Ashcroft Provides the Smoking Gun to BUSH!!

[thew]

Yesterday at the Senate armed services hearings Ashcroft was appearing under oath to testify. Joe Bidin (D) from Deleware asked Ashcroft if he wrote a memo to President Bush advising him that torture was legal? Ashcroft refused to confirm or deny the allegation. Bidin stated, This memo is being quoted in the ongoing military investigations by enllisted personel; It's not a secret document; It's public record; Will you confirm you wrote it? Ashcroft refuses but stated that he had nothing to do with the acts attrocities committed by a few soldiers in Iraq. Bidin further stated that this memo was a legal opinion by the chief law enforcement officer of the country related to the President and quoted by the President in orders tot eh Pentigon. Ashcroft refused to comment further.

Biden further commented that his son was in the Armed services in Iraq and that the reason America entered into the Geneva convention was so American POW's would not be tortured. Ashcroft stated that he cared about Biden's son and his own son had been in the military and in Iraq within the last few months.

CNN ended their coverage of the hearings by stating that they had the memo, which was written by Ashcroft, and which states that Torture is a "legal" means for American soldiers to obtain information in war time.

Not too much wiggle room there. Ashcroft should have fessed up and tried to defend his position. Trying to cover it up just makes it worse, especially when the info is already out there... More proof Ashcroft is a moron, and that zero tolerance policies are excuses not to engage one's brain which should never be excuseable.

[Larry]

C'mon, you didn't expect the administration to actually take responsibility for their actions, did you?

To use an analogy, Jack Nicholson didn't say "I order a Code Red". He said "I seem to recall that we had an obligation to provide education and training for our troops."

The administration didn't send W to Abu-Whatever to personally provide instructions as to how to stack human pyramids. They simply issued legal opinions that pointed out that the word "torture" really isn't defined, so as long as you stop short of amputation, then you can debate it, and BTW, if you get prosecuted, you can claim "self-defense", and that might work, too.

[@DCGoldPants]

link?

[AJWatson3]

here's the San Jose Mercury News:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8877403.htm?1c

news24.com, whatever that is:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1539584,00.html

basically every outfit is reporting the same thing.

[Kilmer17]

Im not following what the significance of this is?

Ashcroft sent Bush a memo telling him that our troups werent doing anything illegal?

Why is this a big deal?

[AJWatson3]

oh, that's the memo he refuses to let everyone see.....

[thew]

Kilmer

Im not following what the significance of this is?

Ashcroft sent Bush a memo telling him that our troups werent doing anything illegal?

Why is this a big deal?

The significance of this is that the memo was published before the war with Iraq in 2002. The significans is that the memo outlines a justification or legal defense for torture. It paints torture as justifiable for American troops in the field and it does so not to the Pentigon but to the White house. Wonder who gave it to the Pentigon?

Now that memo is being cited by enlisted troops in the field who the administration is trying to charge with commiting war attrocities.....

This lays the entire mess not at Rumsfelds doorstep as had been previously sirmised but at George Bush's doorstep. Ashcrofts fumbling didn't help matters any either.

What Ashcroft should have said is that he was outlining a strategy to be used against high level Al Quada operatives. But the reason he can't do that is because senior folks over at the Pentigon decided to use these techniques against the Iraqi POW's, and innocents which we rounded up during and shortly after the war.

Ashcroft is thanking his lucky stars Ronnie died this week or he'd be the lead story on every network and newspaper.

[Thiebear]

The memo, addressed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, reportedly said torturing a suspect in captivity "may be justified" if the US government employee involved "would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network."

So far i'm not tracking with you?

THEW: Is this the memo your talking about:

Alqaeda Terrorists can be tortured and pushing it forward to say that this is what was in effect with the Abu prison?

Or are you saying they were talking about a memo that specifically says you can torture the prisoners in IRAQ?

[Larry]

Here is a link to another thread, and the original WP article (with more quotes from the memo).

[Kilmer17]

So your in a tizzy because the Attorney General advised the White House about what was legal?

I still dont follow.

It paints torture as justifiable for American troops in the field and it does so not to the Pentigon but to the White house.

It does?, can you show us that?

I keep reading this and othr accounts, and what I sdee is a memo from the Attorney General telling the President that legally speaking, certain acts are permitted and would not violate the law. So that begs the question, if they are legal, why is there such outrage?

[thew]

if they are legal, why is there such outrage?

The outrage is because these acts have been described by Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Bush as attrocities and they are in the process of convicting 8 enlisted folks of jail time for perpetrating these acts. Now we find that Bush asked the Justice department for a legal defense strategy for justifying the abuse almost a year before the story broke.

Clearly what makes this outragous is that Ashcroft was 100% wrong and that Torture and Abuse of Prisoners by American forces is not legal or allowable under international treaties.

What makes this outrages is that the public line this administration has been spouting doesn't match what we now know they planned for. What makes this outragous is that it squarely places America on the wrong side of international treaties and agreements many of which we wrote!

[Kilmer17]

Clearly what makes this outragous is that Ashcroft was 100% wrong and that Torture and Abuse of Prisoners by American forces is not legal or allowable under international treaties.

I disagree. But please provide us proof to back up that statement.

Just because an act is atrocious. And disgusting. And horrific doesnt make it illegal.

[gbear]

Two parts of the outrage:

1) there is significant disagreement about whether it is legal. Jag officers up the chain cried fowl. It is contrary to treaties, Army regs, and traditional interpretations of the law. This ignores many of the other reasons for the traditional interpretations. So there is some outrage that the administration would try to make it legal. Keep in mind, they can't just snap their fingers and make it legal. This memo was more along the lines of we can beat the rap by chagning some definitions. For more on this read the link above to the post article on how many (not many in the public, but many with legal experience) think it is illegal.

