The Alberto Gonzales Memo
January 25, 2002
Sat Oct 29, 2005 03:09
64.140.158.25
The Alberto Gonzales Memo January 25, 2002
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a Memorandum to President Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White House has issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below) that captured members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW Convention ("GPW"), to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He advised that "there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does not apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that grounds for the determination might include:
1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or
2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."
Mr. Gonzales then identified what he believed were the ramifications of Mr. Bush's determination. On a positive note he felt they preserved flexibility stating that:
"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." He also believed the determination "...eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status." The determination, Mr. Gonzales said, also reduced the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). His expressed concern was that certain GPW language such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" are "undefined' and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be "...difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." He believed that a determination of inapplicability of the GPW would insulate against prosecution by future "prosecutors and independent counsels."
Mr. Gonzales then identified the counter arguments from the Secretary of State (See, Colin Powell Memo of January 26, 2002 pages 1,2,3,4,5) which included:
Past adherence by the United States to the GPW;
Possible limitations on invocation by the U.S. of the GPW in Afghanistan;
Likely widespread condemnation by allied nations;
Encouragement of potential enemies to find "loopholes" to not apply the GPW;
Discouraging turn-over of terrorists by other nations;
Undermining of U.S. military culture "which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat..."
In response, Mr. Gonzales says, inter alia, "...even if the GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges against anyone who mistreats U.S. personnel." He adds that, "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you have directed them to do." (Emphasis added). In light of subsequent events, that last sentence is of particular interest.
The Bush Order February 7, 2002
On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an Order, (pdf copy) accepting the reasoning of the Yoo and Gonzales memos, and validating the order issued by Secretary Rumsfeld on January, 19, 2002.
From the sequence of events, and discussion by White House Counsel, it appears fairly clear that the decision by Mr. Bush, and the subsequent orders from Mssr.s Bush and Rumsfeld, were based on the Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum of 9 January, 2002. A close analysis of that document is accordingly appropriate.
The Yoo/Delahunty Memo January 9, 2002
CLICK:
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
===========================
Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW3.htm
Part 4 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW4.htm
Part 5 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW5.htm
Part 6 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW6.htm
Part 7 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW7.htm
Part 8 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW8.htm
Part 9 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW9.htm
Legal Docs. http://www.apfn/apfn/POW_legal_doc
53 Page Prison Abuse Report http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Prison_abuse_report.pdf
24 Page Red Cross Report http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Red-Cross-report.pdf
Iraqis Abused by U.S. Personnel - Military Documents
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pow_legal_doc.htm
==============================================================
FREE Lynndie ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret. Discusses The Lynndie England Cast.... Compelling.....
10/24/05 Charles Goyette Show.... "A compelling Story...."
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 1 (9.24 MB) Guest: General Janis Karpinski
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-10-24-Charles-01.mp3
It will be "fun" to watch what links that they have to the people who are named as "defendants".
Have you watched the Lynndie England case? She is in a graveyard spiral descent on her claim that
"higherups" made her do it. She talks a lot but has no evidence.
BLOG FOR AMERICA
====================================
GOOGLE: "Lynndie England CASE"
Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for Lynndie England Case
Monster Forums (Logged in as: -1)
Lynndie England belongs in jail! Anyone who believes that this woman didn't ...
Lynndie England was an MP in the National Guard, she had extensive training! ...
Minuteman Message Board :: View topic - FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!! Goto page Previous 1, 2 ... I think in this case,
given the context, it isn't referring so much to someone who is not ...
HTTP://www.renewamerica.us/bb/viewtopic.php?p=56558&
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:57:24 pm Post subject: Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
Free Lynndie England! Her only crime was getting caught.....
All that lovely dark sweating flesh how could she and the boys of the platoon resist tearing their clothes off and doing unspeakable things to them?Why just pick on them just because they got their pics for the album to show the folks back home?
Cindy is in Jail while that pinko liberal commie peacenick Cindy Sheehan walks the streets disturbing the conscience of America............what is the country coming to?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ENGLAND.HTM
Contact Information:
Washington, DC
2400 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225 8220
Fax: (202) 226 7290
El Segundo
2321 E. Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3270
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 643 3636
Fax: (310) 643 6445
Wilmington
544 N. Avalon Boulevard, Suite 307
Wilmington, CA 90744
Phone: (310) 549 8282
Fax: (310) 549 8250
http://www.house.gov/harman/
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a Memorandum to President Bush regarding a presidential decision on January 18, 2002, (the White House has issued an Order to that effect, dated February 7, 2002, see below) that captured members of the Taliban were not protected under the Geneva POW Convention ("GPW"), to which the legal advisor to the Secretary of State had objected. He advised that "there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [the ] does not apply ...to the conflict with the Taliban." Mr. Gonzales argued that grounds for the determination might include:
1) a determination that Afghanistan was a failed state "...because the Taliban did not exercise full control over the territory and people, was not recognized by the international community, and was not capable of fulfilling its international obligations" (see definition of statehood in Cpt. 1.3 and discussion in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 244 to 245 (2nd Cir, 1995) ) and/or
2) a "determination that the Taliban and its forces were, in fact, not a government but a militant, terrorist-like group."
