JURIST just put up a link to the Jane Mayer article over @ New Yorker, subtitled: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted. No subscription required. Thank you to the NewYorker management.
The memo is a chronological account, submitted on July 7, 2004, to Vice Admiral Albert Church, who led a Pentagon investigation into abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It reveals that Mora’s criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and persistent.
Found via the legal eagles over @ JURIST.
Mora thinks that the media has focussed too narrowly on allegations of U.S.-sanctioned torture. As he sees it, the authorization of cruelty is equally pernicious. “To my mind, there’s no moral or practical distinction,” he told me. “If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It’s a transformative issue.”
Yes, it’s a breach of protocol to post a damn link + blockquote. But this article is breaking, and was only posted this morning @ 8:30 a.m. EST according to JURIST.
Note on Jane Mayer: Damn she’s good.
Jesus, talk about giving me homework. How do I whittle this baby down to a managable size?
This article is awesome and confirms one of the central conspiracy theories of the first term.
Yeah, sorry for the homework, saw it right off. WTF, I don’t write ’em, just bring ’em here. heh . . .
Here’s an interesting snip
bold mine