ACLU OBTAINS TORTURE MEMOS

[kpete]

ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods (7/24/2008)


Memo Instructed CIA To Document Both Torture Techniques And Agents Participating In Interrogations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today obtained three redacted documents related to the Bush administration's brutal interrogation policies, including a previously withheld Justice Department memo authorizing the CIA's use of torture. The government was ordered to turn over the documents in response to an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought in 2004 by the ACLU and other organizations seeking records on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas.

"These documents supply further evidence, if any were needed, that the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The Justice Department twisted the law, and in some cases ignored it altogether, in order to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes."

One of the documents obtained by the ACLU today is a redacted version of a previously undisclosed Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion from August 2002 that authorizes the CIA to use specific interrogation methods, including waterboarding. The memo states that interrogation methods that cause severe mental pain do not amount to torture under U.S. law unless they cause "harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoners." Initially, the CIA took the position that it could not confirm or deny the existence of this memo; it dropped that position after President Bush disclosed in September 2006 that the CIA had been operating detention centers overseas.

The other two documents, from 2003 and 2004, are memos from the CIA related to requests for legal advice from the Justice Department. The 2003 memo shows that CIA interrogators were authorized by OLC to use torture practices known as "enhanced interrogation techniques." The memo also indicates that, for each session in which these techniques were used, the CIA documented, among other things, "the nature and duration of each such technique employed" and "the identities of those present." The documentation relating to the CIA's torture sessions, including the names of agents who participated, is still being withheld.

way more at:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/36108prs20080724.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. kick, kick, ka-kaboom.

[Coexist]

2. knr

[annabanana]

3. jeez... timing fellas.. everyone's watching Barak in Germany...

I know this is hugely important information that has to get OUT THERE.. but it will be swimming upstream.

[blue52power]

25. They really need more evidence

Read it closely. We know they are torturing here but there is no admittance by the Office of Legal Counsel that torture is being used. In fact, the only time "torture" is used is when it is characterized that way by the ACLU. The term the CIA is using and was ruled legal by the OLC is "enhanced interrogation techniques".

I don't think this is going much of anywhere. They need a smoking gun of a memo mentioning torture or an agent who testifies that techniques used were torture.

We're preaching to the choir on here but it will fall on deaf ears in the media.

[Shipwack]

28. No, no more evidence needed.

These discuss "enhanced interrogation techniques", and name waterboarding as one of them. This Administration has already admitted to using "advanced interrogation techniques".

If you call a leg a tail, how many tails does a dog have?

A dog still has one tail; calling a leg a tail doesn't change anything (apologies to Mr Lincoln).

Just because these memos supposedly clears agents to use torture (by whatever name they call it) does NOT excuse those who carried it out (or authorized the techniques) from war crimes. The Nazi death camps were legal (under German law) and authorized also, but "I was only following orders" was not an acceptable defense at Nuremberg.

[kpete]

4. update

Update

The AP notes that the August 2002 DoJ memo told the CIA "that its interrogators would be safe from prosecution for violations of anti-torture laws if they believed `in good faith' that harsh techniques used to break the will of prisoners, including waterboarding, would not cause 'prolonged mental harm.'
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iASWS1P4bBULp9TwdMDnotGBi5bQD924BVPO0

[Solly Mack]

12. "good faith"

there it is again

[Shipwack]

29. I hate to Godwin this, but...

Does this mean that the Nazi death camp guards are excused if they believed "in good faith" that Jews weren't really human?

[2 Much Tribulation]

31. No, because by definition "in good faith" defenses can NOT extend to torture, slavery, genocide &...

inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, all of which are jus cogens offenses under international law. That is, they are binding on all countries regardless of whether they have signed a treaty to that effect or not because they are considered, and are, universally accepted norms of international behavior. Even more importantly, there are no exceptions or defenses to jus cogens offenses, EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR (most of these offenses are most often seen in times of "war").

THose who transgress the lines of torture, slavery, genocide, and inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners are (since this does of course still happen) then considered and often expressed called "enemies of humanity."

My take on this: It's strange that they would DOCUMENT or attempt to document such illegal behavior -- because they know that even if they will have de facto immunity from US prosecution, there is still the court of world opinion and politics to consider. The administration still considers these factors important, because at one point one of the secretaries of defense called for testing certain electromagnetic crowd control weapons on american "mobs" or protests FIRST, because to use them first in an international war situation would lead to worldwide press condemnation. This rationale (crazy as it is) shows that they are concerned about world opinion, at least to some extent. It also shows their lack of concern for the rights and safety of americans, at least if they are intentionally or accidentally part of some crowd, mob or protest at which these weapons are then used...


