Bush's Josef Mengele testifies to congress on why he needs to rape 3 year olds

Author Topic: Bush's Josef Mengele testifies to congress on why he needs to rape 3 year olds  (Read 8481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Torture Architect Argues For Indefinite Detention of Americans
ACLU: “Nothing short of chilling”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/torture-architect-argues-for-indefinite-detention-of-americans.html
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012


In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive which forbids controversial provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act from being used against lawful residents, a former architect of the infamous Bush torture program today testified in favor of indefinite detention for US citizens.

Following the release of a White House “fact sheet” which announced that “Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States,” Steven G. Bradbury, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the United States Department of Justice under the Bush administration, testified today that the law should be applied to American citizens in order to deal with “homegrown terrorists”.

In his position as OLC head, Bradbury is widely acknowledged as one of the primary architects of the Bush torture program, having provided legal opinions that justified the kind of abuse that came to light in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal, which included torture by hanging, beating prisoners to death, raping women, and sodomizing detainees with batons and phosphorescent tubes.

Bradbury told a Senate Judiciary Committee that legislation which would limit the arbitrary application of indefinite detention provisions, the Due Process Guarantee Act, was dangerous because it would prevent US citizens labeled “enemy combatants,” from being interrogated by the military.

“If we capture on our soil a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who is such an enemy recruit and has been actively involved in carrying out or otherwise aware of an unfolding plot by a foreign power against the United States, this proposed legislation could seriously impede our ability to gather critical intelligence from that combatant through military questioning,” Bradbury told the committee. “By requiring that criminal charges be brought against the detainee as a condition of this continued detention, the [Due Process Guarantee Act] would threaten to disrupt the practical opportunity to conduct such intelligence gathering.”

In response, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who voted against the NDAA, requested that Bradbury’s involvement with the Bush torture scandal be included in the record.

“It’s nothing short of chilling that the Senate Judiciary Committee would have as a witness one of the architects of the torture program,” American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel Chris Anders told Raw Story. “This is a person who wrote several memos that provide legal justification for the torture program during the Bush administration, and wrote memos on how to try to circumvent legal protections that Congress had put in place to block the use of torture and abuse of detainees.”

“For Congress to be relying on someone who has shown so little disregard for the law that he would say that it’s legally okay to waterboard people and use other torture tactics against them is remarkable. It’s remarkable and it’s wrong.”

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham supported Bradbury’s position, arguing that “The homeland is part of the battlefield,” and that so-called enemy combatants, even if they are American citizens, should be treated as terrorists.

As we explained in our previous article, although Obama’s PPD on exempting Americans from being subject to indefinite detention represents a worthy victory for civil libertarians, it comes after the administration itself demanded such provisions be applied to US citizens in the first place.

It also provides no guarantee that a future administration, which could be in office in less than a year, will not use the ‘kidnapping provisions’ against US citizens. This is all the more reason to support efforts by states such as Virginia and Utah to repudiate the NDAA altogether.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Steven G. Bradbury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Bradbury

Bradbury was head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the United States Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration. Appointed the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC in April 2004, he became the Acting Assistant Attorney General in 2005. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to be the Assistant Attorney General for OLC in June 2005. His nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2005 but was never voted on by the full Senate. Individual Democratic Senators put holds on Bradbury's nomination preventing the full Senate from voting on it, and Democratic leaders in the Senate instituted pro forma sessions of the Senate during scheduled recesses to prevent the President from giving him a recess appointment.[1] Bradbury continued to serve as the senior appointed official in charge of OLC until the end of the Bush Administration on January 20, 2009.


Work in the Office of Legal Counsel

Bradbury received a number of awards and honors while at OLC, including the Edmund J. Randolph Award for outstanding service to the Department of Justice, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the National Security Agency’s Intelligence Under Law Award, the Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Community Legal Award, and the Criminal Division’s Award for Outstanding Law Enforcement Partnerships.

