by Matt Hayes

Fox News

12/23/04

It was reported this week that President Bush signed an executive order authorizing robust interrogation methods of captured enemy combatants. The White House, as well as various agencies, denies the existence of such an order, despite an FBI memo that refers to such an order. But if the executive order does not exist, could the individuals who engaged in such interrogation tactics be held legally culpable if they did so believing their actions were sanctioned by the White House? And does what allegedly occurred at places like Guantanamo Bay actually amount to torture? ... Almost any coercive action qualifies as torture under the Convention. It defines torture as 'any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.' ... Torture is also prohibited by several orders in different elements of the military and law enforcement...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142364,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp