Justice Approved "Harsh" Interrogations
We know that in 2002 Department of Justice wrote an exception to the Geneva Conventions.
Now, thanks to a FOI fight initiated in 2004 by the ACLU and allied organizations, the White House has released the 2003 torture document written by John C. Yoo, then the second-highest ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel.
Yoo's definition of torture deviates from the Geneva Conventions, not surprisingly, given the precedent set in the 2002 "exemption." From the 2003 document:
The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result.
What does the Constitution say? It forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."
Moreover, Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions suggests Justice officials were out to lunch:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Backstory
The techniques developed at Gitmo were then deployed at Abu Ghraib.
In 2005, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), led a fight to "define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects." President Bush acquiesed then reversed himself in his signing statement.
In 2007, the Senate Intelligence Committee criticized Bush Administration interrogation techniques, saying that they had "damag[ed]... the image of the United States abroad." Then in December, we learned that the CIA had destroyed video tapes of interrogations.
And this year, we learned the Attorney General plans to do nothing because a DOJ memo saying that something is legal ... makes it so. From the 7 February 2008 transcript of AG Michael Mukasey's comments to Chairman John Conyers, House Judiciary Committee:
CONYERS: Well, are you ready to start a criminal investigation into whether this confirmed use of waterboarding by United States agents was illegal?
MUKASEY: That's a direct question, and I will give a direct answer.
No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then.
According to Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney, "It is outrageous that none of these high-level officials have been brought to task yet for their role in authorizing prisoner abuse."
Agreed. But I'm not holding my breath.
Related:
Calling Waterboarding What It Is: Torture
Our Lost Moral Compass
Torture & The Ticking Bomb Scenario
About Those Missing Tapes
Cheney: Yes We Used Waterboarding
Comments
I am not holding my breath either. Democrats haven’t been very challenging to the White House (and this is an understatement) to take it accountable for gross human rights violations in its War on Terror ™. The average American most probably doesn’t care either. And it is not even likely to change with the new majority: after all, the USA have a long history of disregarding, ignoring or shunning international law and agreements, Democrats and Republicans alike. This is not going to change any time soon indeed.
By the way, I suspect that US citizens don’t realize how much sympathy and support this policy has make them loose not only in the world but in traditionally allied countries.
Which Geneva Conventions are you reading? The Geneva Convictions SPECIFICALLY rule that illegal actors such as terrorists are illegal enemy combatants, and DO NOT qualify for Geneva Protections that would apply to uniformed military servicepersons, or recognized militias.
Geneva protects:
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Terrorists and terrorism suspects clearly do not meet that definition. The assumption that Geneva is in any way relevant is therefore flawed, though they no doubt are afforded other legal protections.
Hi, Bob:
And you have evidence that the “detainees” are terrorists… how, exactly?
We KNOW from research that many (most?) of the people at Gitmo were not “terrorists” in an common or probably legal sense of the word: wrong place, wrong time. Collected for bounty. etc.
And why would DOJ have written an “exception” for GitMo if it were “clear” that these prisoners were not entitled to GC?
Hi, Alphast — yes, many do not care. And Iraq, Afghanistan and Bush’s WoT have fallen off the front-page radar.
Hi Kathy,
I would go as far as saying that the foreign policy all together has fallen off the radar screen indeed.
Bob: if prisoners are members of an armed force taken in time of war or war operations, wearing a standardized uniform or not, they are POW (so that would include most Gitmo inmates coming from Afghanistan and a part of the Iraqi ones). If they are foreign citizens taken abroad in non military operations, that means they are illegal abductions. Non US citizens abroad should be judged by local tribunals or (if this is not possible) by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. If they are US citizens or foreign nationals taken on US soil, they should be tried by a normal criminal court and enjoy the normal protection of US laws and Constitution. There is no other legal alternative. In fact, the USA is now legally “paying the price” of its refusal for endorsing the ICC. Gitmo would not need to exist if the USA would respect international treaties and UN agreements.
Instead, they are forced to create a legal monster to take care of a problem they created themselves (in more meanings than one).