Bradbury authored numerous significant legal opinions for OLC, many of which are published on OLC’s Web site.[2] Among these opinions was one issued in August 2004 in which Bradbury concluded that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.[3] The reasoning of this opinion was later adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller.[4]

Memoranda concerning the War on Terror

Bradbury authored several memoranda addressing the legality of interrogation practices – the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" – authorized for use by the Central Intelligence Agency, including three memoranda in May 2005, publicly released by the Obama Administration on April 16, 2009, that found the CIA's practices to be lawful if applied in accordance with specified conditions, limitations, and safeguards, including those set forth in the agency’s interrogation procedures.[5]

Near the end of the Bush Administration, Bradbury signed two memoranda for the files explaining that during his tenure OLC had determined that certain legal propositions previously stated in ten OLC opinions issued between 2001 and 2003 concerning executive power in the War on Terror no longer reflected the views of OLC and "should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose" and further explaining that some of the underlying opinions had been withdrawn or superseded and that "caution should be exercised" by the Executive Branch "before relying in other respects" on the other opinions that had not been superseded or withdrawn.[6][7]

Background

Bradbury was born in 1958 in Portland, Oregon, the youngest of four children. His father died when he was 11 months old, and his mother raised him by working nights and ironing clothes for 75 cents an hour to supplement their Social Security income. He attended Washington High School in Portland from 1972 to 1976 where he was student body president his senior year.[8] Bradbury was the first in his family to graduate from college. He graduated from Stanford University in 1980 with a major in English. After working in publishing and as a legal assistant in New York in the early 1980s, Bradbury graduated from the University of Michigan Law School, where he received his J.D., magna cum laude, in 1988. He was Article Editor for the Michigan Law Review and Order of the Coif.

From 1988 to 1990, Bradbury worked as an associate at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. In 1990-1991, he served as a law clerk to Judge James L. Buckley on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. After working as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel, 1991-1992, he served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States, 1992-1993.[9]

Following his clerkship for Justice Thomas, Bradbury practiced law with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C., first as an associate from 1993 to 1994 and then as a partner from 1994 to 2004. In 1998, Bradbury was named one of the top 40 lawyers under 40 by Washingtonian magazine.[10] In his law practice at Kirkland & Ellis, he focused on antitrust (both mergers and litigation), securities law (including both class action litigation and regulatory investigations), and various other regulatory, constitutional, and commercial litigation matters, both at the trial and appellate levels. In April 2004, Bradbury left private practice to join OLC as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith.

Following his term in OLC, Bradbury returned to private practice as a partner at Dechert LLP in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in antitrust, securities litigation, general commercial litigation, and appellate matters.[11]

References
^ "Webb opens, closes vacant Senate session". CNN. December 26, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/26/senate.pro.forma/index.html.
^ Office of Legal Counsel. "Memoranda and Opinions". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdoj.gov%2Folc%2Fopinions.htm&date=2009-04-22.
^ Steven G. Bradbury, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., C. Kevin Marshall (2004-08-24). "WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT: MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL". Office of Legal Counsel. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdoj.gov%2Folc%2Fsecondamendment2.pdf&date=2009-04-22.
^ See 554 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2753 (2008). A review of the opinion for the Court in Heller reveals that it closely tracks the August 2004 OLC opinion in both the structure and substance of its legal analysis. The OLC opinion featured prominently in the amicus brief filed by the United States in Heller.
^ Mark Mazzetti; Scott Shane (April 16, 2009). "Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
^ "Department of Justice Releases Nine Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda and Opinions". United States Department of Justice. 2009-03-09. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdoj.gov%2Fopa%2Fpr%2F2009%2FMarch%2F09-ag-181.html&date=2009-04-22.
^ "Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 2009-04-22. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usdoj.gov%2Fopa%2Fdocuments%2Folc-memos.htm&date=2009-04-22.
^ Duin, Steve (April 24, 2008). "Once upon a time at WaHi". The Oregonian. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1208996721180240.xml&coll=7. Retrieved March 24, 2010.
^ article
^ Washingtonian (Sept. 1998), pp. 120-21.
^ "Dechert LLP Lawyer Profile: Steven Bradbury". Dechert LLP. http://www.dechert.com/lawyers/lawyers.jsp?pg=detail&id=10955.


