ABC & AP: Top Bush Officials approved Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
ABC (Jan Crawford Greenburg and others) reported earlier this week that top Bush Administration officials approved the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized for use on high-value al Qaeda detainees.
In a follow-up story, the AP confirmed ABC’s report and claims enhanced techniques were approved by Vice President Cheney in order to insulate President Bush:
“Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy issued a swift response:
“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as “yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture.”
“Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?” Kennedy said in a statement. “Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration’s renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights.”
If this is true, I think it was a mistake to try to insulate President Bush from this decision. In addition, Attorney General John Ashcroft was prescient:
“Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings. The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House?” the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. “History will not judge this kindly.”
UPDATE: Kishnevi points out a Washington Post articlea in which President Bush states he was aware of the interrogation discussions. By my reading, Bush delegated discussion of the details of interrogation techniques to high-level members of his Administration and was not insulated from those decisions.
Thanks, Kishnevi.
— DRJ
I agree that it was a mistake to not have Bush involved… because Bush should have given everybody the explicit go-ahead to do whatever was necessary to keep America safe. In fact, Bush should have gone on TV and announced that he was authorizing our forces to use any and all means at their disposal to detect and deter attacks on America. I have no idea why they refused to take their case to the American people.
It’s all well and fine to object to ‘torture’ in the abstract, it’s another thing altogether, as the Ted Kennedys do, to put the well being of terrorists ahead of the safety and security of America. And it was inexcusable for Bush to take ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ off the table because he wasn’t willing to do what it took to keep America safe, because he wasn’t willing to face down the liberals.
stevesturm (8caabf) — 4/12/2008 @ 6:25 pmRemember during Ashcroft’s term as AG how often liberals would insult him?
Shows how useful their opinions are.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/12/2008 @ 6:28 pmBush’s greatest fault as president has been a tendency to try to accommodate his enemies’ sensitivities when he should have known that nothing, nothing, would satisfy them. He was also far too willing to have people in his administration that did not support his policies. Armitage comes to mind.
Mike K (86bddb) — 4/12/2008 @ 6:35 pm1, 2 and 3: Yes, yes, and yes.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/12/2008 @ 6:36 pmThe decision appears to have been made at the appropriate level after due legal consultation. What’s the big deal?
James (ee9e19) — 4/12/2008 @ 7:06 pmAt the moment, Bush seems willing to uninsulate himself.
kishnevi (da6457) — 4/12/2008 @ 7:12 pm#6: so after years of conceding the moral high ground to the Democrats, not because they’re right but rather because he refused to fight, Bush stands up. Why didn’t he do this years ago?
stevesturm (8caabf) — 4/12/2008 @ 7:27 pmThis shouldn’t be any surprise. It shows a process was followed, deliberations were held and people were not running off half cocked without direction. Isn’t that what the Executive Branch is supposed to be doing? Shouldn’t there be complaints if they were not doing this as opposed to them actually doing it?
With democrats it’s heads I win, tails you lose.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/12/2008 @ 7:39 pmInstead of saying Bush was insulated from the decision, the AP should have said he delegated the decision. A President should delegate the details of decisions.
Shame on the AP.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/12/2008 @ 7:53 pmthe problem i have with this is rarely discussed: dick cheney has arrogated to himself executive powers not granted to him by the constitution. the vp breaks tie votes in the senate and has the authority to preside over it, but rarely does so, and he stands ready to step up if the president is incapacitated, and that’s it. he is not supposed to be #2 in the regular chain of command from the president down to the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs, and in the current context, this arrogation actually blurs the location of the ultimate buckstopping responsibility. from a scott turow novel: the protagonist is trying to dig up dirt on a crooked judge from the judge’s clerk, telling him “i want to talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey.” the clerk grabs the protagonist’s genitals, squeezes hard and tells him “i’m the only organ grinder you know.”
assistant devil's advocate (062547) — 4/12/2008 @ 8:13 pmNow this is rich. Ted Kennedy objects to waterboarding. With waterboarding you simulate drowning. With Ted you get the real thing.
Richard (6254a9) — 4/12/2008 @ 8:16 pmada – The assumption you make is that he has arrogated his power as opposed to having it delegated to him. How are you certain that is a correct assumption. Does the Constitution prohibit the delegation of duties?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/12/2008 @ 8:16 pmAny bet if this official did exist, he was likely one that lost out on the decision to apply ‘aggressive interrogation policies first to Abu Zubeydah, than KSM, Quahtani, this was very deliberate and haphazard, not capricious like the
narciso (d671ab) — 4/12/2008 @ 8:16 pmdoings at Abu Ghraib. Considering the contexts of the Times (fall of 2001, spring of 2002) it would be derelict if they had not considered such policies. That said, these conversations should not be privy to outside sources; hey isn;t there
a ‘works product privilege involved here? Not surprising from the folks let Poland, Thailand,
& Romania’s cooperation with us; be compromised
for the price of Pulitzer. If KSM, Al Nashiri, et al; are released do to these bureaucratic games, they have blood on their hands, for their encore
act.
