.</p>

<p>If the demands for cloture continue at the present rate, this minority Senate membership is on track to be three times more obstructive than any previous Senate. What they are doing, although within the rules, is historically unprecedented.</p>

<p>In addition, it would take a 2/3 majority to be veto-proof. Take the President’s vow to veto the 3.5 pay raise for our troops that Congress has proposed. The Democrats in Congress can pass it, but since they don’t have a 2/3 majority, if most Republicans side with the administration over our military and their families, there is nothing the majority party can do about it. It’s just how the system works when there’s a simple majority but not a filibuster- or veto-proof one.</p>

[Strick11]

<p>Actually, Bush supported a smaller raise and I think it was a threat not a “vow”. Might not seem to be that different, but when you come to negotiating details with Congress, it is. That’s how the system works, after all, they argue and each side uses the tools the Constitution gave them.</p>

<p>As for the Senate being more obstructive, well, given how little of substance has been brought to the debate so far, it probably wouldn’t matter. The only obstruction the Democrats have really encountered other than on Iraq has been their own lack of a coherent agenda. Well, except for them reaching new lows in creating and hiding spending earmarks, most notable after they promised to make the process more transparent during the last election.</p>

<p>Of course, I’m from a state where the Constitution only allows the legislature to meet every other year–the fact that if they aren’t in the state capitol, they can’t pass laws being considered a good thing, so maybe I’m not the one to ask.</p>

<p>So the one issue you’re concerned about is waterboarding? I’m not sure what I think about that one. As far as I know, you’re right, it’s generally not considered illegal. </p>

<p>Good thing too, since they apparently use the technique to train parts of the military they think is at a greater risk of being captured and interrogated. </p>

<p>Of course, if it’s all that violent and such, you wouldn’t think they would do that, would you.</p>