Did the Justice Department Lie to the Supreme Court?

[MSgt213]

Back on April 28, at oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the Hamdi and Padilla cases, Justice Ginsburg had this exchange with Paul Clement, the Deputy Solicitor General:


JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: But if the law is what the executive says it is, whatever is "necessary and appropriate'' in the executive's judgment, as the resolution you gave us that Congress passed, it leads you up to the executive, unchecked by the judiciary. So what is it that would be a check against torture?

A. Well, first of all, there are treaty obligations. But the primary check is that just as in every other war, if a U.S. military person commits a war crime by creating some atrocity on a harmless, you know, detained enemy combatant or a prisoner of war, that violates our own conception of what's a war crime. And we'll put that U.S. military officer on trial in a court martial. So I think there are plenty of internal reasons --

Q. Suppose the executive says, "Mild torture, we think, will help get this information?" It's not a soldier who does something against the code of military justice, but it's an executive command. Some systems do that to get information.

A. Well, our executive doesn't, and I think - I mean.

It turned out that people within the military had known for at least four months at that point that methods involving torture and humiliation had been practiced in Iraq.


http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_05_09_isthatlegal_archive.html#108445474417232258

[LittleApple81]

1. Yes. n/t