So, the unindicted second degree murderer Ted Kennedy speaks! Before he steps too far into the depths of criminal conspiracy, he should tell us about Chappaquiddick and his mother’s illegal activities associated with his less than honorable actions related to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Ted, honey, it’s only a matter of time before you and your rich-bitch arrogance gets exposed for what it is!!!
Mescalero (ec8738) — 4/12/2008 @ 8:20 pmah, ADA, only assistant? Geneva conventions do not apply, because they only apply to civilians and/or actual military of a recognized power, with a recognized uniform, bearing weapons. As we know from Hogan’s Heroes, Stalag 17, the Korean War, and McCain and his associates own accounts, none of those parties gave a damn about the Geneva convention; for actual soldiers. Don’t get me started on what happened to Pearl, Berg, Quattrochi, Johnson et al. This is why, in Quirin the execution of the German saboteurs, except Dasch was approved. Quirin rested on the Civil War
narciso (d671ab) — 4/12/2008 @ 9:25 pmprecedents of Merryman & Milligan; i’m not even going to bring up Korematsu or Hanazaki. Now with
irregular elements like AQ it does no good just to try them by drumhead courtmartial and hang them; because they likely know something about the operations of other members in the cell, facilitators, et al. So we nabbed Zubeydah from bombing that Pakistani school, got some info on some of his sponsors, prevented Al Nashiri from staging another Cole, got the lowdown on KSM on
everything he’d been doing in the last 6 years, and found out that Mohammed Quahtani, missed a ride on Flight 93 that would have taken out the
Pentagon; due to the quick wits of Customs agent
Gonzalez Menendez.
“This is why, in Quirin the execution of the German saboteurs, except Dasch was approved. Quirin rested on the Civil War”
Didn’t Roosevelt do all this before the judiciary got their fangs into the issue.
davod (5bdbd3) — 4/13/2008 @ 5:54 amADA, your #10 really makes no sense. Cheney cannot do what you describe, he can only exercise authority delegated to him. You are getting into the Cheney paranoia sadly.
davod, no the Quirin case went to the US Supreme Court.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/13/2008 @ 7:26 amOMG, a thread that’s actually worthy of political discussion! Way to go DRJ!
Where to start….
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 8:31 amYou realize the ‘legal consultation’ that the administration sought was their own, don’t you? Bush gets to pick the people that advise him legally, so don’t pretend like it was a bunch of independent, objective legal scholars when it wasn’t. It was a bunch of neo-cons hired by neo-cons. “Hey, we’re gonna hire you to give us legal authority to do whatever we want, okay?” Don’t you consider that stacking the deck?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 8:37 amThe AWFUL BROADCASTING COMPANY and the AWFUL PESTS are just as sinister as ever
krazy kagu (d982eb) — 4/13/2008 @ 8:51 amThe problem with Republicans and torture, as demonstrated so well by the first commenter to respond to this thread, is that apparently you all think the world is just an episode of ’24.’ I’m reminded of a Republican debate last summer, and Brit Hume positing some ridiculous hypothetical about what you would do if 3 cities got nuked and we caught one guy that knew when a 4th city would get nuked, and Tommy Tancredo eagerly offered up, “I’ll be looking for Jack Bauer!” Which got lots of applause, but is a total misunderstanding of the issue.
If Brit’s little fantasy became a reality, yes, torture the shit out of the guy. If millions of Americans are dead and millions more are slated to die, do whatever you want. President Tancredo, rip your shirt off like the Hulk and go at it, you’re Jack Bauer!
But that’s a one in a billion scenario that has nothing to do with the practical application of these Bush-approved ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ we’re using in Iraq. It’s not like we’re heroically squeezing a code out of somebody that stops a bomb from exploding, we’re basically just trawling for information. Round up some Iraqis, torture them, see if they know anything. The vast majority of them don’t. Bush says he’s been able to stop all sorts of horribleness, heroically, just like an episode of ’24’, but I don’t believe a thing George Bush says, and neither should you, the guy’s a self-described ‘torture-authorizer’ at this point.