Mr. Gonzales then identified what he believed were the ramifications of Mr. Bush's determination. On a positive note he felt they preserved flexibility stating that:
"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." He also believed the determination "...eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status." The determination, Mr. Gonzales said, also reduced the threat of domestic prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). His expressed concern was that certain GPW language such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" are "undefined' and that it is difficult to predict with confidence what action might constitute violations, and that it would be "...difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism." He believed that a determination of inapplicability of the GPW would insulate against prosecution by future "prosecutors and independent counsels."
Mr. Gonzales then identified the counter arguments from the Secretary of State (See, Colin Powell Memo of January 26, 2002 pages 1,2,3,4,5) which included:
Past adherence by the United States to the GPW;
Possible limitations on invocation by the U.S. of the GPW in Afghanistan;
Likely widespread condemnation by allied nations;
Encouragement of potential enemies to find "loopholes" to not apply the GPW;
Discouraging turn-over of terrorists by other nations;
Undermining of U.S. military culture "which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat..."
In response, Mr. Gonzales says, inter alia, "...even if the GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges against anyone who mistreats U.S. personnel." He adds that, "...the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you have directed them to do." (Emphasis added). In light of subsequent events, that last sentence is of particular interest.
The Bush Order February 7, 2002
On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an Order, (pdf copy) accepting the reasoning of the Yoo and Gonzales memos, and validating the order issued by Secretary Rumsfeld on January, 19, 2002.
From the sequence of events, and discussion by White House Counsel, it appears fairly clear that the decision by Mr. Bush, and the subsequent orders from Mssr.s Bush and Rumsfeld, were based on the Yoo/Delahunty Memorandum of 9 January, 2002. A close analysis of that document is accordingly appropriate.
The Yoo/Delahunty Memo January 9, 2002
CLICK:
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
===========================
Iraqis Being Abused by US Personnel
Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW.htm
Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW2.htm
Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW3.htm
Part 4 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW4.htm
Part 5 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW5.htm
Part 6 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW6.htm
Part 7 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW7.htm
Part 8 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW8.htm
Part 9 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/POW9.htm
Legal Docs. http://www.apfn/apfn/POW_legal_doc
53 Page Prison Abuse Report http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Prison_abuse_report.pdf
24 Page Red Cross Report http://www.apfn.org/pdf/Red-Cross-report.pdf
Iraqis Abused by U.S. Personnel - Military Documents
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pow_legal_doc.htm
==============================================================
FREE Lynndie ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
Col. Janis Karpinski, Ret. Discusses The Lynndie England Cast.... Compelling.....
10/24/05 Charles Goyette Show.... "A compelling Story...."
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 1 (9.24 MB) Guest: General Janis Karpinski
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-10-24-Charles-01.mp3
It will be "fun" to watch what links that they have to the people who are named as "defendants".
Have you watched the Lynndie England case? She is in a graveyard spiral descent on her claim that
"higherups" made her do it. She talks a lot but has no evidence.
BLOG FOR AMERICA
====================================
GOOGLE: "Lynndie England CASE"
Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for Lynndie England Case
Monster Forums (Logged in as: -1)
Lynndie England belongs in jail! Anyone who believes that this woman didn't ...
Lynndie England was an MP in the National Guard, she had extensive training! ...
Minuteman Message Board :: View topic - FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
FREE Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!! Goto page Previous 1, 2 ... I think in this case,
given the context, it isn't referring so much to someone who is not ...
HTTP://www.renewamerica.us/bb/viewtopic.php?p=56558&
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:57:24 pm Post subject: Lynndie England !!!!!!!!!!!
Free Lynndie England! Her only crime was getting caught.....
All that lovely dark sweating flesh how could she and the boys of the platoon resist tearing their clothes off and doing unspeakable things to them?Why just pick on them just because they got their pics for the album to show the folks back home?
Cindy is in Jail while that pinko liberal commie peacenick Cindy Sheehan walks the streets disturbing the conscience of America............what is the country coming to?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ENGLAND.HTM
Contact Information:
Washington, DC
2400 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225 8220
Fax: (202) 226 7290
El Segundo
2321 E. Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3270
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 643 3636
Fax: (310) 643 6445
Wilmington
544 N. Avalon Boulevard, Suite 307
Wilmington, CA 90744
Phone: (310) 549 8282
Fax: (310) 549 8250
http://www.house.gov/harman/
