Bush team accused of sanctioning torture

[happyending]

Bush team accused of sanctioning torture
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: June 8 2004 19:33 | Last Updated: June 8 2004 19:33

The administration of President George W. Bush was accused on Tuesday by some members of Congress of sanctioning torture by preparing legal analyses that said harsh treatment of detainees was permissible under US and international laws.

The charges came following the leak of memos from 2002 and 2003 in which senior lawyers from the justice and defence departments had concluded that torture may be legally permitted as part of the war on terrorism.

In heated exchanges before the Senate judiciary committee, the charges were angrily denied by John Ashcroft, the US attorney-general, who endorsed the arguments contained in the administration's memos.

But senior Democratic senators charged that the administration had in effect authorised the sorts of abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and had endangered US soldiers by weakening the international prohibitions against torture.

more here
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445511567&p=1012571727088

[indepat]

1. Surely not for as bad as the Repukes and Rethugs are, surely they would

not stoop to illegal and inhumane treatment of prisoners for they love Jesus and only do God's work and they are neither reichous, treacherous, nor mendacious nor do they ever practice hypocrisy or sanctimoniousness.

[Tellurian]

2. What would Jesus say to Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Asscroft?

ya think he'd throw the money changers out of the temple?

Faith Based, my Aunt Fanny!

[UpInArms]

3. for more understanding on the philosophy of the

neocons and the mal-administration, read:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15935

excerpt:

Second Principle: Power of Religion


According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.


At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."


"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.