Doesn’t this mean we’ve just ceded all moral authority in this war? Ostensibly, one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam from torturing his citizens, but now we’re doing his citizens. How does that make any sense? We only look worse in the eyes of everybody that matters, the Iraqis, our allies, and our enemies, and this is hurting our international relationships, which we need to fight the war on terror. This wasn’t necessary, it hasn’t been effective, and it’s blatantly fucking illegal. Torture in the real world, even by the ‘good guys,’ isn’t like terrorism in a TV show. You guys know this, don’t you?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:11 amDon’t you consider that stacking the deck?
That’s the best you’ve got?
Every president stacks the deck by picking the people that advise them legally.
Retard.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:17 amBut that’s a one in a billion scenario that has nothing to do with the practical application of these Bush-approved ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ we’re using in Iraq.
How do you know that? Is this an “assumption?”
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:19 amDoesn’t this mean we’ve just ceded all moral authority in this war? Ostensibly, one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam from torturing his citizens, but now we’re doing his citizens.
Oh yeah, we’re feeding them into paper shredders, acid baths, and rape rooms. NOt to mention the creative use of power tools.
Retard.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:21 amLevi: Do you get paid by the word?
davod (5bdbd3) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:57 amLevi:
So what your saying is that Bush placed all his faith in a bunch of reformed Liberals (NEOCONS)?
davod (5bdbd3) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:59 amThe problem with Republicans and torture, as demonstrated so well by the first commenter to respond to this thread, is that apparently you all think the world is just an episode of ‘24.’
. There you go again, imagining you know what we think.
Round up some Iraqis, torture them, see if they know anything.
. Your proof that this is what we are doing is what again Levi?
The vast majority of them don’t. Bush says he’s been able to stop all sorts of horribleness, heroically, just like an episode of ‘24′, but I don’t believe a thing George Bush says,
. That is your mental handicap to deal with. Good luck.
This wasn’t necessary, it hasn’t been effective,
. You only say that because you have a mental block against believing anything Bush says. Again, that is youe peoblem to deal with, not reality.
Levi – Rational people can have different opinions about matters. Irrational people can’t agree on basic facts. You are irrational.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:15 amNo, you don’t understand. Bush picked his guys so they could tell him it was legal for him to torture people, which it plainly isn’t. He conferred upon them all the authority and credibility of the Department of Justice to put forth this argument that the President can do anything he wants as long as he thinks he’s ‘protecting America,’ an argument which isn’t based on any sort of legal precedent or sound Constitutional interpretation, and which thereby requires an artificial credibility that is now easily found by saying, ‘But the DoJ said it was okay!’ It’s quite obviously stacking the deck, but maybe circular reasoning is more appropriate.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:27 amHe must be paid by-the-word; if he was paid-by-the-thought, he’d starve to death.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:35 amLevi, so what you are saying is that we are randomly rounding up groups of Iraqis, torturing them, releasing them, and repeating the procedure over and over, just because we can?
It’s an interesting theory. Given all that’s leaked out of the CIA, State Department and DOJ from Bush haters already, I have trouble imagining such a program exists without the NY Times or Washington Post exposing it already. Could you provide a link to your source of information, or is it secret, like your sources of information about the inner workings of conservative minds?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:38 amBut that’s a one in a billion scenario that has nothing to do with the practical application of these Bush-approved ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ we’re using in Iraq.
I know that because it doesn’t happen. It’s never happened. To call it a one in a billion scenario is generous, no terrorist group in history has had the means to pull off something like Hume described, which is apparently the basic idea of terrorism that conservatives have in mind and what you all seemingly want to base our foreign policy. As bad as 9-11 was, Hume’s hysterical exaggeration distorts and confuses the reality of the threat posed by terrorism. Could torture have stopped 9-11? No. Not being on vacation all summer and maybe holding some meetings about terrorists and bin Laden could have stopped it, but torture couldn’t have. Who would we have tortured?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:39 amI know that because it doesn’t happen. It’s never happened.
. Sure it has Levi. I saw it in a movie. Heh!
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:42 amHere’s an interesting quote by the Vice President on extraordinary rendition that never made the papers:
What’s the catch? The VP was Al Gore. The quote is from http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2552.php
Laura (1ba82a) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:46 amNo, you don’t understand. Bush picked his guys so they could tell him it was legal for him to torture people, which it plainly isn’t. He conferred upon them all the authority and credibility of the Department of Justice to put forth this argument that the President can do anything he wants as long as he thinks he’s ‘protecting America,’ an argument which isn’t based on any sort of legal precedent or sound Constitutional interpretation, and which thereby requires an artificial credibility that is now easily found by saying, ‘But the DoJ said it was okay!’ It’s quite obviously stacking the deck, but maybe circular reasoning is more appropriate.
Yet another assumption, based on what? Your imagination?
I know that because it doesn’t happen. It’s never happened. To call it a one in a billion scenario is generous, no terrorist group in history has had the means to pull off something like Hume described, which is apparently the basic idea of terrorism that conservatives have in mind and what you all seemingly want to base our foreign policy. As bad as 9-11 was, Hume’s hysterical exaggeration distorts and confuses the reality of the threat posed by terrorism.
We also assumed that passenger jets wouldn’t be intentionally crashed into New York and Washington. Before 9/11, it didn’t happen. It never happened.
Don’t even think about complaining about anyone else’s assumptiopns until you cease and desist your own.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:50 am“…moral authority…”
Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:52 amNo one ever won a war with moral authority.
Perhaps you can save someone’s soul by invoking it, but wars are won by breaking things, and killing people.
Remarkably foresighted of him, since these people were nominated well before 9/11.
Please cite your legal expertise. I don’t believe legal opinions from someone who isn’t a legal scholar. There are more than a few attorneys who comment here, and I respect their opinions. But you aren’t old enough to have acquired much in the way of legal training, and nothing you have posted here indicates that you’ve ever studied law.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:53 amYes. Partly because Cheney and Bush think torture has some proven track record, which it doesn’t, and partly because they like having absolute power, which is what all Americans have given them by not making the torture that they’ve sanctioned in the name of all of us a major issue. They’re breaking the law and no one cares. If they can get away with us, what can’t they get away with?
It’s not a theory, what do you think was happening at Abu Graihb? Do you mean to tell me, even after the President and everyone in his Cabinet has admitted authorizing torture before the war, that you still believe Abu Graihb was some isolated incident totally unrelated to the President’s new torture policy?
We’ve been shipping people all over the world to be tortured in secret for years. We’re holding tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Guantanamo with no charges. Is that justice? Petraeus’s more recent strategy has helpfully treated Iraqi civilians with a little bit more respect, but for the first few years we were just rounding people up based on unsubstantiated, neighborhood gossip, that’s what was happening at Abu Graihb./i> You don’t consider the photos that show what was going on there as a credible source?
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:53 amI went to high school and took a civics class. That’s all the legal training anybody needs to know that torture is illegal. If you ask Bush where he thinks he gets the legal authority to torture people, he points to his Justice Department arguments. If you examine the Justice Department’s arguments, you’ll find a blanket justification for everything and anything that Bush does, as long as he feels it’s in the best interests of national security. He doesn’t have to consult with Congress, or the Supreme Court, or his Cabinet, it is entirely up to him. Remember checks and balances? Out the fucking window. There’s no established legal precedent, they don’t allow for any sort of review or scrutiny, they just say, “He’s the President, so he can do it.”
Like I said, anyone that graduated high school would know that that is some flawed legal reasoning.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:06 amWe won the Cold War with moral authority.
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:08 amPartly because Cheney and Bush think torture has some proven track record, which it doesn’t, and partly because they like having absolute power, which is what all Americans have given them by not making the torture that they’ve sanctioned in the name of all of us a major issue.
More assumptions?
It’s not a theory, what do you think was happening at Abu Graihb? Do you mean to tell me, even after the President and everyone in his Cabinet has admitted authorizing torture before the war, that you still believe Abu Graihb was some isolated incident totally unrelated to the President’s new torture policy?
You’re the one making the leap of logic here.
Those involved with Abu Graihb were court-martialed, remember?
We’ve been shipping people all over the world to be tortured in secret for years. We’re holding tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Guantanamo with no charges.
Yet another assumption.
How do I know this?
The fact that you are still around to level the charge is proof that this is bullshit. If we can do that with Iraqis in total secrecy over international lines, what’s to stop the Bush Administration from silencing squaukers like you right here at home?
Retard.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:10 amIf you ask Bush where he thinks he gets the legal authority to torture people, he points to his Justice Department arguments. If you examine the Justice Department’s arguments, you’ll find a blanket justification for everything and anything that Bush does, as long as he feels it’s in the best interests of national security. He doesn’t have to consult with Congress, or the Supreme Court, or his Cabinet, it is entirely up to him. Remember checks and balances? Out the fucking window. There’s no established legal precedent, they don’t allow for any sort of review or scrutiny, they just say, “He’s the President, so he can do it.”
Then how come you’re still around to level this charge?
We won the Cold War with moral authority.
We won the Cold War because Reagan actually stood up to the Soviets and challenged them to keep up with a first-class military and a first-class economy simultaneously. Not only did they fail economically, they failed militarily also. Proof of that was there for all the world to see during the first Gulf War. Saddam has the best tanks the Soviets ever made; the US-made M1 Abrams trounced them in one if the swiftest warfare victories ever.
