From the guardian...
A torturer's charter
So torture is fine then, just so long as it's against the war on terror.... another victory for the human race.
-how.
A torturer's charter
Stafford-Smith is acting for some of the Guantánamo prisoners, challenging the conditions in which they are being held. The US supreme court is expected to give its ruling before the end of this month. Rumsfeld's classified document, drawn up by US government lawyers, bears directly on the case. It argues that American interrogators can ignore US domestic law banning torture, because it would restrict the president's powers in his "war on terror".
The document, drawn up last year, says that "criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" over "the conduct of war". It adds: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the prohibition of torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogators undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority".
Interrogators can appeal to the defence of "necessity" - in other words, they can argue that torturing individuals is needed to prevent greater harm or evil such as threats to the safety of the nation. And the concept of "self-defence" is given the widest possible interpretation, referring to the nation rather than any individual.
The document, on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law.
So torture is fine then, just so long as it's against the war on terror.... another victory for the human race.
-how.