Order of the Coif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Coif

The Order of the Coif is an honor society for United States law school graduates. A student at an American law school who earns a Juris Doctor degree and graduates in the top 10 percent of his or her class is eligible for membership if the student's law school has a chapter of the Order.


Membership

According to the organization's constitution, "The purpose of The Order is to encourage excellence in legal education by fostering a spirit of careful study, recognizing those who as law students attained a high grade of scholarship, and honoring those who as lawyers, judges and teachers attained high distinction for their scholarly or professional accomplishments."[1]

The exact induction process varies by law school, but students are generally notified of their membership after the final class ranks at their schools are announced. A new member receives a certificate of membership, a badge of membership for wear during academic ceremonies, a Coif key, and in some cases an actual coif or a representation of one.

The basic requirement for membership is ranking in the top 10% of a member school's graduating class. If a member law school graduates fewer than 30 students, it may induct its top three students. A school can decide not to allow an otherwise eligible student to receive the honor, and may impose additional requirements for membership beyond the organization's national requirement of being in the top 10% of the class.[2]

Each member school may also induct a faculty member and one honorary member each year.[3] The national organization's executive committee may also elect a limited number of honorary members.[4] Those chosen for honorary membership are usually United States Supreme Court justices and other preeminent members of the legal profession.[5]

Notable members
Jim Bacchus
Elizabeth Warren
Warren E. Burger
Warren Christopher
Ann Coulter
Roger Groot
Richard Nixon
Kathleen M. O'Malley
Robert G. Pugh
Diane Wood
Barbara, Lady Judge

Chapters

As of 2011, 81 of 199 United States law schools accredited by the American Bar Association to award the J.D. degree had Order of the Coif chapters. [6] [7] In that year, all but five of the top fifty law schools, as ranked by U.S. News, were member schools. [8] [9] The others, Boston University School of Law, Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, George Mason University School of Law, and Notre Dame Law School, have never applied for a chapter.[citation needed] Notre Dame and Columbia are ineligible because they do not rank the top 10% of their graduating class by grade point average,[citation needed] which the order's constitution requires.

For a law school to establish a chapter, the school must apply for a charter. If the organization's executive committee determines, after considering the law school's written submissions and its own investigation (which may include an examination of the school by a visitation team), that the applicant merits a chapter, it will submit the application for a vote by the existing chapters. A charter for a new chapter requires approval by 80% of the existing chapters.[10]

Criteria considered when a law school applies for a chapter of the Order include: (1) American Bar Association and Association of American Law Schools approval; (2) at least ten years of existence as a law school; (3) affiliation with a university; (4) if a part-time J.D. program exists, the part-time program must offer students and faculty affiliated with the part-time program the same scholarship opportunities as all other students and faculty; (5) a stimulating intellectual environment for the study of law; (6) commitment of the university and law school administration to quality legal education; (7) faculty scholarship and institutional support for same; (8) a diverse educational program; (9) a diverse student body with strong academic credentials; (10) a law library that will support and encourage research activity; and (11) appropriate physical facilities.[11]

A law school can also be removed from the Order if a two-thirds majority of member schools agrees to bring the matter to a vote and a four-fifths majority (excluding the school in question) then votes to remove the school.

