02/03/2005: Purposely Mis-Interpreting Torture
Steve Chapman has a GREAT piece in Today's Chicago Tribune called "A Tortured Defense."
I sent him this short comment:
I don't recall the cite (but you clever guys can find it) that this kind of language doesn't actually concern torture at all in the Geneva conventions...it's about what conditions would be reasons to have "emergency medical treatment provided."
The redefinition of this to mean "anything up to this point" therefore does not equal "torture" is a complete White House/Gonzales/Bybee et. al. INVENTION.
That this language was meant to apply to some "acceptable torture standard or definition" is incorrect on it's face and meaning of the law. That's why I say it's an extra-procedural process conducted to get this "new rules" for these conflicts and that is it (illegally in my humble opinion...but what do I know...) failed to account for the general legal interpretation guidelines or methods and failed entirely to consider the Congressional role in having a place to "decide this small matters of law."
Sadly...Gonzales will in all probability get confirmed. Ouch for the Geneva Conventions.
Karen on 02.03.05 @ 11:48 AM CST