I wanted to link to this, just for the title: John Yoo on the Neoconstitution. Gene Healy analyzes John Yoo and his torture memos.
David Cole has put it, Yoo “was the right person in the right place at the right time…. Here was someone who had made his career developing arguments for unchecked power, who could cut-and-paste from his law review articles into memos that essentially told the president, ‘You can do what you want.’â€
In the memo released last week, once again we see a breathtakingly narrow interpretation of what constitutes torture under US law. To rise to the level of torture, the abuse must, Yoo argues, inflict pain equivalent to that associated with “death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions.†Presumably, the rack qualifies under that definition, but hey, what about the thumbscrew?
Such questions ultimately don’t matter much under Yoo’s analysis, because, in his view, Congress lacks the constitutional power to prevent the president from ordering torture: “Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of enemy combatants would violate the Constitution’s sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President.†As Yoo sees it, telling the executive branch not to abuse prisoners is like telling the CINC what weapons can be used to take a hill occupied by the enemy: “Congress can no more interfere with the President’s conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield.â€
These people are worms.
And since over a hundred detainees have died during these interrogations, that would even be torture by Yoo’s tortured definition.
We torture.
I haven’t seen any such numbers.
As of March, 2005, the government admitted to having had 108 detainees die while in our custody. At least 26 had been ruled homicides, with such manners of death as asphyxia and blunt force trauma to the chest. There were many articles on this at the time. Just google 108 detainee deaths and read away.
See, if the definition of torture is only that which results in organ failure or death, and 26 times (that our generally not-forthcoming government admits to) detainees died of causes deemed criminal homicide (i.e. while in our custody, we did something that made them die), then by their definition we can’t really say we don’t torture, can we?
These numbers are three years old, don’t include black sites, etc.
Obviously, I probably misspoke when I stated as a fact that they died “during these interrogations”. Some of them might have been killed while they were chillin’ back in their cells. Or out in the yard. Whatever.
22 of them died from mortar attacks.
A bunch of them just haven’t been resolved (they remain “unknown unknowns”, to quote Rumsfeld).
Gosh, my heart goes out to them and their families. Seems unfair to rob them of the opportunity to blow the shit out of themselves and innocent bystanders doesn’t it?
Yeah, ‘cuz all of the people in Gitmo are guilty.
As of March, 2005, the government admitted to having had 108 detainees die while in our custody.
What’s the source for that? Were the injuries that they died from caused by their incarceration, or by the events that led to that incarceration?
Yeah, ‘cuz all of the people in Gitmo are guilty.
Tell you what, we can release all “the innocent” to your custody.
See how you college town people like having jihadists in your midst.
Oh wait. They’re already there. And there.
How about we just try not killing them while they’re in our custody? And actively pursue a process designed to test evidence of their guilt or innocence?
Odd how people who routinely rail about the incompetence of our government are suddenly willing to trust that the very same government didn’t screw up when deciding who to lock up in Gitmo.
Guess no one heard about us just doing sweeps and rounding people up, innocent and guilty.
Guess it’s news that we’re not supposed to murder people in our custody.
Maybe we could have some trials or something, to see who is innocent or guilty?
Most reasonable people would probably release innocent people back to where they came from. I guess the occasional eccentric might advocate finding a college town in the U.S. to send them to, seeing some kind of logic in that sort of thing that the rest of us are too daft to grasp.