Myers tries to squash the abuse story, Justice lawyer may have lied to SC

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/17/trust/index.html

From Salon. Get the one day free pass. I think this story is explosive.

"Just after 10 o'clock on the morning of April 28, a Justice Department attorney representing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared before the Supreme Court to argue that the Bush administration is free to imprison a U.S. citizen for as long as it likes -- without a lawyer, without a hearing, without any contact with the outside world -- based solely on the president's determination that the citizen is an "enemy combatant" in the war on terror."

"When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that some governments engage in "mild torture" to obtain information, Clement shot back: "Well, our executive doesn't."

Well, it turns out that just shortly after this court case, that need I remind you, will determine whether or not * can indefinitely lock up AMERICAN CITIZENS, the story of Abu Grhaib broke on CBS.

I think you can make a strong case, as the writer does, that General Myers attempt to stop, or delay CBS coincided directly with this SC case. Also a good argument can be made that the Justice Department Lawyer lied to the Supreme Court

I wish that this mis-administration would just come out and tell the effing truth for once. How refreshing it would be to hear them say, "we want to lock up and torture Americans as we see fit, we just don't want to have to admit that fact."

How much worse can it get?

I bet she does.

The thing is that there has been abuse stories (and apparently pictures) for a long time, but people didn't seem to care much. I am amazed how the Lynndie England pictures in particular seem to have gotten regular folks thinking critically again.

Now that the thinking has started there is a lot of catch-up work to do in the areas of investigation and punishment.

What I find most interesting about this is that they tried to suppress the evidence of abuse in what appears to be an attempt to give them better footing on this whole "detain American Citizens incognito" argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I mean, could you imagine the oral arguments in the Supreme Court if the Abu Grhaib story had already hit the news when they were hearing this case?

I'm also shocked that no-one has connected the dots of the torture to the fact that American Citizens are being held in jail indefinitely and god knows what kind of abuse they could be subject to.

I'm also embarrassed that a story this scandalous only get a meager 4 responses from DU.

At the least, it should be pursued as to whether or not a Justice Dept lawyer LIED IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT! Or doesn't that shock people anymore?

Of course, maybe what my wife said is true. "the only reason the prison story is getting covered is because of the deviant sex angle"

What has become of my country?

the lawyer's statement was probably reasonably intended to mean that torture was not permitted by the US gov't.

In some sense, the Congressional hearings and the court martials do show that torture, like that in the photo's is indeed forbidden by the government.

At this juncture, one might respond that Rumsfeld purposely issued orders that Rumsfeld knew, or should have known, would lead to torture. I personally believe, without benefit of having all the info yet, that Rumsfeld did effectively condone torture.

However, none of that undercuts the basic point that the US government does not condone torture (at least when the veil of secrecy is torn away).

I strongly agree with your wife: it is sad that it took salacious S & M photo's to get regular folks to realize that illegal torture was indeed happening. I knew that prisoner mistreatment was going on just by listening to NPR back in 2003. I was hopping mad back then and couldn't believe that those 2003 NPR stories had no "legs." Oh, well, better late than never.

Well worth having to go for the one-day pass! I hope other outlets pick up and run with this.

That darn "lib'rul" media again. Not a peep from the big three networks, CNN, etc. I guess a Justice Dept laywer lying to the Supreme Court, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff trying to supress evidence and, yes, I will say it, Obstruct Justice, just doesn't rise to the level of a consentual blow job.

$30 bucks you'll spend all year.