THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

That's the way Dershowitz would deal with violent abuse of civil and human rights by the police: since it's going to happen, we should legalize it.

What's wrong with this logic is this: bringing something into law only makes it legal; it does not make it right. Hitler got the Reichstag to legitimize nearly everything he did. The Nazis didn't just commit abominations against those groups they loathed. They legislated those abominations. The worst of what they did was perfectly legal. The only things absent were morality, justice and decency.

Blatham I know the rules of the Geneva Convention and I know the rights of U.S. citizens who are detained by law enforcement personnel. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that neither of these apply to non-citizen terrorists. So a captive terrorist is pretty much at the mercy of his captors

UN experts find evidence of WMD
By Edith M Lederer
10jun04

UN weapons experts have found 20 engines used in Iraq's banned Al Samoud 2 missiles in a Jordanian scrap yard, along with other equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Acting chief UN inspector Demetrius Perricos disclosed the discovery today in a closed-door briefing to the UN Security Council.
According to the text of his presentation, Perricos said a similar missile engine had been found in a scrap yard in the Dutch port of Rotterdam, while a request had been made to Turkey, which has also received scrap metal from Iraq. The discoveries raise questions about the fate of material and equipment that could be used to produce biological and chemical weapons as well as banned long-range missiles.

Perricos said UN inspectors do not how much material has been removed from Iraq since the war began in March 2003, and suggested the interim government may want to reconsider "the whole policy for the continued export of metal scrap" once it assumes power on June 30.

"The only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," he said, according to the text of his briefing.

Afterwards, he told reporters that up to a thousand tons of scrap metal was leaving Iraq every day.

Perricos told the council that UN experts visited "relevant scrap yards" in Jordan and discovered 20 SA-2 missile engines, which are used in Al Samoud 2 missiles. His report did not specify the condition of the engines, or whether they were damaged.

The UN team also discovered some processing equipment with UN tags - which show it was being monitored - including chemical reactors, heat exchangers, and a solid propellant mixer bowl to make missile fuel, he said. It also discovered "a large number of other processing equipment without tags, in very good condition." The UN inspectors in Jordan were told that "brand new material like stainless steel and special alloy sheets" was being sent out of Iraq, he said. At today's closed council meeting, UN diplomats said many members expressed concern about items missile engines and other material that had been monitored by UN inspectors ending up in foreign scrap yards including Algeria, Brazil, Germany, France, Chile, Spain, Russia and China.

Blatham I know the rules of the Geneva Convention and I know the rights of U.S. citizens who are detained by law enforcement personnel. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that neither of these apply to non-citizen terrorists. So a captive terrorist is pretty much at the mercy of his captors
The term and idea of 'unlawful combatant' occurs nowhere in the Geneva Conventions nor in other legal precedent. It is a creation of this administration and has been, as Dworkin notes, widely challenged. Further..."In any case, Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a party, requires that parties convene tribunals to determine whether particular prisoners are entitled to prisoner-of-war status when there is doubt. The First Additional Protocol, which the United States signed but did not ratify, specifies that requirement in much greater detail: it requires that each prisoner be presumed eligible for prisoner-of-war status and allowed to contest any reclassification before a "competent" tribunal. The administration refuses to recognize those further requirements of the protocol, and insists that there is no doubt that those it has detained are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status." (Dworkin)...so perhaps you ought to cease pretending that you are on top of the legal questions here. You have, as the administration has, as every police state has, given yourself justification for all manner of hideous acts of torture and denial of basic rights of humans in any situation, which makes your following sentence laughable. and, for his sake, he is probably pretty glad that the President of the United States and the Attorney General are both devout Christians with considerable scruples about what is humane.

So I ask you....that's YOU Blatham...since we can decide how interrogations will be done and there is no law governing that....if you are in charge and the lives and safety of millions of your countrymen hang in the balance, how tough can you get with a terrorist who has information that might help you protect them?

It's a really simple question. And one I would think anybody should be able to answer without Google.
Of course it isn't a simple question at all. It's a very complex question, but why am I not surprised you want simple again. NOBODY claims as you have just above that there are no laws governing interrogations, not even the administration, nor the military. So why do you type that stupidly uncareful sentence? Why is it that you cannot follow a nuanced argument? You claimed elsewhere that your posts are viewpoints are consistent...they are, and that's not a compliment. I've met few people in my life who are as functionally blind and unreflective as you. Every time your facts or arguments are at risk, you pop up somewhere else like a quantum electron. I'd forgive you most of that except that now you are defending torture even while denying the fact of it when the any child in America would tell you 'yes, that is torture in that picture, and in that other picture, and in that other picture too'. You deny it while people have been beaten to death in 'aggressive questioning'. You deny it because you do not have the moral or spiritual courage to face it.

