DOJ Letters Detail Bush Admin's Efforts to Legalize Torture

Bush administration efforts to justify the use of harsh interrogation tactics were spelled out in a series of Department of Justice letters requested by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D). According to the New York Times (4/27):

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

While the Geneva Conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity," a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

"The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act," said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
...

Helen Thomas Questions Bush Admin on Use of Torture

Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asks the White House to reconcile contradictory statements on the approval of and use of torture:

Q The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hillfully in this regard, and it is -- I'll leave it where it is. The President isaccurate in saying what he said.

Q That's not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture --

MS. PERINO: Because we do not.

Q -- when he really did know that we do?

MS. PERINO: No, that's what I mean, Helen. We've talked about the legal authorities --

Q Are you saying that we did not?

MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes.

Q How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?

MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you're -- again, I think you're conflating some issues and you're misconstruing what the President said.

Q I'm asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.

MS. PERINO: And what I'm telling you is we have -- torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure -- I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said.

Q You're denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that.

Letter to the Editor: Seeking Accountability for Bush Admin's Torture Policies

A letter to the editor from Human Rights First President Michael Posner appears in today's New York Times:

Those Leaders Who Enable Torture

To the Editor:

Re “The Torture Sessions” (editorial, April 20):

You say that it will take a new president and Congress to finally see accountability on torture. With America’s global leadership and moral authority on the line, nine months is too long to wait.

Fortunately, the remaining presidential candidates are all on record opposing torture and official cruelty. Anyone who followed the early presidential debates — when many of the candidates sought to outdo one another on who was more in favor of abusive interrogation — knows that this outcome was not a given.

Human Rights First has had the privilege over the last few years of working with a growing number of retired senior military leaders to share their messages with candidates and the public. They believe, as we do, that human rights and national security are mutually reinforcing, and that resort to torture and cruel treatment is wrong and counterproductive.

The presidential candidates seem to have gotten the message. But ultimately, it is up to the American people to keep the pressure on all of our current and future elected officials to demand an end to torture and abuse.

Michael Posner
President, Human Rights First
New York, April 21, 2008

The New York Times Calls for Accountability

Editorial
The Torture Sessions

Published: April 20, 2008

Ever since Americans learned that American soldiers and intelligence agents were torturing prisoners, there has been a disturbing question: How high up did the decision go to ignore United States law, international treaties, the Geneva Conventions and basic morality?

The answer, we have learned recently, is that — with President Bush’s clear knowledge and support — some of the very highest officials in the land not only approved the abuse of prisoners, but participated in the detailed planning of harsh interrogations and helped to create a legal structure to shield from justice those who followed the orders.

We have long known that the Justice Department tortured the law to give its Orwellian blessing to torturing people, and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a list of ways to abuse prisoners. But recent accounts by ABC News and The Associated Press said that all of the president’s top national security advisers at the time participated in creating the interrogation policy: Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Rumsfeld; Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser; Colin Powell, the secretary of state; John Ashcroft, the attorney general; and George Tenet, the director of central intelligence.

These officials did not have the time or the foresight to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq or the tenacity to complete the hunt for Osama bin Laden. But they managed to squeeze in dozens of meetings in the White House Situation Room to organize and give legal cover to prisoner abuse, including brutal methods that civilized nations consider to be torture.

Mr. Bush told ABC News this month that he knew of these meetings and approved of the result.

Those who have followed the story of the administration’s policies on prisoners may not be shocked. We have read the memos from the Justice Department redefining torture, claiming that Mr. Bush did not have to follow the law, and offering a blueprint for avoiding criminal liability for abusing prisoners.

The amount of time and energy devoted to this furtive exercise at the very highest levels of the government reminded us how little Americans know, in fact, about the ways Mr. Bush and his team undermined, subverted and broke the law in the name of saving the American way of life.

We have questions to ask, in particular, about the involvement of Ms. Rice, who has managed to escape blame for the catastrophic decisions made while she was Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, and Mr. Powell, a career Army officer who should know that torture has little value as an interrogation method and puts captured Americans at much greater risk. Did they raise objections or warn of the disastrous effect on America’s standing in the world? Did anyone?

Mr. Bush has sidestepped or quashed every attempt to uncover the breadth and depth of his sordid actions. Congress is likely to endorse a cover-up of the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized after 9/11, and we are still waiting, with diminishing hopes, for a long-promised report on what the Bush team really knew before the Iraq invasion about those absent weapons of mass destruction — as opposed to what it proclaimed.

At this point it seems that getting answers will have to wait, at least, for a new Congress and a new president. Ideally, there would be both truth and accountability. At the very minimum the public needs the full truth.

Some will call this a backward-looking distraction, but only by fully understanding what Mr. Bush has done over eight years to distort the rule of law and violate civil liberties and human rights can Americans ever hope to repair the damage and ensure it does not happen again.

