B U L L E T I N: At 6:37 p.m., Thursday, Sept. 28, the U.S. Senate voted 65 to 34 to pass the administration’s latest legislation that makes torture of detainees legal (at least until it is challenged in the Supreme Court). Twelve democrats voted for the so-called “compromise” bill supported by John McCain. The names of these democrats should be permanently engraved in a WALL OF SHAME. The democrats who voted with 53 republicans to pass this dangerous legislation were:
· Carper (Delaware)
· Johnson (South Dakota)
· Landrieu (Louisiana)
· Lautenberg (New Jersey
· Lieberman (Conneticut)
· Menendez (New Jersey)
· Nelson (Florida)
· Nelson (Nebraska)
· Pryor (Arkansas)
· Rockefeller (West Virginia)
· Salazar (Colorado)
· Stabenow (Michigan)
One republican senator – Chafee of Rhode Island – voted against the measure.
UNBELIEVABLE! BUSH AND TORTURE
From the editor: The Democratic Party is getting something right. In spite of inept leadership in the form of “Milquetoast” Harry Reid who sounds like he is apologizing for being a Democrat every time he speaks and spineless Nancy Pelosi who gets on the Jim Lehrer Newshour last April and proclaims that she favors “pre-emptive” war, (see The Compass, vol. iii, no. 10 at www.thecompasssociety.com, the democrats are correctly making the Nov. 7 mid-term elections a national referendum on the Bush administration. Even though the Republicans are trying to shift the focus to “wedge” issues such as immigration, abortion, and stem-cells, the Bush initiative to allow the CIA to continue to torture detainees at Guantanamo and secret sites in Egypt, Syria, etc. is the latest “in your face” Bush/Rove strategy for emphasizing that we now have an imperial presidency with no checks and balances.
The Bush administration wants legislation that will make the following techniques legal, according to the Sept. 25, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine.
· Induced hypothermia
· Long periods of forced standing
· Sleep deprivation
· The “attention grab” (the forceful seizure of a detainees shirt)
· The “attention slap”
· The “belly slap” and
· Sound and light manipulation
The U.S. Army field manual bans waterboarding, but the manual does not apply to CIA interrogators. It is unclear whether the Bush administration has agreed to drop waterboarding as a method used during interrogation of detainees.
DEFINITIONS OF TORTURE
From the editor: Bush’s claim that the Geneva Conventions’ definition of torture is vague is classic neoconservative “doublespeak.” The real issue as Congress “debates” the so-called “Military Tribunal Bill,” is that the Bush administration has committed blatant war crimes violating at least three legal definitions of torture which apply to U.S. wartime actions: 1) the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article 3; 2) the U.N. Convention on Torture of 1987; and 3) the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1994. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that all suspected terrorists, even those secretly detained by the CIA are protected under the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 which forbids “outrages upon personal dignity” and “cruel treatment.” In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court ruled that Article 3 applies to all aspects of the conflict with Al Qaeda.
In addition, The War Crimes Act of 1994 criminalizes violations of the U.N. Convention Against Torture signed by the United States in 1987. Since the Supreme Court decision in June, Bush’s minions have been furiously writing proposed legislation in an effort to avoid possible prosecution under this Act. The language of the War Crimes Act is found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, Paragraph 2340 of the U.S. Code defines torture as follows:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful actions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from –
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
( C ) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories and possessions of the United States.
From the New York Times: Article written by Adam Liptak Sept. 8,
2006, headlined “Interrogation Methods Rejected by Military Win Bush’s
Support,” contains the following references to a University of California at
Berkeley law professor by the name of John C. Yoo.
“John C. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former Justice Department official who helped develop the administration’s early legal response to the terrorist threat, said the bill (the 86-page proposed legislation introduced on Wed., Sept. 6 by the Bush administration) would provide people on the front lines (the CIA) with important tools.”
“’When you’re fighting a new kind of war against an enemy we haven’t faced before,’ Professor Yoo said, ‘our system needs to give flexibility to people to respond to those challenges.’”
“Indeed, the proposed legislation takes pains to try to ensure that the Supreme Court will not have a second bite at the apple. (Note: The ‘first bite’ was the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision noted above) ‘The act makes clear,’ it says in its introductory findings, ‘that the Geneva Conventions are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights.’”
WHO THE HELL IS JOHN C. YOO?
