Nancy Pelosi and Congress are in the clear re Torture

[malaise]

The five lawyers met behind closed doors in the White House or the Pentagon – and
called themselves the “War Council.”
NARRATOR: Two weeks to the day after the terrorist attacks, they launched their
legal revolution. A radical opinion asserted that Congress could not:
“place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.”
NARRATOR: Impatience with the rule of law – and the firm conviction that the
commander in chief had the authority to ignore it – would become a hallmark of the war
on terror.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/documents/transcript.pdf

An edited version of the documentary is being shown on Bill MOyers now.
Here's the link to the entire documentary
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05292009/profile.html

This gets worse by the second.

gr.

[maddezmom]

1. thanks for the links

watching the first part now. :hi:

[malaise]

3. I'm still shaking my head

More from the transcript

Moyers is calling it torture.
MARTIN LEDERMAN: In this administration, President Bush has, by all accounts,
been quite forthright in that he's asked his lawyers not to give him the best view of the law, but instead, to push the envelope. The metaphor that they've used is to go asclose to the legal line as possible without going over. So the metaphor they've come up with is to “get chalk on one's spikes.” This was the message that went out from the White House.
NARRATOR: On January 9th, 2002, in the first of a series of opinions that would provide legal cover for coercive interrogations, John Yoo began to push the envelope.
“Customary international law of armed conflict in no way binds the President or the US Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.”
NARRATOR: In other words, the President has the power to suspend - or simply
ignore - the fundamental laws of war. That includes Geneva and its guarantees of basic human rights to prisoners and civilians alike.
RICHARD ARMITAGE – Deputy Secretary of State (2001-05): Our views were well
known in this matter. We were not on board.
NARRATOR: Richard Armitage served three combat tours in Vietnam.
RICHARD ARMITAGE: For the most part, the Department of State was left out of this
discussion, I think precisely because we'd have no part of it.

[CreekDog]

2. you're right

rant deleted. :hide:

[malaise]

4. Huh?

I'm just making it clear that based on this transcript the guilty parties are Bushco and his goons. They ignored congress completely.

gr

[malaise]

5. Peace

:D

[pleah]

6. K&R Bookmarked and thanks.

:hi:

[here_is_to_hope]

7. Its not like any one else will be sent of to The Hague either...n/t

[malaise]

8. I hope you're wrong

Special Prosecutor time

[KharmaTrain]

9. It Was Out There For All To See...

Those are the basic wording of the IWR that made the Legislative nothing but a rubber stamp to the booooosh pillage...not just of Iraq but of civil rights and liberties as well. It was so vaguely worded, it just begged to be abused and was. And who approved of this? It wasn't Pelosi. She voted against the resolution, but plenty of other scared Democrats and all the GOOPers...who were in the majority. This stuff was steamrolled through the House & Senate...quick votes, little debate and pressure to approve or face commercials on the teevee and berating on the radio and in the compliant press. As Andy Card put it at the time...it was "rolling out the fall merchandise".

The truth is continuing to surface and with each revelation comes one more piece of evidence that war crimes were committed and need to be address...if not in our politically-driven system, then in the international courts.

:hi:

[malaise]

10. Nice post bro

:hi:

[goclark]

11. K this post nt