The strangeness of collecting evidence on one's own illegal behavior reinforces what I find is a broad bipartisan agreement on one true threat to the USA: that large mega-corporations, that are widely known to have no loyalty to the USA or any other country (they routinely outsource instead of loyally keep jobs in America, for example), are larger than most nation-states, and essentially the only force left on earth that can regulate or otherwise restrict these corporations' ability to have "liberty" over the entire Earth is a true democracy in the good old U.S. of A. So it is in the natural self-interest of corporations to WEAKEN or destroy our ability to so regulate or control them.

As Abraham Lincoln wryly put it, the wolf and the sheep have different ideas of Liberty, the wolf thinks liberty consists of being able to eat the sheep, while the sheep thinks liberty consists of being able to be let alone and free to feed on grass and, perhaps, contemplate the clouds or whatever... :)

I'm not attempting to assemble HERE all the evidence for the case that large corporations are intentionally (or as a side effect of intentionally pursuing their natural self-interest) the weakening or destruction of America as a force strong enough the regulate them. (But corporations, to be sure, have a legally-mandated one-track mind for shareholder profits and are incapable, therefore, of having in mind the public interest to the extent that conflicts with the pursuit of profit. THEREFORE, they are on a course dead-set against the public interest, and only the DEGREE of that conflict is debatable, not its existence).

At the same time, how much "evidence" is really needed? The conflict between corporations and self-governance is so apparent and widely observed that it is my experience that rank and file republicans agree on this point (all of the real repubs who are not committed ideological neocons). But you won't see it of course in the corporate media, because it is at the very least an implicit attack on the power of virtually all of their advertisers. This, among other things, makes it hard for our media to serve the people as was intended by the Founders -- who for this reason and others enshrined a single business area within the ambit of the Bill of Rights, and that business area was the press, in the First Amendment.

Rather than needing evidence (though much exists) for this assault on america by corporations, it instead is pretty much self-evident that this assault on America's power by corporations exists, at least to normal thinking Americans of any party.

[Shipwack]

32. Thanks for you detailed response...

By the way, just to dispel any doubt, it was a rhetorical question on my part, of course....

[pleah]

5. K&R

[frog92969]

6. Big kick for the ACLU

It's good to know we still have friends somewhere.

[debbierlus]

7. Way to few KICKS - Get it up there guys!

[spanone]

8. let's all see them

[Judi Lynn]

9. Thanks to kpete. Hope it will ALL come out, every last bit before these guys are gone. n/t

[The Stranger]

10. "the nature and duration of each such technique employed" and "the identities of those present."

If we know who the torturers are, they will be brought to justice.

[barbtries]

11. go check out the memos

they so broke the law. and the redactions on a couple are all there is to see almost. these people should be in prison.

one seems to suggest that if you're torturing a person, but you have not the formed the intent to torture, it's not a violation of law. but the intent precedes the act obviously - and obviously even before you begin to torture you are working on scaring the shit out of the subject. i can't believe this conversation exists. it was, is, and will always be torture, and illegal, and WRONG.

[Disturbed]

13. Busholini & his RWing Assholes are War Criminals.

Most of the Dems in Congress have chosen to ignore that.

[bluesmail]

14. K&R for the tenacity of the ACLU. n/t

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

15. Very telling.....

methods that cause severe mental pain do not amount to torture under U.S. law unless they cause "harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted.











DancersLanguage

[The Wielding Truth]

16. Is it up to the legal department to make that decision?

Isn't that the Commander in Chief's decision? After all didn't he appoint himself "The Decider"?

How can the buck stop in the legal department when it comes to disregarding the Geneva convention?:grr: :shrug:

[biermeister]

17. kick those douchebags in their balls!

[uppityperson]

18. k&r

[DUlover2909]

19. WOOT!

[Tumbulu]

20. good job ACLU! (nt)

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. K & R

[dave123williams]

22. The identites of those present? How about the identites of those who authorized it?

Conspiracy to Torture = 20 years in a Federal prison.

If the conspiracy results in death, guess what. You're death-penalty eligible.

[lonestarnot]

23. And nary a peep.

[merh]

24. Don't these coincide with the extra insurance CIA agents `

were obtaining, to protect themselves if sued?

[orleans]

26. k&r n/t

[Trillo]

27. Ooh, this sounds important. Kicking to read later. nt

[lunatica]

30. It's taken 6 years to get some of these documents

It's not that true patriots are sitting around doing nothing. But at least headway is being made, albeit agonizingly slow.