Top Ten Signs We Finally Have an Anti-Torture President

It’s bad enough to see torture glamorized on TV.

What's worse is that we now know that torture was choreographed from inside the White House.

Fortunately, the remaining presidential candidates are on record opposing torture. For April Fools' Day -- and in honor of seeing one of the anti-torture candidates appear on The Late Show with David Letterman – we asked our activists to come up with the top 10 signs we’ll know next January that we in fact have a President who opposes torture. Here’s the top ten list they came up with, presented by none other than Jack Bauer:

This top ten list is funny, but torture is no laughing matter. It not only harms its victims, it undermines our national security and our country’s values. Join us in putting an end to torture and official cruelty. Visit http://www.endtorture08.org/ and sign the petition calling on the presidential candidates to restore America’s honor.

The Pope Condemns Torture

Pope Benedict XVI's first official visit to the United States provides a good opportunity to remind us of his clear opposition to torture. On September 7, 2007, the Pope said, "I reiterate that the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstances."

Supreme Disagreement on Torture

Finally, one of Justice Scalia's colleagues takes on his defense of torture. The AP has the story.

Breyer cites Israeli court decision outlawing torture

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, frequently on opposite sides of controversial cases, have shared a stage to debate their contrasting views of the Constitution.

Now, Breyer has weighed in on the debate over harsh interrogation techniques, obliquely taking issue with Scalia's recent remarks suggesting that aggressive interrogations could be appropriate when an act of terrorism was imminent.

Breyer approvingly cited a 9-year-old Israeli court decision outlawing torture in a talk Tuesday to a Washington gathering of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Israeli Supreme Court effectively said that, in a country that has dealt with many terrorist attacks, "'we understand why someone might want to engage in this activity, but we are judges and if we are judges, no torture,'" Breyer said. "Absolutely none."

The justice made clear he was not talking about U.S. courts or what the outcome would be if the Supreme Court were asked to rule on aggressive interrogations as part of the fight against terrorism. Legal analysts believe such a case could make its way to the high court in the next year or two.

In February, Scalia told a BBC interviewer that an absolute ban on inflicting pain as part of an interrogation was misguided.

"It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia said during a visit to London.

Last year, he defended fictional TV counter-terror agent Jack Bauer for getting physical to thwart an attack.

"Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so," Scalia said. "So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

The Israeli court also acknowledged that someone who tortured a suspect to reveal the location of a ticking bomb might not be punished for it, but he would have to stand trial and a court would have to accept the argument that physical force was necessary.

Unemployed

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is having trouble finding a job. The New York Times reports that his resume now includes "a frayed reputation" due to his role in the U.S. Attorney scandal and his lack of candor in testimony about the warrantless wiretapping program. His demonstrated skills in undermining the Geneva Conventions apparently aren't in demand either.

Principals Lacking Principles

ABC reports that torture was choreographed from the White House in "principals" meetings that included then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. These principals:

signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

While Aschcroft reportedly approved of the use the techniques authorized by the group, his take on the consequences of his actions seems prescient:

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Haynes to Cooperate with Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry

Newsweek reports that William Haynes, the former general counsel at the Pentagon who had a key role in crafting policies that led to torture and abuse at Guantanamo and beyond, has agreed to be interviewed as part of an ongoing Senate Armed Services Committee probe. We hope that Mr. Haynes' testimony --- and the report of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- will be made public as soon as possible. Last week's release of the 2003 Yoo memo provides yet more evidence that torture and other cruelty were the result of official policy decisions made at the highest levels of the Bush administration; however, so far, only the low-level implementers of this torture policy been held accountable for their crimes. A Senate Armed Services Committee investigation is an important step toward justice and accountability.

"Near Boilerplate"

That's how John Yoo describes the legal advice he gave to the President. In an 81-page memo, Yoo claimed that executive power in wartime is virtually unlimited and that laws banning torture simply don't apply. The (finally) declassified memo is available here and here. Just how far from "boilerplate" was this memo?

The Office of Legal Counsel is responsible for providing competent and objective advice to the president on questions of federal and international law. But the legal framework invented by John Yoo did not in fact follow the law. His argument that the president’s commander-in-chief authority trumps all law was a carefully-crafted, results-oriented effort to authorize violations of laws and treaties prohibiting torture and to immunize CIA and military interrogators from prosecution for war crimes.

Yoo’s assertion that necessity and self-defense may justify a violation of the Convention Against Torture, which explicitly states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” justify torture, and his failure to even mention the 4^th Geneva Convention, which protects detainees not entitled to PoW status, blatantly expose his intention to bend the law to protect lawless behavior.

That is not the job of the OLC. It is the essence of dictatorship.