Torture Can Be Hazzardous To Your Health.

[Guest guest]

http://www.americanprogress.org/

 

ABUSE OF POWER

Memo Legitimizes Torture, Puts President Above Law

 

According to news reports, a draft of a March 2003 memo on interrogation methods

by Pentagon lawyers advised U.S. government officials to disregard the Geneva

Conventions and the Army's own Field Manual for intelligence interrogation,

after " commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with

conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners. "

 

 

 

A team of administration lawyers concluded in the draft prepared for Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld " that President Bush was not bound by either an

international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law

because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique

needed to protect the nation's security. "

 

The contents of the draft, obtained by the WSJ, calls into question

administration claims about Abu Ghraib, and suggest methods used there may have

been sanctioned by the White House at the highest levels.

 

MEMO SETS FRAMEWORK FOR TORTURE: According to the WSJ, the report seeks

effectively to legitimize torture, first by defining it in exceptionally narrow

terms, then by advising government officials on how to avoid prosecution, even

should they violate those terms.

 

The memo argues " 'The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is

physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture…Such suffering must be

'severe,' the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to

suggest it 'must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult

for the subject to endure.' "

 

Having defined torture as such—a definition at odds with the Army manual's

prohibition of " The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure

to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind, " —the Pentagon memo goes on to

suggest government officials could argue " necessity " justified methods that did

amount to torture.

 

Citing a legal text, the Pentagon's lawyers wrote, " In particular, the necessity

defense can justify the intentional killing of one person ... so long as the

harm avoided is greater. " Keep in mind, the Convention Against Torture flatly

states, " No exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a

justification of torture. "

 

MEMO CITES NUREMBERG FOR JUSTIFICATION: According to the memo, civilian or

military personnel accused of torture can also defend themselves by citing

" 'superior orders,' sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense. "

 

The term " Nuremberg Defense " was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes

trials at Nuremberg after World War II: the Tribunal's Principle IV implies a

subject can defend himself against charges of committing atrocities and war

crimes if he proves there was no " moral choice…in fact possible to him. "

 

Army Private Lynndie England, facing a court-martial for being photographed with

naked Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, has already used this defense: she told a

Denver TV station she had been ordered " by persons in higher rank to 'stand

there, hold this leash, look at the camera,' and they took pictures for PsyOps

(psychological operations). "

 

MEMO EXEMPTS PRESIDENT FROM LAW: According to the WSJ, at the " core " of the memo

is the exceptional argument that " the president, despite domestic and

international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as

commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions

during interrogation, up to and including torture. "

 

But the memo goes even further: not only can the president approve interrogation

techniques as he sees fit, but " To protect subordinates should they be charged

with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a 'presidential directive or

other writing' that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the

laws is 'inherent in the president.' " Reportedly over the objections of some

military lawyers, one lawyer who helped prepare the report said the authors

" sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of

torture -- to assert 'presidential power at its absolute apex.' "

 

PATTERN OF SANCTIONING TORTURE: The March 2003 memo is just " the latest internal

legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid

restrictions imposed by international and American law. "

 

It came on the heels of a 2002 Justice Department memo advising the White House

" that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad 'may be justified,' and

that international laws against torture 'may be unconstitutional if applied to

interrogations' conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism. "

 

That memo, reportedly written in response to requests by lawyers at the CIA for

" an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by

the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives, " said torture

" must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical

injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. "

 

Newsweek reported last month on internal administration documents indicating " a

bold legal framework " was created to justify systems of interrogation, including

" methods that the Red Cross concluded were 'tantamount to torture.' "

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger