Screaming Silence: When Words Don't Count
by Dan Smith
Global Beat Syndicate, June 28, 2004
Col. Dan Smith deconstructs the Administration's convoluted and
contradictory policies on treatment of detainees and use of torture.
Excerpt: "The Justice Department memorandum published early this month in the Washington Post implies that there is a threshold of pain that must be crossed for torture to exist, pain 'equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'
Similarly, psychological assaults that do not result in 'significant' long-term damage (which could not be known until the 'long-term' is reached) are not torture.
These opinions, together with the claim that the president in his role as commander-in-chief is not bound by either U.S. or international rules prohibiting torture, run directly counter to what the Army teaches its interrogators, counter to what U.S. practice has been for more than three decades, and counter to what the nations of the world, including the United States, have agreed to in the Geneva Conventions. If the United States claims exemption or immunity for 'national security,' what is to prevent other commanders-in-chief from doing the same?"
To read the full article, click here:
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/smith062804.html
Informant: fcnl-prevent-war
Global Beat Syndicate, June 28, 2004
Col. Dan Smith deconstructs the Administration's convoluted and
contradictory policies on treatment of detainees and use of torture.
Excerpt: "The Justice Department memorandum published early this month in the Washington Post implies that there is a threshold of pain that must be crossed for torture to exist, pain 'equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'
Similarly, psychological assaults that do not result in 'significant' long-term damage (which could not be known until the 'long-term' is reached) are not torture.
These opinions, together with the claim that the president in his role as commander-in-chief is not bound by either U.S. or international rules prohibiting torture, run directly counter to what the Army teaches its interrogators, counter to what U.S. practice has been for more than three decades, and counter to what the nations of the world, including the United States, have agreed to in the Geneva Conventions. If the United States claims exemption or immunity for 'national security,' what is to prevent other commanders-in-chief from doing the same?"
To read the full article, click here:
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/smith062804.html
Informant: fcnl-prevent-war
Starmail - 16. Jul, 17:41
