http://www.vanityfair.com/poli…..ntPage=all

The words “security reasons” reminded me of remarks by Jim Haynes at the press conference with Gonzales: “Military necessity can sometimes allow … warfare to be conducted in ways that might infringe on the otherwise applicable articles of the Convention.” Haynes provided no legal authority for that proposition, and none exists. The minimum rights of detainees guaranteed by Geneva and the torture convention can never be overridden by claims of security or other military necessity. That is their whole purpose.

G’nite, YDJ

G’nite, newton

G’nite, ES

G’nite, CT

G’nite moon…..

Off to bed myself

and YDJ, thanks for that great quote. woo-hoo!

I think it’s a real possibility. The judge and the prosecutor have asked me for all of my materials. They were not aware of the details. They were not aware of the immunity that had been granted. And I think what it does do, at the very least, is expose some of these individuals, including the lawyers who form part of what I’ve called the torture team, to the possibility of investigation, if they set foot—well, they’re going to be investigated irrespective of whether or not they set foot outside of the United States—the possibility of the tap on the shoulder, what happened to Senator Pinochet when he was in London, I think becomes a real risk in relation to some of the individuals at the top.

Yes on the hiccup, CT.

G’ night all fabulous firedogs.. Don’t be a stranger YDJ.