The University of Illinois established the first Order of the Coif chapter in 1902. [12]

References
^ Constitution 2.2.
^ Constitution 5.1–5.2.
^ Constitution 5.3–5.4(a).
^ Constitution 5.4(b).
^ Order of the Coif, National Honorary Members.
^ http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools.html
^ http://www.orderofthecoif.org/COIF-members.htm
^ http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
^ http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2
^ Constitution 4.1.
^ Order of the Coif, Criteria and Procedures for Establishing a Chapter (2003).
^ http://www.orderofthecoif.org/COIF-history.htm
Michael Herz, Coif Comes to Cardozo, Cardozo Life (Spring 1999) (includes information on the order's history).
Order of the Coif, Constitution (2003) [cited herein as Constitution]. Retrieved January 2, 2010.
Frank R. Strong, Order of the Coif: English Antecedents and American Adaptation, 63 A.B.A. J. 1725, 1726 (1977).
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hey Bradbury...go f yourself. Move to North Korea, what the hell are you even doing in this country? You obviously have sworn some secret 'Order of the Coif' oath to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America. In case anyone thinks I am off base, please read the following which provides a direct causal link to the rape, torture, and mass murder of thousands of innocent people in the US and abroad. And when you read it, please understand that the article is written on a website that is fricking promoting waterboarding so no one can claim bias. Bradbury is an obvious worshipper of Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, General Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. He has absolutely no clue what the United States is all about and is a clear and present danger to our national security. How the F does this guy get a prime roll in debating justification for the mass murder of US Citizens?

This is on equal footing to Charles Manson being a star witness in a debate on abortion utilizing his experience in the aborting of Sharon Tate's child as empirical evidence to justify abortions as a good thing.

THIS STAR WITNESS IS A FRICKING WAR CRIMINAL AND OVERTLY OBVIOUS TRAITOR TO THE US AND HUMANITY IN GENERAL!



'Legal' Justification for Waterboarding
http://waterboarding.org/success_story

The release of Office of Legal Counsel documents offers more than just the first authoritative description of waterboarding procedure. In the memos, OLC lawyers Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury offer the Bush Administration's legal justification for the practice. Specifically, whether waterboarding "would violate the prohibition against torture found at Section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code", the legal definition. Bybee and Bradbury explain that waterboarding is not an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" because:

p16: Interrogators may claim they don't "specifically intend" to harm prisoners if experts tell them that waterboarding does not cause physical or mental pain or suffering. Experts can tell them this because...
p.11: Drowning cannot be described as "physical pain" and therefore does not cause "pain and suffering". (Irrelevant: USC 2340A prohibits "physical or mental pain or suffering".)
p.11: "Suffering" only occurs for "a protracted period of time", and the duration of waterboarding is not "protracted" enough.
p.17: Military SERE trainees do not experience "negative long-term mental health consequences" during training by fellow military. Therefore real prisoners in real interrogations can't be expected to experience long-term mental health consequences either.
Below the fold is an annotated summary of the opinion of Jay Bybee and the 2002 Office of Legal Counsel. Readers are encouraged to make up their own minds whether their argument is persuasive.

Jay S. Bybee, August 1, 2002: Memo for John Rizzo, Acting Counsel for the CIA
"Our advice is based on the following facts..." (p.1)

The answer in this memo is "based upon the facts ... which you have provided to us", that he assumes the Administration does not "have any facts in your posession contrary to the facts outlined here", and that "if these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply". If the reality or assumptions of the memo are not accurate, the memo's conclusion may not be valid.
"prolonged mental harm" (p.6-8):
"what effect, if any, these techniques would have on Zubaydah's mental health."

Bybee thinks waterboarding does not produce "prolonged mental harm" because it has "been used and continue[s ] to be used on some members of our military personnel during their SERE training", that "these techniques have been used ... without any reported incident of prolonged mental harm". "On-site psychologists who have extensive experience with the use of the waterboard in Navy training have not encountered any significant long-term mental health consequences from its use." The memo presents Zubaydah as a good candidate for waterboarding because, "Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from your proposed interrogation methods." He is "remarkably resilient and confident that he can overcome adversity."
"severe physical or mental pain or suffering" (p.9,10,11):
"At issue is whether ... those using these procedures would have the requisite mental state and whether these procedures would inflict severe pain or suffering within the meanjng of the statute."
Physical:

Because waterboarding "does not inflict actual physical harm ... although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain". Drowning is terrifying and profoundly unpleasant, but not technically painful. And because "the waterboard inflicts no physical pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not inflict 'pain and suffering'". And even if "suffering" were separately prohibited, the "controlled acute episode" does not occur for a protracted period of time and should therefore not be considered suffering.

