..

He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees

altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses.  gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. 

more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court.

The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales.

a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida.   b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act.  c.  the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions.  d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution'  under the war crimes act.   

together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. 

after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." 

it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

However, I could only find it as mentioned as a footnote now.

thats all i could find as well.  the truncation--indicated by '...'--concerns me.  (in all candor, justice ginsberg and her feminist team--or any other group of feminists--advocating the age of consent be lowereed seems about as likely to me as justice thomas crusading to make al sharpton's birthday a national holiday--while sharpton is still alive.)

 ill keep trying to find the original report. 

Reply #17 By: kingbee - 1/16/2005 2:04:57 PM He was referring to whether Al-Qaeda & Taliban terrorist captives were subject to the GW, not Iraqi detainees altho those memos specifically focused on al-quaida and the taliban, they also refer to enemy combantants and detainees. the schlesinger commission--in its attempt to explain how things went wrong in abu gharib--determined unclear policy and a failure of adequate oversight at the department of defense as well as at centcom were major factors that led to those abuses. gonzales memos clearly added to the lack of clarity and direction. more importantly, much of what gonzales claimed to be defensible has been rejected by the court. The quote also confirms that the military was told by the President that the requirements of the Geneva Convention were to be followed. And I believe you are wrong concerning the motives you impute to Mr. Gonzales. a very concise summary of the january 25, 2004 memo would be: a. there is a technical basis for the president to decide the GPW doesnt apply to members of the taliban or al-quaida. b. americans are still prohibited from committing war crimes by the war crimes act. c. the act specifies war crimes to be--in large part--violations of the geneva conventions. d. denying GPW protection to the taliban, al quaida and other groups "substantially reduces the threat of domestic prosecution' under the war crimes act. together, this memo...the yoo/bybee opinion that asserts executive superiority over both the congress and the judiciary...and gonzales 50-page handbook on how to beat a torture rap (his analysis of what constitutes 'extreme' torture and tactics for establishing the ways by which a one could claim no intention to inflict pain in the course of doing something that caused pain are fuckin amazing) with its suggestion of another way around the war crimes act (officially determine the GPW didnt apply without officially making that a matter of policy) really call into question gonzales ethics and professional ability. after reading and rereading all that crap, i think youre missing the point of the tag line to the jan 25th memo...our military remains bound to apply the the principles of GPW because that's what you told them to do." it's a cynically unsubtle (as in *wink, wink...nod, nod*) proffer of nixonesque 'plausible deniability'.

Maybe you should go read the actual memo. Here's a link.

Link

And the problem is? NOWHERE in that memo does he form his OWN opinion! He uses what was said by other agencies inclucding the DOJ! NOWHERE on there does he say that torture was/ was not okay to use. What your using is pure leftist spin!

..

Maybe you should go read the actual memo

what leads you to think i havent read all four of the documents im citing numerous times as i noted throughout this thread?   you think i just make this shit up?   he certainly is offering his own opinion because thats what hes paid to do. that's the point of the memo youve linked.   in the 50-page followup he discusses all manner of torture and opines that there are a number of ways in which its possible to defend anyone who was prosecuted for engaging in them.  instead of being so quick to copy what's already been said, you might actually consider what others are saying rather than simply concluding bush good, everyone else bad.

I have to give you kudos for actually using one of the pics. When I referred to them in an article, I debated long and hard whether or not to use them. I finally decided my description of the pictures sufficed.

the smile is exactly what makes that pic so awful.

Agreed.

(the la times) doesnt maintain an online archive going back that far.

I don't know if they still do, but the main Glendale library used to have book indexes of the L.A. Times and a room full of microfilm. I spent many hours there researching. (I wish I could find a library around here half as well equipped. I was spoiled by my hometown system.)

the main Glendale library used to have book indexes of the L.A. Times and a room full of microfilm. I spent many hours there researching

i'm not sure if my local library (la cty library branch in san pedro) is up to glendale's standards...but theres also a county branch within reasonable distance, so ill check into both.  thanks for the tip.  i was (duh) actually considering going to the times offices cuz  i really would like to locate that story again--if for no other reason than to have it in my pocket when im led away raving and ranting

What is the article about? When did it appear. I have access to a school systems online archives, which could well include the LA times. I will look into this.