Bush alters rules for interrogations

jlew24asu

we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway

---

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The White House declined to say whether the CIA currently has a detention and interrogation program, but said that if it did it must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the executive order. The order targets captured al-Qaida terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders.

"Last September, the president explained how the CIA's program had disrupted attacks and saved lives, and that it must continue on a sound legal footing," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "The president has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job — and keeping America safe from attacks."

The executive order was the result of legislation Bush signed in October that authorized military trials of terrorism suspects, eliminated some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and authorized continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

The Supreme Court had ruled in June 2006 that trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law, so Bush urged Congress to change the law. He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough methods to interrogate suspected terrorists.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I was reading some reports that it was vague, and no one was willing to provide specifics as to what was or wasn't allowed.

To be honest I don't trust anything they do and say anymore. It's all broken

Eliot Rosewater

jlew24asu wrote:

we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway

"any means necessary" shouldn't ever be an option. Especially when we're trusting this administration, or any politician for that matter, to define "imminent."

jlew24asu

don't gimme no wrote:

"any means necessary" shouldn't ever be an option. Especially when we're trusting this administration, or any politician for that matter, to define "imminent."

by imminent I mean a proven fact that there is a nuclear bomb on American soil somewhere ready to be detonated. if that is a proven fact, I think law enforcement should be able to use any means necessary to find it and stop it from happening

Eliot Rosewater

jlew24asu wrote:

by imminent I mean a proven fact that there is a nuclear bomb on American soil somewhere ready to be detonated. if that is a proven fact, I think law enforcement should be able to use any means necessary to find it and stop it from happening

But jlew, even though you and I seldom agree on anything here, I would still trust you to define imminent. Certainly more than I'd trust 99.9% of American politicians. The problem is that even with these new rules for interrogations, we're still trusting them, particularly a known liar in GWB, to define it. I bet you twenty bucks he can't even say it, let alone define it.

gue_barium

jlew24asu wrote:

we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway

---

I think you need a long hike in grizzly country.

binger

gue_barium wrote:

I think you need a long hike in grizzly country.

With some pork chops stuck to his backside.

Eliot Rosewater

binger wrote:

With some pork chops stuck to his backside.

No, no, no. It's GWB who needs that. Not jlew. Goodness.