Andrew McCarthy writing for National Review On-line, a Conservative publication pointed out the complete hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=
I really cannot believe this. This brazen hypocrisy makes a mockery of our America and will not be exposed by our media or even known by the general population. In short the Justice Department is recommending Bush lawyers come under disciplinary committees for supposed ethical lapses in drafting the infamous "torture" memos.
Now the same Justice Department is using the same logic the Bush lawyers used in this case against this Nazi, Demjanjuk a former concentration camp guard. Here is the brief:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/05/06/71694f722e5a5d7c8e4aff8d948e40c4.pdf
Supposedly it has been removed from the Justice Department website so this is a PDF from NRO. Check this quote out:
[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) [my bold italics and brackets]. . . .
Are they serious? This is pages 20-21 of the brief.
So lets see, define torture so watered-down a wet-willy is torture when it is politically fashionable to criticize Bush, then use the same argument Bush used to substantiate claims in another case. Is this getting more and more ridiculous as the days go on?
