Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

...it seems fairly certain George W. Bush ordered, in writing, that the CIA torture people.

The NYT Company reports, through its subsidiary the International Herald Tribune, that the memo from Bush to CIA actually said what I concluded it did.  From the article:

The contents of the documents were not revealed, but one document, as described by the ACLU, is "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees."

I'm not sure what the source of the factual support is, though we (or at least I) have not seen the document production requests in issue.  

Why is that important?  A look back at the CIA letter indicates that they respond in that letter to two requests by number (I think they're #22 and #68 or 69).  Normal civil discovery practice, particularly in extended discovery disputes in extensive cases (like this one), is that one party, here ACLU, sends discovery requests, and the other party responds by saying "#37.  Appended are documents "A", "B", and "C".  Documents "M" and "N" are responsive, but excluded from discovery because of privilege(s)."  Then one goes on to discuss the general outlines of what documents "M" and "N" are, their provenance, etc., and which privileges allegedly apply.  It's called a privilege log.

So, it may well be that request #68 or #69 asked for (something like) "all directives from Bush to any agency of the government which allow or direct the establishment of any facilities anywhere for the detention of any persons...."  or something very similar.*  If so, then the admission that such a document exists (which is what the CIA and gov't fought - only relenting when the 2d Cir. told them to give it up - to avoid making in the first place) is tantamount to saying "yes, there is a smoking gun in Bush's hand.  But we won't let you see what make, model and serial number."  We'd have to see the discovery request - but I strongly doubt the IHT/NYT Co. or the ACLU would say what's in the article, if the discovery request didn't support it.

So, my conclusion stands.

Now, why was this published in the IHT and not the NYT?

Only in bushworld is a chain of command allowed to escape punishment for authorizing actions carried out by subordinates.

This alone has irreparably damaged our credibility with the world.