Torture - Shocking the conscience

by soccerdad

UPDATE II

More important information from Marty Lederman

Yet, remarkably, that is precisely the implausible "interpretation" of CA3 that the proposed Administration bill is asking Congress to codify -- and to strip the courts from reviewing. Lindsey Graham calls them on this transparently cynical tactic: "What is being billed as clarifying our treaty obligations will be seen as withdrawing from the treaty obligations." In fact, that's putting it nicely: If the Administration bill becomes law, it will quite reasonably be viewed, the world over, as authorization to breach the Geneva Conventions by engaging in what is manifestly "cruel treatment" . . . and in some cases, to do what virtually anyone would consider, simply, "torture."

Note Update Below

In one of his best performances for telling outright lies, Bush yesterday claimed that the new bill concerning torture was needed because the GCs were "vague". Repeating this claim over and over, about 15 times. Bush is clearly back in fine form "catapulting the propaganda" with renewed vigor. Lenin and Goebels are in hell smilling approvingly.

Well what is the source of the vaguenss? From today's WaPo:

A senior administration official, authorized to speak with reporters about the legal issues behind the administration's strategy yesterday on the condition that he not be named, said the CIA interrogations at issue are in "the gray area on the margins -- that ill-defined boundary -- of Common Article 3." He was referring to a Geneva Conventions provision that bars cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, as well as "outrages upon personal dignity."

[emphasis mine]

The standard that would replace it?

The reason is that the administration's language would in effect ban only those interrogation techniques that "shock the conscience."

THEY HAVE NO FUCKIN@ CONSCIENCE. Ok so besides the Orwellian use of the words there is some leagal meaning here.

That phrase, drawn from a judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is a "flexible" standard, the official said. Others have said that standard would allow interrogators to weigh how urgently they felt they needed to extract information against the harshness of their techniques, instead of following rigid guidelines.

as the WaPo article continues

The official did not try to explain how embracing such an inherently flexible standard would actually create clarity, the watchword of the administration's public campaign for its version of the bill.

The author of the WaPo article refers to this as irony. No you moron its not ironic, its a clear sign that they are lying their ass off.

OK America whats it going to be. Are you going to allow this lying, group of criminals to stomp out whats left of America's image making us the most hated, immoral, hypocritical country in the world? Or are you going to finally come out of your fog and stop this? Are you people or sheeple? I'm betting on the latter.

UPDATE See this post by the excellent Marty Lederman Getting with "The Program": Clarity Through Obfuscation

And while there read

The Top Ten Reasons President Bush Wants to Limit the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions
by Jack Balkin

and the number one reason

1. Too many people think my Presidency is an "outrage upon personal dignity."