Pressure Mounts for Torture Prosecutions

By
Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 10:40 am

bush-frown

When President George W. Bush wrote on February 7, 2002 that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, he took the first step down a slippery slope of legal interpretation that he and members of his administration may come to regret.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The release of the complete unclassified version of a Senate Armed Services Committee report on Tuesday, following the release last week of more Office of Legal Counsel memos that detailed the interrogation methods used by the CIA and their legal justifications, are ratcheting up the pressure on Congress, as well as on President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, to initiate more in-depth investigations that may, some experts say, ultimately lead to criminal prosecution.

On Tuesday, President Obama did not rule out that Holder might prosecute the legal architects of the abusive interrogation policies, and said he was open to a bipartisan congressional commission investigating the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques and how the policies were developed. And European and U.N. officials are increasingly saying that if the United States does not prosecute what appears to be a violation of the Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory, then European prosecutors may initiate prosecution themselves.

The release on Tuesday of the complete Senate Armed Services Committee report makes turning a blind eye to the past even more difficult. That’s because the report concludes that in many respects, Bush administration officials ignored prevailing domestic and international law and the legal advice of U.S. military lawyers in developing the abusive interrogation policies.

Among its findings, the report concludes that the use of techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads and “treating them like animals” was “at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody”; was “inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information”; “created a serious risk of physical and psychological harm to detainees”; and was justified based on legal opinions that “distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.”

Some of the facts set out in the report strongly suggest that further investigation is warranted as to whether the legal conclusions were reached in good faith by the lawyers, and whether policymakers acted reasonably in relying on them. That’s critical to the defense put forward by Bush administration officials such as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Vice President Dick Cheney, who have consistently defended the Bush administration’s conduct by saying they all reasonably relied on the good-faith advice of government lawyers.

The Senate Armed services report repeatedly calls that “good faith” into question.

“The report talks about Haynes disregarding the advice from JAGS [Judge Advocates General], and disregarding other legal opinions,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights who has been calling for years for appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. “If you’re a prosecutor, that gives you something. That questions good faith.”

The Armed Services report concludes that “leaders at GTMO … ignored warnings” from lawyers within the Defense Department and FBI that “the techniques were potentially unlawful and that their use would strengthen detainee resistance.” It adds that Chairman of Jt. Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers cut short the legal and policy review initiated by his legal counsel, which “undermined the military’s review process.” And the report finds that the conclusions reached about the legality of the interrogation techniques “followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigate Task Force.”

As one example, the report cites a meeting between Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel to the CIA’s CounterTerrorist Center, and GTMO staff about aggressive interrogation tactics. According to the meeting minutes, Fredman said that ”the language of the [torture] statutes is written vaguely … It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you’re doing it wrong.”

Bush administration critics claim the committee report and OLC memos support their claims that senior officials knowingly flouted the law and used administration lawyers to justify it.

“The consistent story is that there was high-level pressure to authorize these things,” said Alex Abdo, a legal fellow with the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “That certainly bears upon the question of whether DOJ lawyers were merely ratifying their bosses’ wishes.”

As Ratner puts it, “the facts on what they did and who they ignored in getting their legal advice is quite damning.”

The four Office of Legal Counsel memos released last week as part of a lawsuit filed against the government by the ACLU, in addition to previous legal memos released earlier, also support the view that the administration was not seeking objective legal advice, but justification of pre-ordained policies, say many legal experts.

The memos conclude, for example, that techniques such as slamming a prisoner repeatedly into a wall, confinement in a small box with insects, waterboarding up to 183 times, forced nudity in extreme hot and cold temperatures, and sleep deprivation for almost six days at a time are not only not torture, but don’t constitute even “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in a constitutional sense.

Part of the reasoning, according to the May 30, 2005 memo, is that these things were done for a legitimate governmental purpose — to thwart another terrorist attack. But legal experts say that even if there was reason to believe that such tactics would be effective — which is itself not supported by the evidence — the legal reasoning falls apart under both domestic and international law.

“There is no exigency exception to the law against torture,” says Abdo. “Even if it’s not torture, it would without a doubt be degrading and inhuman treatment. But it seems pretty inescapable that what was justified was torture. And that these lawyers should have known better. You don’t have to look very far in our history to show that waterboarding was something we prosecuted after World War II when it was used on our soldiers. So you can look at the memos and conclude this was not good-faith legal advice.”

Indeed, waterboarding has long been considered a form of torture, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and others have noted. It’s even been referred to as torture in U.S. case law, most recently when U.S. Attorneys prosecuted a local sheriff for using the tactic in Texas.

“That’s nowhere mentioned in the memo,” said Abdo. “There’s no attempt to reconcile the U.S. past position on the technique with current authority.”

As the Armed Services Committee report notes, the problem begins with Bush’s decision early on that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Although the Supreme Court eventually said he was wrong, that didn’t happen until 2006 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. But many international law scholars insist that was an unsupportable position to take even back in 2002.

Common Article 3 sets a floor,” said Carolyn Patty Blum, an emeritus law professor at Berkeley School of Law and expert on international human rights law. “You can’t go below this. It’s basic to every person, be they civilian or combatant.”

Even if it didn’t, however, there’s the Convention Against Torture, the U.S. anti-torture law, the Torture Victims Protection Act and customary international law (which the OLC memos don’t even mention), all of which define torture and have been interpreted in a body of caselaw. “If you were doing a thorough job to try to understand what torture is, you’d be drawing from a much vaster body of law that exists, that’s used by all the major courts,” said Blum. “If your goal is to get a certain result, you wouldn’t do that.”

That isn’t to say that there aren’t ways of rationalizing a wide range of acts in the name of national security.

“There is a conservative instinct to try to say among some people that anything goes as long as you’re protecting the U.S. from terorrism,” said David Golove, a law professor at New York University School of Law and expert on international law and executive power. “I think that the notion that you can use tactics like waterboarding and extended sleep deprivation and hitting people against the walls, the idea that those are tactics that can be used under any circumstances for any governmental purpose is outlandish. That’s not to say that there isn’t case law that invokes the relevant government interest, but to say that justifies this conduct” — as some of the OLC memos do — “is taking it out of context. In no way have the courts ever suggested that these sorts of extreme tactics could be justified.”

Still, even if the legal conclusions the Bush administration relied upon were wrong, were they criminal? That depends in part on how they were reached.

“There’s still a lot we don’t know, about how this all took place, how this went up and down the chain of command,” said Blum. “Based on what we know now, it would indicate that the Department of Justice would be derelict in its duties to not follow the evidence where it might lead and initiate some sort of criminal investigation. Both of those who perpetrated it and those who ordered it — the relationship between the lawyers who were assisting part of a criminal conspiracy. Because that’s what we’re talking about here. A criminal conspiracy to violate the U.S. law against torture.”

Comments

30 Comments

Topics about Animal-lovers » Archive » Pressure Mounts for Torture Prosecutions
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

[...] DairyBusiness added an interesting post on Pressure Mounts for Torture ProsecutionsHere’s a small excerptWhen President George W. Bush wrote on February 7, 2002 that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban [...]


Rebound Relationships » No Criminal Misconduct Found In Case Of Missing Army Vials : dBTechno Criminal News Stories
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

[...] The Washington Independent ? Pressure Mounts for Torture Prosecutions By Daphne Eviatar ?Based on what we know now, it would indicate that the Department of Justice would be derelict in its duties to not follow the evidence where it might lead and initiate some sort of criminal investigation. Both of those who perpetrated … The Washington Independent – http://washingtonindependent.com/ [...]


Topics about Army » Blog Archive » Pressure Mounts for Torture Prosecutions
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

[...] BlueDogJewellery.com placed an interesting blog post on Pressure Mounts for Torture ProsecutionsHere’s a brief overview“followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal… [...]


"Good faith" questionable « Later On
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

[...] in Bush Administration, Daily life, GOP, Government, Law, Torture at 11:50 am by LeisureGuy From a story by Daphne Eviatar: … Some of the facts set out in the report strongly suggest that further [...]


Alter: Bybee ‘pretty clearly, by some lights,’ violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. | Dailycensored.com
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

[...] Bush administration’s illegal acts of torture (a congressional or independent truth commission or criminal prosecutions), a third option also exists: impeachment. Alter noted that Federal Judge Jay Bybee is the only [...]


linkfeedr » Blog Archive » Pressure Mounts - RSS Indexer (beta)
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

[...] its work before moving forward with any sort of congressional “truth commission,” pressure is mounting for action to be [...]


Pressure Mounts | News Fu
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

[...] before moving forward with any sort of congressional “truth commission,” pressure is mounting for action to be taken: The release of the complete unclassified version of a Senate Armed Services [...]


Alter: Bybee ‘pretty clearly, by some lights,’ violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. | No Bull. news service.
Pingback posted April 24, 2009 @ 12:24 am

[...] administration’s illegal acts of torture (a congressional or independent truth commission or criminal prosecutions), a third option also exists: impeachment. Alter noted that Federal Judge Jay Bybee is the only [...]


America the FREE
Comment posted April 26, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

Nice job democrats…Now we need new ways for torture to replace the intelligence you gave away.YUM YUMS


Eric
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 7:22 am

Are there no prosecutor's independent enough to handle an investigation? Does there need to be further public evidence that crimes have been committed? OK then, is the hold-up just cowardice? All three questions answer themselves.


Hawaiian style
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 11:02 am

When do we get a special prosecutor? We certainly got one when the Repubs wanted to embarrass Clinton.

But now when the reputation of the US is at stake in the world we are stalling???

Spengler said civilization moves Westward. Boy it sure looks like we are slipping. A nation of laws???
A nation of politics is more like it.

We are a nation that tortures. My father would be so astounded and indignant he would not even be able to speak. He saw the two “great wars”, and was a real patriot.

Do SOMETHING. HELP THE US REGAIN HER REPUTATION AND THE HELL WITH POLITICS.


jonboy
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

Bush ,Blair and their fellow liars must face trial for war crimes during the Iraq war that was declared illegal by the UN secretary general.
Check out and vote at , Blairfoundation.wordpress.com


KellyLogan
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

Excellent article – I hope the few comments here are indications of the larger number of readers who are contacting their representatives and calling for an investigation instead. :^)


autumnight
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 2:24 am

Was the bush/cheney torture festival criminal? Does a bear poop in the woods??????


Robert
Comment posted May 31, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

Please see the following links for more on the SASC report and its methodology:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/04…


Robert
Comment posted June 1, 2009 @ 1:37 am

Please see the following links for more on the SASC report and its methodology:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/04…


bestcbstore
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

Underground Punter….Digging The Darkest, Untold Betting Secrets…


Discount Louis Vuitton
Comment posted August 20, 2010 @ 8:56 am

When do we get a special prosecutor? We certainly got one when the Repubs wanted to embarrass Clinton.


pet rats
Trackback posted August 23, 2011 @ 8:38 pm

hairless rats…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…


bag color blue
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 10:15 pm

usa adapter plug…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…


Irrigation System Maintenance
Trackback posted August 26, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

Irrigation System Maintenance…

Wonderful story thought I want to track-back to this, FYI did you learn about Bahrain have much more complications as well…


Nursing Scholarships for Minorities
Trackback posted August 31, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Netflix…

[...]here are some references to online websites that we connect to since we believe they really are seriously worth checking out[...]…


High Protein Low Carb Diet
Trackback posted September 1, 2011 @ 1:45 am

Miss America 2011…

[...]listed below are a handful of listings to websites that we connect to seeing as we think they really are worthy of browsing[...]…


Snoring Solutions
Trackback posted September 4, 2011 @ 1:20 am

Fast Snoring Cures…

[...]in cases where that topic might be important to you personally, you can enjoy this web site[...]…


ecommerce solutions
Trackback posted September 4, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

Ecommerce solutions and web design for business…

[...]some great sites worth visiting are listed below[...]…


Stop sweating and start living scam
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:52 am

Stop sweat fast…

[...]these sites are really worth a look im sure you will agree they are top class[...]…


coffret cadeau auchan
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 10:24 am

What i do not understood is in fact how you are now not actually much more well-preferred than you may be now. You are so intelligent. You understand thus significantly in terms of this subject, produced me individually believe it from a lot of varied angles. Its like men and women are not involved unless it is something to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding. All the time deal with it up!


Netflix
Trackback posted September 6, 2011 @ 10:32 pm

Netflix…

[...]the following are a couple of url links to places that we connect to seeing that we think these are seriously worth visiting[...]…


2358295
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

2358295 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.