From the editor: John Choon Yoo was very visible as a “talking head” on the Lehrer News Hour during the confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales. He co-authored (some believe he was the principal author) of the famous “torture memo” prepared by the Justice Department at the request of Gonzales when Gonzales was serving as General Counsel to the President. That memo narrowly defined torture as “the equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” This memo, dated August 1, 2002, was signed by Jay S. Bybee, then assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo was Bybee’s deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo was born June 10, 1967, in Seoul, South Korea. He is currently Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley’s Boalt Hall Law School. He has a bachelor’s degree in American history from Harvard and a law degree from Yale. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1993 and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1994-95. He served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Dept. from 2001-03. He is a “Visiting Scholar” for the American Enterprise Institute and is a member of the Federalist Society.
IN HIS OWN WORDS
From the editor: From time to time, Yoo grants interviews or submits articles to various media that illustrate his stance on torture.
From the San Jose Mercury News: Excerpts from commentary article by
John Yoo dated January 4, 2005
“One of the first policy decisions in this new war concerned the Geneva Conventions – four 1949 treaties ratified by the United States that codify many of the rules of war. After seeking the views of the Justice, State, and Defense departments, Gonzales concluded in a draft January 2002 memo to the president that Al-Qaida and the Taliban were not legally entitled to POW status. He also advised that following every provision of the conventions could hurt the United States’ ability to protect itself against ruthless enemies.”
“Gonzales’ memo agreed with the Justice Deptartment and disagreed with the State Department, which felt the Taliban (though not Al-Qaida) qualified as POWs.”
“The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel – where I worked at the time (2002)– determined that the Geneva Conventions legally do not apply to the war on terrorism because Al Qaida is not a nation/state and has not signed the treaties. Al Qaida members also do not qualify as legal combatants because they hide among peaceful populations and launch surprise attacks on civilians – violating the fundamental principle that war is waged only against combatants.”
(Editor’s Note: In this article, Yoo is trying to attribute his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions to Gonzales. Although the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was not a direct response to the opinions of John Yoo, it rejects similar arguments made by the Defense Department.)
IN THE WORDS OF OTHERS
From The Boston Globe: Following are excerpts from an article by Christopher Shea which appeared in the Oct. 23, 2005 issue of The Globe.
“In JOHN YOO’S world, President Bush didn’t need to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq. And if the special forces captured a terrorist suspect who might know of an upcoming attack on the New York subway, Bush could order him place on a torture rack – regardless of treaties the US has signed or whether Congress has passed laws banning torture.”
“Yoo wants to revise our understanding of the Constitution in two areas: presidential war powers and the interpretation of treaties.”
From FindLaw.com: Following are excerpts from an article by John W. Dean dated Jan. 14, 2005, posted on the website of www.findlaw.com.
“In fact, not a single person connected, or formerly connected, with the Bush Administration has to my knowledge, publicly defended the (torture memo) -- with the single exception of Bybee’s co-author, law professor John Yoo.”
“Little wonder. There is good reason to keep a distance from this memo. It is ‘smoking gun’ – level evidence of a war crime.”
“For example, Dean Koh (Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School) minced no words when he stated, ‘in my professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memorandum (co-authored by Yoo) is perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read.’”
“According to Dean Koh, the memo’s blatant flaws include its ignoring the existing ‘zero tolerance policy’ on torture, and its defining torture so loosely that it would tolerate ‘the things that Saddam Hussein’s forces did’ such as ‘beating, pulling out a fingernail, burning with hot irons, suspension from ceilings’ to name a few. Also, Koh noted the memo so ‘grossly overreads the president’s constitutional power’ that, under its logic, the president could ‘order genocide or other kinds of acts’ and neither Congress nor the courts could stop him.”
(Editor’s Note: The Senate is considering a so-called “compromise” to the Bush administration’s proposed Military Tribunal Bill aka S.B. 3930 – the most recent effort to adopt Yoo’s position on torture and presidential powers. Call your senators!)
WE WANT CHANGE
How to Get Elected in Seven Words
· Security – End the war in Iraq and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict;
· Health – Pass universal health care legislation;
· Work – Support working families, e.g., increase minimum wage;
· Economy – Replace annual deficit with surpluses and fair taxes;
· Environment – Reduce greenhouse gases and subsidize non-nuclear alternative energy;
· Education – Fully fund public education and make college affordable; and
· Elections – Implement full public funding for public office.
There are now only 5 WEEKS REMAINING until mid-term elections Nov. 7, 2006.
The Compass Society Newsletter
Published by
The Compass
Society
Maynard Chapman,
Editor
Copyright © 2006, The Compass Society.
Comments