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