Mental:

Mental pain is defined by Section 2340 as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" various "predicate acts". Bybee addresses each of these acts.

Prohibited harm may result from "a threat of imminent death" or "physical pain or suffering". Because waterboarding does not produce physical pain or suffering, it cannot produce mental pain or suffering. "Use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death" and "fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute", however that threat must produce prolonged mental harm lasting months or years. Because willing SERE trainees don't experience prolonged mental harm from their trainers, Bybee does not "anticipate that prolonged mental harm would result from use of the waterboard" by an unwilling prisoner's interrogators.

Prohibited harm may also result from "a threat of severe physical pain or suffering", and Bybee concedes that the proposed treatment may "cause a reasonable person to believe that he is being threatened with severe pain or suffering". But the statute only says that the act must actually cause the harm, and because Bybee hasn't seen evidence indicating that it would, he concludes that it wouldn't.
Specific Intent: (p.16-17)

Interrogators must "expressly intend to cause ... severe pain or suffering". "If a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." If an interrogator "has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering" the treatment is reasonable, and "an honest belief need not be reasonable", since otherwise reasonable doubt can be trumped by "reliance on the advice of experts".

"The constant presence of personnel with medical training ... indicates that it is not your intent to cause severe physical pain." I.E. someone cannot intend to cause pain if there is a doctor standing near them.

"Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of a sustained duration - months or even years after the acts were inflicted." Even if such harm actually results, "a good faith belief can negate this element".

Because American military trainees experience a "full course of conduct to resemble a real interrogation" during SERE training, and "use of these methods together or separately ... has not resulted in any negative long-term mental health consequences", the people who use these techniques in real interrogations against real prisoners cannot be intending to cause harm.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
WTF? This guy gave the Keynote address at the following Harvard symposium last year:


Cybersecurity: Law, Privacy, and Warfare in a Digital World
Harvard University
March 4, 2011

http://harvardnsj.org/2011/03/1979/
12:00pm – 6:30pm
View video archive at http://harvardnsj.com/live/

Lunch Provided

12:00-1:00: The Future of the Internet – A Lunchtime Debate

Jonathan Zittrain – Professor, Harvard Law School and Professor of Computer Science, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Stewart Baker – Former General Counsel, National Security Agency

1:15-2:45: Privacy Concerns in Cybersecurity Panel

Kevin Bankston – Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Dr. Joel Brenner – Former National Counterintelligence Executive

Dr. Richard Falkenrath – Principal, Chertoff Group and former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor

David Hoffman – Director of Security and Privacy Policy, Intel Corporation

Susan Landau – Elizabeth S. and Richard M. Cashin Fellow, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Moderator

3:00-4:30: Defense and Deterrence in Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare Panel

Steven Chabinsky – Deputy Assistant Director, Cyber Division, FBI

Duncan Hollis – Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law

Martin Libicki – Senior Management Scientist, RAND Corporation

Noah Shachtman – Contributing Editor, Wired magazine and Non-resident Fellow, Brookings Institution

Eric Rosenbach – Adjunct Lecturer and Director of National Security Project, Harvard Kennedy School, Moderator

5:00-6:30: Keynote Address by Steven G. Bradbury

Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel


Sponsored by the Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy Fund

Yup, there is no conspiracy between NGO's like Brookings, genocidal non-profits like RAND, the FBI, major universities, and the Josef Mengeles of our time to manufacture narratives and mythology for society with a focus on cyberspace false flag operations.

Move along, nothing to see.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately