<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bush’s proposed terror legacy: a legal basis for perpetual war</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2008/09/01/bushs-proposed-terror-legacy-a-legal-basis-for-perpetual-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2008/09/01/bushs-proposed-terror-legacy-a-legal-basis-for-perpetual-war/</link>
	<description>Investigative journalist, author, filmmaker and Guantanamo expert</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:40:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Worthington</title>
		<link>http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2008/09/01/bushs-proposed-terror-legacy-a-legal-basis-for-perpetual-war/comment-page-1/#comment-28488</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Worthington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=359#comment-28488</guid>
		<description>This is the opinion of “optomdoc,” who posted this reply to the article on the Huffington Post, which seems to be both chilling and accurate:

What the proposed legislation seems designed to do would be to ex post facto set forth an argument that the original legislation was intended to apply not to just those responsible for 9/11, but other organizations or associations that were not involved in 9/11.

So if you applied “enhanced interrogation” techniques against an individual who was a member of an organization or association that was not involved in 9/11, but that might know something about those that were, you could use the authorization as a defense. Otherwise, you have just committed a war crime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the opinion of “optomdoc,” who posted this reply to the article on the Huffington Post, which seems to be both chilling and accurate:</p>
<p>What the proposed legislation seems designed to do would be to ex post facto set forth an argument that the original legislation was intended to apply not to just those responsible for 9/11, but other organizations or associations that were not involved in 9/11.</p>
<p>So if you applied “enhanced interrogation” techniques against an individual who was a member of an organization or association that was not involved in 9/11, but that might know something about those that were, you could use the authorization as a defense. Otherwise, you have just committed a war crime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

