I still find it absolutely shocking that the use of torture could have been officially 'sanctioned' under/by Bush. I'm also not clear about the legal basis for 'authorising' it. Does it really just depend on the whim of the President? I'd be grateful if any legal eagles could explain.
The decision at the moment not to prosecute the officials in charge is interesting and will no doubt not be accepted anytime soon.
Torture is a big topic in the media again following Obama's release of memos relating to treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/20/waterboarding-alqaida-khalid-sheikh-mohammed
I still find it absolutely shocking that the use of torture could have been officially 'sanctioned' under/by Bush. I'm also not clear about the legal basis for 'authorising' it. Does it really just depend on the whim of the President? I'd be grateful if any legal eagles could explain.
The decision at the moment not to prosecute the officials in charge is interesting and will no doubt not be accepted anytime soon.