2) the cover up. THe Bush administration has gone to great lengths to deny that they in any way ordered or condoned the torture. Asking an AttGen if they can get away with it before they are caught...and then being told they could...and then expecting us to believe they didn't do it when we know it happened (just unsure whether it was just 7 or 8 low ranking officers or if it goes higher). How did the memo written for the white house get over to the pentagon with no administration involvement in the first place?

[Kilmer17]

It was written in reference to treatment of Al Queda captees.

You are right though, expressing the legality of it doesn make it legal. However, I dont see the problem with the Atty General offering his opinion and his interpretation of it.

[gbear]

the problem comes with assertion that the administration had no part in it happening. Clearly, they contemplated it, and clearly they decided they could do it. What's more, they passed along that it could be done to those who would have some say in it being done (memo at pentagon).

Is that tacit approval?

[thew]

Thiebear

THEW: Is this the memo your talking about :

Alqaeda Terrorists can be tortured and pushing it forward to say that this is what was in effect with the Abu prison?

Or are you saying they were talking about a memo that specifically says you can torture the prisoners in IRAQ?

It sounds to me that Ashcroft was outlining legally defensible interogation techniques and wasn't specific about who they were to be used on or what the specific acts of torture should be, from what has leaked of the memo so far.

He was just making a blanket outline for a legal defense for soldiers who use torture or coersive techniques against the enemy.

According to the Seymore Hersh's article however the torture was a technique approved early in the war on terror to be used exclusively against high level Al Quada targets. It was later changed to include Iraqi detainee's and POW's by the under sec of defense after it had proven so effective with the AlQuada captives.

[Kilmer17]

I can legally justify things I dont approve of.

[thew]

I can legally justify things I dont approve of.

Yeah anybody can do that. But can you plan a legal defense for an act that you didn't have any knowledge of a year before the act becomes public knowledge? Can you do that and still claim the acts are "un Amerian" and criminal?

Can you have a paper trail that shows knowledge of these acts at the highest levels of government and still confine the criminal prosecutions to eight enlisted men from eastern Maryland and northern West Virginia? No officers?

If you think Bush can do these things then no worries..

[Kilmer17]

They were speaking about interogating Al Queda captees.

I know you desperately want it to be about Iraq, but it's not. At most it's a general memo regarding all aspects of interrogations.

But if you have some proof that the memo specifically refferred to Iraqi's, please share it.

[thew]

They were speaking about interogating Al Queda captees.

When have you ever known Bush or Ashcroft to speack that specifically? The Memo wasn't discussing Al Quada specifically rather "detainee's of the war on terror". Which we now have evidence means Iraqi POW's, POW's family members, and innocent folks just trying to make their way home.

Also those Al Quada detainees are the same guys that Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld have been telling the American public and the world that they haven't been torturing for the last three years down in Getmo.....

No moral middle ground here. This is just pure Bush/Ashcroft statemanship in action. Exposed for the entire world to witness. Rape, Murder, and torture with what now appears to be the full knowledge of the justice department and the President. Yet another plank for Bush to run for re-election on.

[Kilmer17]

Do you honestly think that before the war even started, Ashcroft sent Bush a memo telling him that it would be legal for the US to torture Iraqi's?

Even though at the time we WERE fighting Al Queda and the Taliban. You still think that the memo referred to Iraqi's?

[SoCalSkins]

It referred to all fronts in the worldwide war against terror and Iraq fell under that umbrella.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Do you honestly think that before the war even started, Ashcroft sent Bush a memo telling him that it would be legal for the US to torture Iraqi's?

Even though at the time we WERE fighting Al Queda and the Taliban. You still think that the memo referred to Iraqi's?

1) Even though, at the time, we (that's the royal "we") were planning on invading Iraq . . .

But, you're right, Kilmer. There's no conclusive proof that Bush personally told those enlisted personnel the exact technique for attaching electrodes to prisoners' genitals.

All we've got is a legal study, prepared on request to the US Justice Department, (aparantly signed by Ashcroft, although the first article didn't mention that), which contains just pieces of legal advice as the position that an interrogator can use any technique that stops short of death or shutdown of bodily organs, and he can at least claim that it doesn't count as "torture".

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.

Now, please, try and convince me that this memo isn't simply the administration saying "if you get caught, here's the defense you should use".

But, gee, just because they're issunig instructions on what to do if you're accused of war crimes doesn't mean they intended the crimes to take place, or anything. And, yeah, after issuing instructions on how to avoid "criminal liability", they're perfectly justified in throwing the book at some reservist enlisted types who got caught, while announcing how horrified they are at the unauthorised actions of these untrained personnell.

[Kilmer17]

A few things to note.

1- It specifically mentions Al Queda.

2- It was a directive of the CIA

3- It's not illegal.

So we have this memo from Ashcroft that tells Bush that certain interrogation techniques used against Al Queda are not illegal.

So again I ask the question, why is this news? It doesnt refer to Iraq, it doesnt talk about how to get away with a crime. And it came as a response to an inquiry from the CIA.

[Larry]

So, you're saying, when you read the statement I quoted above, to you, that's a statement of what's legal, and not a statement of how to "beat the charge" if you get caught?

So, further, the fact that the personnel charged, so far, are citing this policy as justification, doesn't affect your claim that it only applied to CIA personnell in Afghanistan?

So, you have no problem with an administration telling field personnell that it's OK to do things, things that would've been illegal under previous administrations, but the new boss has decided they're OK, but then, when the public finds out about it, and it looks like it might cost votes, throws up it's hands and announces that they're "shocked", and prosecutes the folks who got caught?