Everything that isn't illegal is legal

Victor

People were asking about this a few weeks ago. Essentially there is a policy of "Everything that isn't illegal is legal". Is suspect that groups of lawyers have been tasked by several governments to go off and see just how far they can go. They don't necessarily go over the legal line, but they do occupy the full width of the line, even if that line is well beyond the line of what is morally right or wrong. As this piece says "Nowhere do the authors say, `But this would be wrong'."

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-229776562-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews.asp

Lawyers cite Irish case to justify Guantanamo abuse
27/06/04 00:00
By Kieron Wood

Lawyers advising US President George W Bush on the legality of abusing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have cited an Irish case as justification for the ill-treatment.

The memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to the White House cites the 1978 case of Ireland v United Kingdom, a decision of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court held that "interrogation in depth" by security forces in the North was not torture, but merely inhuman and degrading treatment.

Detainees in the North were:
* forced to stand for hours spread-eagled against a wall, with their weight borne on their fingertips
* hooded at all times except during interrogation
* subjected to continuous loud and hissing noises before interrogation
* deprived of sleep, food and drink.

The August 2002 OLC memo considered standards of "permissible conduct" for interrogations, with reference to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the torture convention), which has been signed by the US government.

The memo concluded that only acts "specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering", whether mental or physical, were banned.

It says interrogators are permitted to inflict severe mental pain, which are not intended to have lasting effects and physical pain, which does not cause "serious physical injury, such as death or organ failure".

Professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami law school said: "This OLC document is a legalistic, logic-chopping brief for the torturer.

Its entire thrust is justifying maximal pain.

"Nowhere do the authors say, `But this would be wrong'."

Froomkin said that, in the views of the authors, there was nothing that the US Congress could do to constrain Bush's "exercise of the war power".

"The Geneva Conventions are, by inevitable implication, not binding on the President, nor is any other international agreement if it impedes the war effort," he said. "I'm sure our allies will be just thrilled to hear that."

"The memo argues that Congress `may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield'.

"Either this is just bunk, or the Geneva Conventions, the prohibitions on the use of poison gas, all the rest of the web of international agreements to which the US is a party, are so much tissue paper. We're no longer committed to the rule of law, but the rule of force."

Froomkin's views were supported by almost 200 Irish lawyers, including 16 senior counsel, who last week published a statement of objection to Bush's "illegal war policies".

The lawyers said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was "consistent with the rejection of the rule of law by President Bush in directing the invasion of Iraq". They criticised the government for "clearly assisting an illegal war" by allowing US troops to use Shannon Airport.

Senior counsel Brendan Nix said Bush was personally responsible for creating "the circumstances and climate within which the horrific torture of Iraqi prisoners took place".

Fergal Kavanagh SC called for a full investigation to establish whether there was any evidence which might justify a prosecution for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

"Any such evidence must be preserved so that the appropri-ate steps can be taken," he said.

The lawyers said the Irish government's conduct in supporting US war preparations was "analogous to the most serious criminal conduct under Irish law".

It said the US government's plans for war were in violation of international law, in particular, that force should not be used unless:
* there was an imminent danger
* all alternative means of protection had been exhausted
* the force used was proportionate.

The lawyers' statement says: "Domestic Irish law on the use of force embodies similar principles and holds criminally liable those who knowingly assist in the use of unlawful violence."

earwicker

I'd heard rumblings of this before. The use of the co-called "five techniques" under both the EPA and PTA were excellent recruiting sergeants because they were coupled with policies that victimized entire sections of the population because the authorities cast such a wide net. They also produced lots of signed pieces of paper that had their confessions added later. Days of abuse can make people say/ do pretty much anything.

Hobbes

You can find the documents for agreed torture at www.thesmokinggun.com

Good to see that the supreme court overruled Bush and let people in the concentration camp appeal against the secret trials.