Comments on: The Confirmation http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/ Just another Firedoglake weblog Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:24:49 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: bluebutterfly http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9247 bluebutterfly Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:45:55 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9247 <p>” The Times’ details come from an unclassified version of a Senate report on the Pentagon’s treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism that was released last night. In addition to all the above, the report, according to Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, who got a look yesterday, shows that there was some internal awareness that torture didn’t produce reliable results. The military had by and large long ago concluded that the Korean war-era techniques wrested false confessions from US soldiers, and one present-day adviser said that “the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low.” “</p> <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/apr/22/bush-torture-memos-obama" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....emos-obama</a></p> ” The Times’ details come from an unclassified version of a Senate report on the Pentagon’s treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism that was released last night. In addition to all the above, the report, according to Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, who got a look yesterday, shows that there was some internal awareness that torture didn’t produce reliable results. The military had by and large long ago concluded that the Korean war-era techniques wrested false confessions from US soldiers, and one present-day adviser said that “the likelihood that the use of physical pressures will increase the delivery of accurate information from a detainee is very low.” “

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..emos-obama

]]> By: hs3144 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9245 hs3144 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:51:02 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9245 <p>I hope my dog named spencer gets a little of his brain power from having the same name as you. Thanks for all of the great reporting from your site. One of the first reads in the morning and one of the last at night.</p> I hope my dog named spencer gets a little of his brain power from having the same name as you. Thanks for all of the great reporting from your site. One of the first reads in the morning and one of the last at night.

]]> By: CTuttle http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9244 CTuttle Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:43:41 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9244 <p>Congrats Spencer on the shoutout by Rachel for your FOIA request for the Zelikow memo…!</p> Congrats Spencer on the shoutout by Rachel for your FOIA request for the Zelikow memo…!

]]> By: cinnamonape http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9240 cinnamonape Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:11:22 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9240 <p>BTW the picture on the header of waterboarding on the main FDL branch…the “subject” is placed the wrong way. Should be head down.</p> BTW the picture on the header of waterboarding on the main FDL branch…the “subject” is placed the wrong way. Should be head down.

]]> By: jayt http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9239 jayt Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:29:43 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9239 <p>and way pissed….</p> and way pissed….

]]> By: jayt http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9238 jayt Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:23:48 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9238 <p><i>no U.S. law can amend the treaty itself, it can only modify U.S. law.</i></p> <p>right. what the MCA did was to provide the ‘official U.S. interpretation’ of what activities constitute torture under the Conventions, I believe.</p> <p>And the MCA is still good law, in the sense that it has never been overturned.</p> <p>Therefore, a defense based upon the interpretations of the MCA, which restrict the definition of “torture” to things like murder, rape, or kidnapping of families, remains viable, imo.</p> no U.S. law can amend the treaty itself, it can only modify U.S. law.

right. what the MCA did was to provide the ‘official U.S. interpretation’ of what activities constitute torture under the Conventions, I believe.

And the MCA is still good law, in the sense that it has never been overturned.

Therefore, a defense based upon the interpretations of the MCA, which restrict the definition of “torture” to things like murder, rape, or kidnapping of families, remains viable, imo.

]]> By: Raven http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9237 Raven Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:22:57 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9237 <p>The commander at Abu Graib is on KO.</p> The commander at Abu Graib is on KO.

]]> By: Rayne http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9236 Rayne Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:13:10 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9236 <p>The bit you’ve excerpted is NOT a loophole.</p> <p>It’s a flagrant violation of the treaty signed by the U.S.; no U.S. law can amend the treaty itself, it can only modify U.S. law.</p> <p>I’d call it a rent or tear or a breach rather than a loophole.</p> The bit you’ve excerpted is NOT a loophole.

It’s a flagrant violation of the treaty signed by the U.S.; no U.S. law can amend the treaty itself, it can only modify U.S. law.

I’d call it a rent or tear or a breach rather than a loophole.

]]> By: newtonusr http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9235 newtonusr Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:12:17 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9235 <p>Huge. Huge.<br /> Thanks, Spencer.</p> Huge. Huge.
Thanks, Spencer.

]]> By: earlofhuntingdon http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/comment-page-1/#comment-9234 earlofhuntingdon Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:08:00 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/the-confirmation/#comment-9234 <blockquote> <p>the Obama administration has said “the United States Government may not rely on interpretations of the law governing interrogations issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.”</p></blockquote> <p>I’m glad that’s clear so that we can all look forward. </p> <p>Um, isn’t that a rather remarkable, blanket position to take. Why was that step necessary, what were the errors in OLC’s function, including its written memoranda, that required that unusual step? What wrongs were committed based on the faulty work of an entire office within the DoJ? </p> <p>Are we to believe this was the only DoJ function whose work was so tainted that it has been tossed out in its entirety.</p>

the Obama administration has said “the United States Government may not rely on interpretations of the law governing interrogations issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.”

I’m glad that’s clear so that we can all look forward.

Um, isn’t that a rather remarkable, blanket position to take. Why was that step necessary, what were the errors in OLC’s function, including its written memoranda, that required that unusual step? What wrongs were committed based on the faulty work of an entire office within the DoJ?

Are we to believe this was the only DoJ function whose work was so tainted that it has been tossed out in its entirety.

]]>