John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:58:07 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


According to news reports, a draft of a March 2003 memo on interrogation
methods by Pentagon lawyers advised U.S. government officials to disregard
the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own Field Manual for intelligence
interrogation
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...m34-52/index.h
tml) , after "commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002
that with conventional methods
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...?mod=home_what
s_news_us) they weren't getting enough information from prisoners." A team
of administration lawyers concluded in the draft prepared for Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "that President Bush was not bound
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/po...08ABUS.html?hp) by either an
international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law
because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique
needed to protect the nation's security." The contents of the draft,
obtained by the WSJ, calls into question administration claims
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040505-2.html) about
Abu Ghraib (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/) , and suggest methods used
there may have been sanctioned by the White House at the highest levels.


"Suggest" and "may have" are somewhat overused by liberals, wouldn't you agree?

John H

If that is so, and what they've done is above board, then why is
Ashcroft so afraid to release those two memoranda?