WP:Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture 'May Be Justified'

[Trajan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html

Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture 'May Be Justified'

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 13, 2004; 6:30 PM


Today washingtonpost.com is posting a copy of the Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum "Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A," from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush.

The memo was the focus of a recent article in The Washington Post.

The memo was written at the request of the CIA. The CIA wanted authority to conduct more aggressive interrogations than were permitted prior to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The interrogations were of suspected al Qaeda members whom the CIA had apprehended outside the United States. The CIA asked the White House for legal guidance. The White House asked Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for its legal opinion on the standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Office of Legal Counsel is the federal government's ultimate legal adviser. The most significant and sensitive topics that the federal government considers are often given to the OLC for review. In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations. Bybee has since become a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another memorandum, dated March 6, 2003, from a Defense Department working group convened by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to come up with new interrogation guidelines for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, incorporated much, but not all, of the legal thinking from the OLC memo. The Wall Street Journal first published the March memo.

-snip-

This seems new, from today at 6:30 PM: I didnt see it posted yet ... Mod please dele if already posted ...

[sonias]

1. I've been trying to download the copy of the memo

for a long time now. Their site must be getting hammered. Now the link is basically down. It is pretty big at 2.8Mb.

Can't wait to hear the new excuses and misinformation that will be spewed forth to explain it.

One thing for sure, bu$h will deny he ever read it.

Sonia

[LittleApple81]

2. And that will be probably the only true statement he has issued

in a long time. Somebody read it to him, or hid it from him.

[LittleApple81]

3. I just downloaded it. Try it now. n/t

[John_H]

8. Nope. The memo is the key to his "DEFENSE"

That's why he would only say, "I told them to follow the law."

It's going to come out that he OK'd torture and he's going to say (do your best chimp voice): "The 'mercan people should understand I have lawyers, and as president I got to follow their advice. If that advice was good or bad, that's for the legal community to decide. All I know is that these people I ruled on are cold blooded killers who hate freedom, who want to kill americans. It's my job to protect our citizens. Yada, yada, yada..."

[TahitiNut]

10. You can bet your sweet ass DimSon's private attorney has a copy.

The corrupt little bastard and his cronies have committed war crimes. :grr:

[LittleApple81]

4. Wow 50 page pdf file. Now I know why congresscritters have helpers

to digest all this type of stuff.

[John_H]

5. What the fuck does this sentence mean?

"The Post deleted several lines from the memo that are not germane to the legal arguments being made in it and that are the subject of further reporting by The Post."

Does it mean "The Post deleted several lines from the memo that are not germane to the legal arguments being made in it and would wreak political damage we do not want our fearless leader to endure?"

Or does it mean "The Post deleted several lines from the memo that are not germane to the legal arguments being made in it and that we want to save in order to string our exclusive out for a few more days."

Weird.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. truth out had them out yesterday

and it was 65 pages after I copied and pasted to computer

[John_H]

7. Anyone done a comparison? Does TO have the parts the WP cut?

[dolstein]

9. Jeez, even I can imagine situations where torture may be justified

While I suspect that the Bush administration can imagine more situations than I can, I don't think you can rule it out 100%. The situation I'm thinking of is the "24" scenario, where there's a nuclear weapon, or biological weapon set to go off in a highly populated area, and someone in custody has critical information but refuses to cooperate. Is there anyone here who would honestly say that when millions of lives are on the line, the authorities shouldn't be prepared to do everything necessary to get that information?

[TahitiNut]

11. So, then the torturer(s) can go to prison.

After all, what's a few years of prison time to such a "hero"? There is absolutely no reason to make torture legally acceptable.

[daleo]

12. Besides, in these circumstances a court would be bound to show leniency

As you say, there is absolutely no reason to make torture legal. This oft cited hypothetical is a red herring (I am not saying that many who cite this are not well meaning, though). Given a legal right to torture, any government will succumb to the temptation more and more all the time.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - what could more succinctly sum up the notion of absolute power, than the legal right to torture people.

[TahitiNut]

15. People really lose sight of the moral calculus here, I think.

If, in fact, any of these insane hypothetical scenarios were to actually happen (which I don't believe for a second), then why the fuck would any half-ways moral and ethical person not violate the law, sacrificing their freedom in order to save "millions of lives"? If that's the case, we just don't deserve to survive as a society. Indeed, such persons might really have to confront the notion - up close and personal - of whether there was "reasonable certainty" that the torture would actually be worthwhile. If they're wrong, 25 years at hard labor and no mercy. If it works, they get leniency. :shrug:

[Trajan]

14. Arent you using an extremely rare and unusual case ...

and extending it into the normal everyday ? ...

What does stuffing objects up the rectums of pitifully insignificant Iraqi prisoners have to do with saving the world from nuclear conflagration ? ..

What of the dogs and their lacerating bites ? ...

The naked human piles ? ... THIS saved the world ? ..

There isnt even the REMOTEST possibility that ANY such argument can be used in ANY instance of abuse in Abu Ghraib ...

No one begrudges you the option when absolutely necessary: yet THESE cases are no such application ...

[struggle4progress]

16. Torture really doesn't work.

If somebody really saved a city from destruction by roughing up a subject who then confessed where a nuclear bomb was hidden, you can bet:

1. No policeman would arrest the hero;
2. No grand jury would hand down a true bill;
3. No DA would charge the hero;
4. No judge would issue jury instructions unfavorable to the hero; and
5. No jury would convict the hero.

So in fact the potential hero needs no further protection at law than already available through the ordinary justice system: this indemnity would be available to such a hero, no matter how loudly our entire society says in law that it is against torture.

But be realistic in expectation: any terrorist filled with enough hate to nuke a city would likely go his grave without breaking silence.

From a political point of view, once one begins to argue that there are circumstances in which torture is acceptable, the justifications inevitably become flexible and are broaded by "good faith" exceptions: "Well, my client kicked the suspect's teeth out because he really believed the suspect had planted a bomb, but hey, the court cannot prosecute my client for making an honest mistake." A long history, around the world, shows clearly that once torture is tolerated in any case whatsoever, the categories of crime suspected and the prerequisite levels of suspicion expand, so that ultimately torture and the threat of torture poison the entire criminal justice system. This effect is seen clearly at Abu Ghraib, where the administration's rationalization of torture nourished a sadistic prison cult.

Our chances of possessing a livable world are much better if we simply adopt the view that torture is unacceptable under every circumstance. Anyone who actually finds himself in a situation where this absolute prohibition of torture seems inappropriate might disregard the law, but only under the threat of full legal penalty; this prevents casual cruelty to human beings.

[Tellurian]

13. I dunno...But we're going to see an escalation of kidnappings, torture

and killings of American citizens either employed or visiting Iraq.

This new dynamic has to be made public by a Kerry consort. Noting that because of the bungling current leadership and the mismanagement of the War, Bush has in essence put the entire country and it's citizens at risk, domestically and internationally, and should be made to step aside until an investigation can be completed.

[mumon]

17. There is a Gestapo Museum in Warsaw...

They used alot of the same tactics at first.

Bush bears command responsibility for war crimes. 'Nuff said.