Torture Memo Online NOW

[dissention]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5166951/site/newsweek

Ugh. Ugh. UGH.

[strandinthewind]

It was VERY hard to read on the comp. I am on right now. Did it reach a conclusion? Was it a memo. arguing for torture? I could not tell. If it is a memo. adressing the rules and their applicability in the abstract, that is no big deal in that it is an FYI thing that is done daily, albeit not on this subject. But, I think I read (again a bad copy) that they were trying to go for the torture. Heads will roll if that is what it is.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It was VERY hard to read on the comp. I am on right now. Did it reach a conclusion? Was it a memo. arguing for torture? I could not tell. If it is a memo. adressing the rules and their applicability in the abstract, that is no big deal in that it is an FYI thing that is done daily, albeit not on this subject. But, I think I read (again a bad copy) that they were trying to go for the torture. Heads will roll if that is what it is.

I haven't slogged through all 40 pages yet, but it says:

-International law forbidding torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations"

-The torturing of al-Qaeda terrorists "may be justified"

-If someone were to torture someone, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network"

-If someone were to torture a prisoner, "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability"

I'm shocked, honestly. It's damning.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I haven't slogged through all 40 pages yet, but it says:

-International law forbidding torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations"

-The torturing of al-Qaeda terrorists "may be justified"

-If someone were to torture someone, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network"

-If someone were to torture a prisoner, "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability"

I'm shocked, honestly. It's damning.

Again, these are commonplace - they are methods of explaining the law etc. We have to know the intent, etc., before we know anything. It is possible this was requested so they could comply with the law. But, from what I have read, which is not everthing and the copy is incomplete and has no conclusion, it aint good.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, these are commonplace - they are methods of explaining the law etc. We have to know the intent, etc., before we know anything. It is possible this was requested so they could comply with the law. But, from what I have read, which is not everthing and the copy is incomplete and has no conclusion, it aint good.

I just read that if a subordinate is charged with torture, Shrub would draft "a presidential directive or other writing" to serve as evidence, since his authority to set aside laws is "inherent in the president."

Too bad he doesn't have that power. He simply can't set aside international treaty.

[gldstwmn]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...dirty_bomb_dud

Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud

Wed Jun 9, 7:10 PM ET Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!


By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

NEW YORK - The "dirty bomb" allegedly planned by terror suspect Jose Padilla would have been a dud, not the radiological threat portrayed last week by federal authorities, scientists say.

At a June 1 news conference, the Justice Department said the alleged al-Qaida associate hoped to attack Americans by detonating "uranium wrapped with explosives" in order to spread radioactivity.

But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials — such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential dirty bomb fuels.

"I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to illustrate the point.

Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S. National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was "extremely disturbing — because you cannot make a radiological dispersal device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."

Other specialists agreed. "It's the equivalent of blowing up lead," said physicist Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists.

When Padilla was arrested in June 2002, after returning to Chicago from Afghanistan and Pakistan, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the ex-Chicago gang member and Muslim convert had planned a dirty bomb that could "cause mass death and injury." Washington, D.C., was the likely target, his department said.

But it wasn't until Deputy Attorney General James Comey's briefing for reporters last week that authorities said Padilla had uranium in mind for his radiological dispersal device, or RDD, the technical term for such a weapon. Comey said the detainee disclosed he'd also been sent to set off natural gas explosions in U.S. apartment buildings.

"Just saying the word `uranium,' the public automatically assumes, `Oh, it sounds bad,'" said physicist Charles Ferguson of the Washington office of California's Monterey Institute of International Studies. He co-authored one of the most detailed reports on the dirty-bomb threat.

Those studying the RDD potential envision a combination of explosives with a lethal radioisotope, such as cesium-137, diverted from use in cancer radiotherapy, for example, or from machines that irradiate food. Particularly if in powder form, it could spew intense radioactivity over a section of a city, making it uninhabitable.

Radiation from uranium, on the other hand, is billions of times less intense than that of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and other radioisotopes. It's not radioactivity but another property of uranium — its ability in some forms to sustain atomic chain reactions — that makes it a fuel for nuclear power and bombs.

The Justice Department didn't respond directly when asked this week whether it had consulted with experts and knew that uranium wouldn't make a dirty bomb.

Instead, spokesman Mark Corallo said Padilla's statements, in view of his al-Qaida links, made clear that he was "willing to cause devastating harm to innocent Americans."

Padilla has been held by the U.S. military since 2002 as an enemy combatant, without charge and with little access to lawyers. The Bush administration has been criticized for denying a U.S. citizen normal access to the courts. The Supreme Court is considering whether the government, in defending against terrorism, has such power.

Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, said Wednesday of the dirty-bomb allegation that U.S. authorities "should have known that this was nonsense."

"When they frightened everybody, what were they trying to do, if they knew better? To show the administration is on top of things?" she asked.

She wants the government to attempt to indict and try her client. "Maybe the problem is the evidence is so weak, it's laughable," she said.

Comey said the news conference was called "to help people understand the nature of the threat" Padilla posed.

Based on what he said were Padilla's admissions to interrogators, he described a "highly trained al-Qaida soldier" who accepted an assignment to blow up U.S. apartment buildings, and "planned to do even more by detonating a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country."

Spokesman Corallo reaffirmed this week that it was Padilla who said uranium would be used.

"If that's what he planned," physicist Oelrich said of Padilla, "it shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done even rudimentary homework."

He wasn't the only one, according to a Justice Department summary of interrogations.

It said Abu Zubaydah, a top al-Qaida lieutenant now in U.S. custody, also envisioned a uranium device when urging Padilla to mount a U.S. attack. At another point, however, the summary said Zubaydah told Padilla the dirty bomb was "not as easy to do as they thought."

Padilla claims "he was never really planning to go through with" any of the terrorist assignment, Comey told reporters.

As a heavy metal, like lead, uranium poses one health risk: If ingested or inhaled, it can damage kidneys or other organs. But unlike radioisotopes, byproducts of nuclear reactors, uranium doesn't emit penetrating gamma rays that cause acute radiation poisoning. Instead, it slowly radiates weak alpha particles, which don't even penetrate skin.

"Granted, it (uranium) could have a psychological effect" because of unfounded fears, said physicist Ferguson. But he said a government information campaign should quell any panic if such a weapon appeared.

[gldstwmn]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site.../site/newsweek

Justice Department lawyers, said to be pessimistic about winning upcoming Supreme Court cases on enemy combatants and Guantanamo prisoners, are now scrambling to bring a case against alleged 'dirty bomber' Jose Padilla...

Lawyers within the Justice Department are now bracing for defeat in both the enemy-combatant and Guantanamo cases, both of which are expected to be decided before the Supreme Court ends its term at the end of the month, according to one conservative and politically well-connected lawyer. “They are 99 percent certain they are going to lose,” said the lawyer, who asked not to be identified. “It’s a very sobering realization."