Bush's judiciary gestapo writes more letters, like signing statements, that break laws, this time, international human rights laws.
The NY Times reports, "The Justice Department has told Congress that U.S. operatives trying to thwart terrorist attacks may use interrogation methods that might otherwise be barred under international law."
Last year, the Supreme court and congress issued orders restricting use of torture. Bush wrote some of his letters in response. You know. He writes signing statements that he thinks makes his violation of laws enacted by congress okay. He has morallyy depraved attorneys write opinions that he can do anything he wants with no consequences. And here, we have another example of the corrupt sycophants who have sold their souls to take a job working for and covering for the worst president in history.
The NY Times article reports,
The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.
While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
The letters from the Justice Department to Congress were provided by the staff of Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee and had sought more information from the department.
Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.
“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.
There is no doubt that history will scrutinize the repeated efforts by Bush to, with the stroke of a pen, void long held, long valued and respected laws. But Bush will not be alone. History will also put the people who enabled and covered for Bush under the lens of historical perspective. Hopefully, congress will add additional perspective to those historical viewpoints-- convictions of criminals-- perpetrators of torture-- those who ordered, permitted it, performed it and enabled it by abusing the words and language of the law. John Yoo should be one of the first on the list. But there are many more.