Try to keep up.
Paul (4e4a20) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:20 amLevi – The abuses at Abu Ghraib were stopped four years ago and the people involved were punished, which implies their actions certainly were not sanctioned or approved. Do you have anything more recent to prove your point? Do I also need to remind you that prisoners in a war (or situations covered by our AUMF’s in Iraq and Afghanistan) do not actually have to be “charged” with any crimes. Their status needs to be determined at some point, but they may be held until the cessation of hostilities. I hope you were aware of that fact Levi.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:21 amLike I said, anyone that graduated high school would know that that is some flawed legal reasoning.
Comment by Levi — 4/13/2008 @ 11:06 am
Did you graduate Levi?
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:23 amThank you for disqualifying yourself from thoughtful legal analysis.
Steverino (6772c8) — 4/13/2008 @ 11:44 amHave you ever heard of a fall guy?
What do I need that’s more recent? Bush and his entire cabinet have admitted to authorizing torture for use during the Iraq war, and it happened, as evidenced by Abu Graihb. What else is there to prove? You want me to produce correspondence between Bush and Lyndie England, is that what you want?
Even if Abu Graihb and this revelation about who authorized what in the Bush administration were magically not related, how must this look to Iraqis and the rest of the world, who aren’t so blindly trustful of George Bush as you are? If an Iraqi reads about this story that Bush authorized torture in 2002, and remembers seeing pictures of Iraqis being tortured at Abu Graihb in 2004, what is he supposed to think? ‘A few bad apples?’ This is why torture as an American policy is such a stupid fucking idea, especially when out of the other side of the mouth you’re talking about saving all these people from tyranny and oppression and fear.
We’re holding tens of thousands of people, many of those people are innocent. This is the same damn problem, we’re supposed to be showing Iraqis all the great things about democracy, things like a fair justice system, and we’re holding thousands of people indefinitely and not telling them what for. We’re understandably very panicky about everyone in Iraq, because it’s been a magnet for people that hate and want to kill Americans and they can move invisibly among the local populations. It makes sense that the military errs on the side of caution, but this is exactly the reason that invading Iraq was such a stupid idea in the first place: it’s just a never-ending series of incredibly difficult problems that even if solved, don’t really materially benefit America in any way. I mean here we are trying to administrate a prison system for Iraqis, why the fuck is that our job? Why the fuck do we want it to be our job?
Also, ‘cessation of hostilities’ could be 5, 10, or 20 years from now. We’re gonna hold all these people for that long, on no charges? That’s our plan to ‘transform the Middle East?’
Levi (76ef55) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:01 pmRetard.
Paul (4ca58a) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:12 pmHave you ever heard of a fall guy?
Yet another assumption.
Even if Abu Graihb and this revelation about who authorized what in the Bush administration were magically not related, how must this look to Iraqis and the rest of the world, who aren’t so blindly trustful of George Bush as you are? If an Iraqi reads about this story that Bush authorized torture in 2002, and remembers seeing pictures of Iraqis being tortured at Abu Graihb in 2004, what is he supposed to think? ‘A few bad apples?’ This is why torture as an American policy is such a stupid fucking idea, especially when out of the other side of the mouth you’re talking about saving all these people from tyranny and oppression and fear.
More assumptions, linked together with a few threadbare facts.
We’re holding tens of thousands of people, many of those people are innocent.
How do you know it’s thousands? How do you know they’re innocent?
It makes sense that the military errs on the side of caution, but this is exactly the reason that invading Iraq was such a stupid idea in the first place: it’s just a never-ending series of incredibly difficult problems that even if solved, don’t really materially benefit America in any way.
So the fact that there are a dozen UN resolutions that Saddam was in violation of mean nothing.
Ever read them?
Also, ‘cessation of hostilities’ could be 5, 10, or 20 years from now. We’re gonna hold all these people for that long, on no charges? That’s our plan to ‘transform the Middle East?’
Again, how do you know this? From your imagination?
Retard.
Paul (4ca58a) — 4/13/2008 @ 9:22 pmI guess I did need to remind Levi of the rules of land warfare because he deliberately chooses to ignore long established rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, enemy combatants and even those not considered enemy combatants. He probably also missed the stories about the recent amnesty granted to certain prisoners by Iraq. The problem with the left is that they want to prosecute the war in Iraq and fight terrorism under the rules of the criminal justice system in the United States, even if events occur outside the United States or are military in nature. It’s a nice attempt at reaching. Hell, Ginsburg and Stevens want to consider foreign precedent on the Supreme Court.
daleyrocks (906622) — 4/13/2008 @ 10:57 pm