Your moral values here are despicable. Your arguments are shoddy and your research moreso. It is precisely people like you fox, with your ideological rigidity and the pretence (to yourself) that you and those you consider fellow members of your christian tradition could not be guilty of such evils whose pridefulness threatens to turn America and Christianity into something unrecognizable and vulgar beyond words. Imagine, just imagine, Jesus washboarding you, or smearing you with ****, or shoving a lightstick up your ass and saying "This is justified."[/[/color]quote]

Foxfyre wrote:

Blatham I know the rules of the Geneva Convention and I know the rights of U.S. citizens who are detained by law enforcement personnel. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that neither of these apply to non-citizen terrorists. So a captive terrorist is pretty much at the mercy of his captors
The term and idea of 'unlawful combatant' occurs nowhere in the Geneva Conventions nor in other legal precedent. It is a creation of this administration and has been, as Dworkin notes, widely challenged. Further..."In any case, Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a party, requires that parties convene tribunals to determine whether particular prisoners are entitled to prisoner-of-war status when there is doubt. The First Additional Protocol, which the United States signed but did not ratify, specifies that requirement in much greater detail: it requires that each prisoner be presumed eligible for prisoner-of-war status and allowed to contest any reclassification before a "competent" tribunal. The administration refuses to recognize those further requirements of the protocol, and insists that there is no doubt that those it has detained are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status." (Dworkin)...so perhaps you ought to cease pretending that you are on top of the legal questions here. You have, as the administration has, as every police state has, given yourself justification for all manner of hideous acts of torture and denial of basic rights of humans in any situation, which makes your following sentence laughable. and, for his sake, he is probably pretty glad that the President of the United States and the Attorney General are both devout Christians with considerable scruples about what is humane.

So I ask you....that's YOU Blatham...since we can decide how interrogations will be done and there is no law governing that....if you are in charge and the lives and safety of millions of your countrymen hang in the balance, how tough can you get with a terrorist who has information that might help you protect them?

It's a really simple question. And one I would think anybody should be able to answer without Google.
Of course it isn't a simple question at all. It's a very complex question, but why am I not surprised you want simple again. NOBODY claims as you have just above that there are no laws governing interrogations, not even the administration, nor the military. So why do you type that stupidly uncareful sentence? Why is it that you cannot follow a nuanced argument? You claimed elsewhere that your posts are viewpoints are consistent...they are, and that's not a compliment. I've met few people in my life who are as functionally blind and unreflective as you. Every time your facts or arguments are at risk, you pop up somewhere else like a quantum electron. I'd forgive you most of that except that now you are defending torture even while denying the fact of it when the any child in America would tell you 'yes, that is torture in that picture, and in that other picture, and in that other picture too'. You deny it while people have been beaten to death in 'aggressive questioning'. You deny it because you do not have the moral or spiritual courage to face it.

Your moral values here are despicable. Your arguments are shoddy and your research moreso. It is precisely people like you fox, with your ideological rigidity and the pretence (to yourself) that you and those you consider fellow members of your christian tradition could not be guilty of such evils whose pridefulness threatens to turn America and Christianity into something unrecognizable and vulgar beyond words. Imagine, just imagine, Jesus washboarding you, or smearing you with ****, or shoving a lightstick up your ass and saying "This is justified."

Praise the Lord and Pass the Thumbscrews
It's been pointed out to me (tip of the hat to Bernhard H.) that the team of lawyers who wrote the Pentagon's treatise on presidential torture powers was led by this woman:

U.S. Air Force's General Counsel, Mary L. Walker, discusses what it takes to leave a legacy of significance
Ms. Walker, it turns out, is a long-time Republican political appointee first brought to Washington during the Reagan administration to help oversee the looting of America's natural resources, um, that is, I mean, to serve as principal deputy in the environmental division at Ed Meese's Justice Department.

It also appears that Ms. Walker is a devout Christian - much like her fellow Reagan alum and environmental despoiler, Interior Secretary James "I don't know how many generations we've got until the Lord returns" Watt. And she's the co-founder of a San Diego group called Professional Women's Fellowship, an offshoot of the Campus Crusade for Christ "dedicated to helping professionals find balance, focus and direction in life."

God knows, we all need balance, focus and direction in our lives - and I'd be the last person to criticize Ms. Walker for looking for it in Jesus. As a devoted follower of John Lennon (bigger than Christ, but we won't dwell on that) I'm a firm believer in whatever gets you through the night. It's all right. It's all right.

But knowing what we now know about the subject matter of the Pentagon report, and the legal theories expounded therein, I do have to wonder how seriously Ms. Walker takes her Golden Rule.

At the very least, the report lends a curious overtone to some of the comments in this interview with Walker, which was published on the PWF web site:

Walker: "I wanted to be involved in policy development at the highest level, and lawyers in our society are often involved in shaping policy."
The report: After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful."

Walker: "I can't divorce faith from success because God is the foundation for my life."

The report: "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a torture charge."

Walker: "My relationship with God and with others in the community of faith has been central in my life."

The report: "The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture." It "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."

Walker:"It helped to find someone who could mentor me and help me see my faith as relevant to the challenges of life and work."

The report:For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods [to be considered torture], the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him."

Walker: "When God is the center of your life and everything you do revolves around His plans for you and the world, then that is when life really gets exciting."

The report:The executive branch [has] "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Walker: It's a travesty to be in a place of strategic importance to the world as a business or political leader and not allow God to accomplish the truly significant through you.

The report: To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."


And of course, I saved the best for last:

Walker: "Making moral decisions in the workplace where it is easy to go along and get along takes courage. It takes moral strength and courage to say, 'I'm not going to do this because I don't think it's the right thing to do.' "
The report: Officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate."


And so there you have it: Mary L. Walker - Christian, Republican, Patriot, Torture Attorney.