tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post9140815086556279220..comments2023-10-21T01:41:25.251-07:00Comments on Invictus: Obama Reneges on Justice for Torture Victims, Embraces Bush Secrecy DoctrineValtinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07427976389098964420noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-37595247894937843512009-02-13T18:17:00.000-08:002009-02-13T18:17:00.000-08:00Hi Valtin - thank you for your answer. Illuminati...Hi Valtin - thank you for your answer. Illuminating. The fine print is what matters. <BR/><BR/>I look forward to your future posts on the AFM.back_to_our_senseshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02538669600104594646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-9704436389232422892009-02-11T20:07:00.000-08:002009-02-11T20:07:00.000-08:00To Back to Our Senses: The AFM is full of statemen...To Back to Our Senses: The AFM is full of statements that it adheres to Common Article 3, CAN, etc. I don't know what the Bush take on "enemy combatants" means if the old memos are thrown out, with their suspect interpretations. I do know that the executive order caveats are not sufficient for many in the legal field that I respect, including CCR, PHR, and the president of the NLG.<BR/><BR/>By the way, there's more wrong with the AFM than Appendix M, which I intend to more specifically highlight soon. I, and CCR, have mentioned the new definition of "Fear Up." But there are also changes in language re using drugs on detainees during interrogations, loosening those restrictions.<BR/><BR/>I will note that if you read the fine print carefully, they adhere to CA3, but make sure that "enemy combatants" aren't given the protections of GA4, which covers civilians, which is where all non-POWs should be. Why? Because it specifically disallows coercion, which CA3 does not.<BR/><BR/>Also, the legal fine print relies on legal language in the "U.S. Reservations" to the CAN treaty, which made U.S. definitions of torture different than international standards, making them depend upon hazy "shocks the conscience" criteria, upon which U.S. courts have a checkered history.<BR/><BR/>Believe me, they've looked into all the loopholes. They can't really plug all their holes, but they've tried.Valtinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427976389098964420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-35256746611418442422009-02-10T19:58:00.000-08:002009-02-10T19:58:00.000-08:00Valtin - this is offtopic, but I have a question r...Valtin - this is offtopic, but I have a question regarding Appendix M in the AFM. What would you say of arguments that suggest this part of Obama's executive order ensuring lawful interrogation:<BR/><BR/>"Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual. From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52 issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009"<BR/><BR/>precludes the possibility that Appendix M can even be used - after all, it is intended for unlawful combatants, which are still inside the scope of the Geneva Conventions? If the Bush interpretation of "unlawful combatants" is thrown out, as Obama says it is, then the actual Geneva Conventions interpretation of "unlawful combatants" offers them protection from torture and coercion. So I understand it. Also, earlier in the executive order, Obama orders:<BR/><BR/>"(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person ..."<BR/><BR/>It is notable perhaps that the AFM is not mentioned there - containing as it does severe violations of the Geneva Conventions.<BR/><BR/>There is a severe tension between Appendix M and the rest of this Executive Order. And of course it is laughable that nonetheless, the AG can provide guidance to the contrary of the order's baseline. Surely, it would be understood, there is some consequence for that - I mean, there would be anyway, if Obama prosecuted Bush, and our nation complied with internatonal law. <BR/><BR/>I hope my question is clear. Panetta's confirmation hearing suggested that what is presently "baseline" can be exceeded - and that is troubling. My feeling is that in Obama's executive orders, there is a little more deception than what we have all applauded.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, any feedback would be appreciated. In the meantime, I'll be trying to work it out for myself. <BR/><BR/>-Back to our sensesback_to_our_senseshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02538669600104594646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-73268718234801727882009-02-10T06:43:00.000-08:002009-02-10T06:43:00.000-08:00How do we entertain the notion that the government...How do we entertain the notion that the government can just say "state secrets" and get the case dismissed outright? Assuming it does not lead to abuse, shouldn't the proper response of a court if the government asserts the state secrets privilege to enter a default judgment against the government and grant the remedy the plaintiffs seek?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5048559001654820158.post-22518638520861319482009-02-10T05:35:00.000-08:002009-02-10T05:35:00.000-08:00I am thoroughly disgusted by Obama. He's turned o...I am thoroughly disgusted by Obama. He's turned out to be just another neocon, the only difference between him and Bush is that Obama's better at reading his speeches.<BR/><BR/>Hope and change my fucking ass!<BR/><BR/>I've ripped the Obama bumper sticker off my car and unsubscribed from his mailing list, and I'll be making the "pledge" to be a "servant to my president" when hell freezes over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com