If Bradbury ever gets the heave-ho, I’m sure the New York Times, AEI, and Hudson Institute (Libby’s wingnut welfare) would be extremely interested. And if the NYT can’t stand him anymore, WaPo is always standing ready to snarf up its vomitus.

There really is no downside!

Re threats of execution, Bradbury actually tries to cite this as a credible supporting rationale: ”to constitute a threat, the test is not whether the victim feared for his life or believed he was in danger, but whether he was actually in danger” (July 20, 2007 memo, footnote 21)

Only to then assume too much: ”actionable non-verbal threats occur when the defendant presents a weapon in such a condition or manner as to indicate that it may immediately be made ready for use” (Ibid)

Ooopsie.

Also notable (along with threat of execution) as one of the unredacted Unapproved Techniques documented by IG that was specifically called out by Bradbury as clearly proscribed, by even his narrowest ’reasonable’ reading of ’humane treatment’:

”humane treatment under Common Article 3 is reasonably read to require that detainees in the CIA program be provided with the basic necessities of life — food and water*, shelter from the elements, protection from extremes of heat and cold, necessary clothing, and essential medical care, absent emergency circumstances beyond the control of the US.” (7/20/2007 memo, p. 70)

*not oxygen though!

I couldn’t get past the blast from the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld past that what’s-his-name opens the Aug. 31 memo with before the rubber spatula stupidity with which this gang of devils insists on construing language made me get silly —and I don’t mean a good kind of silly.

The slapdown from the Hamdan ruling is what WHN is trying to recover from in the memo, and reassure Rizzo that everything is A-OK in despite. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not rule as it did in that case simply because the USG was making the argument of an asshole. Had it done so, maybe at least WHN would have been forced into silence and the world would have been a slightly better place just from that.

Imagine these opening lines being read in a kind of childish singsong:

You have asked for our opinion whether the conditions of confinement used by the [CIA] in covert overseas facilities that it operates as part of its authorized program to capture and detain individuals who pose serious threats to the United States or who are planning terrorist attacks are consistent with common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva conventions. On Friday June 30, 2006 I advised you orally that the conditions of confinement described herein are permitted by common article 3. This letter memorializes and elaborates upon that advice.

Common Article 3, which appears in all four of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, applies in the “case of armed conflict not of an international character occuring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.” [Here’s a ref for fdlers; scroll down a page to Art. 3.] It had been the longstanding position of the Executive Branch that the phrase “not of an international character” limited the applicability of Common Article 3 to internal conflicts akin to a civil war and thus that the provision was not applicable to the global armed conflict against al Qaeda and its allies. See Memorandum of the President for the National Security Council, Re: Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees at 2(Feb. 7, 2002) (accepting the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice that common Article 3 “does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to ‘armed conflict not of an international character.’”)

Arrrgh!! Maybe he thinks they’re the Annals of the Ordure de la Merde. (Which also suggests an entry in the great unwritten musical compositions compendium.) Here’s a site for all the Geneva Conventions of 1949 from the ICRC.

Corporate Aristocrats have usurped constitutional checks and balances, under the color of law in the lust for endless profit, and in doing so have decimated America. The myopic self interest of corporate compromised policymakers who action’s are actionable, but no action taken is analogous to the silence of Germans during a most unfortunate time in human history. Disgusting……

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Grave breaches

“Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power; and willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial. Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following: taking of hostages; extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; and unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[8]”

“Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes. Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.”

“The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.”

No “Situation Ethics” here, all enabled by instilled fear???

I have not yet read all of the material to which Marcy has provided the links. However, all that I’ve seen so far redacts the “legal authorization granted to it in [2 inch redaction]”.

What is so secret about our legal statutes that it would be putting the national security at risk to reveal them?

I am of the opinion that The National Security Act of 1947, amended grants no such authorization; hence the “authorization” granted by OLC memos and Bush’s Executive Order must be hidden by an excess of black ink.

Will you lawyers please enlighten me as to the legal authority which is hidden in the redaction?