9 June 2004

Beautiful post on the Constitution

Beautiful Horizons (whose author is a Norteamericano living in New York with my Brazilian wife and a passion for Latin American travel) recently posted a lucid explanation of the legal basis of the US adhering to international law on torture. Thank you for cutting through the haze of our current administration's double-talk.

Q: So the terms of the Convention Against Torture is the law of the land in the United States, right?

A: Yes it is...

The entire Q&A is short and to the point. Go read.

Another pithy post on torture, this time regarding the Office of Legal Counsel's memo from 1 August 2002.
This OLC document is a legalistic, logic-chopping brief for the torturer. Its entire thrust is justifying maximal pain.
A dense, legal analysis of a dense, legal document.

Jon Stewart, incredulous as Ashcroft refuses to supply Senate Judiciary Committee with Justice Deptartment memos.

Attorney General John Ashcroft:

I am refusing to disclose these memos.
I have not invoked executive privilege today. ... I have not invoked anything.

Sen. Dick Durbin:

With all due respect, your personal belief is not a law and you are not citing a law. ... and frankly, that is what contempt of Congress is all about.

Sen. Joseph Biden:

You are not allowed under our Constitution not to answer our questions.
There's a reason why we sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties, so when Americans are captured they are not tortured.
[ posted by sstrader on 9 June 2004 at 5:27:51 PM in Politics ]