At times like this I turn to the Center for American Progress to give me the definitive breakdown on this obvious abuse of power ~ which leads directly to George Bush. A must read .
Allen L Roland
ABUSE OF POWER
Memo Legitimizes Torture, Puts President Above Law
According to news reports, a draft of a March 2003 memo on interrogation methods by Pentagon lawyers advised U.S. government officials to disregard the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own Field Manual for intelligence interrogation, after "commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners." A team of administration lawyers concluded in the draft prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security." The contents of the draft, obtained by the WSJ, calls into question administration claims about Abu Ghraib, and suggest methods used there may have been sanctioned by the White House at the highest levels.
MEMO SETS FRAMEWORK FOR TORTURE:
According to the WSJ, the report seeks effectively to legitimize torture, first by defining it in exceptionally narrow terms, then by advising government officials on how to avoid prosecution, even should they violate those terms. The memo argues "'The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture…Such suffering must be 'severe,' the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest it 'must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure.'" Having defined torture as such—a definition at odds with the Army manual's prohibition of "The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind,"—the Pentagon memo goes on to suggest government officials could argue "necessity" justified methods that did amount to torture. Citing a legal text, the Pentagon's lawyers wrote, "In particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing of one person ... so long as the harm avoided is greater." Keep in mind, the Convention Against Torture flatly states, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture."
MEMO CITES NUREMBERG FOR JUSTIFICATION:
According to the memo, civilian or military personnel accused of torture can also defend themselves by citing "'superior orders,' sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense." The term "Nuremberg Defense" was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg after World War II: the Tribunal's Principle IV implies a subject can defend himself against charges of committing atrocities and war crimes if he proves there was no "moral choice…in fact possible to him." Army Private Lynndie England, facing a court-martial for being photographed with naked Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, has already used this defense: she told a Denver TV station she had been ordered "by persons in higher rank to 'stand there, hold this leash, look at the camera,' and they took pictures for PsyOps (psychological operations)."
MEMO EXEMPTS PRESIDENT FROM LAW:
According to the WSJ, at the "core" of the memo is the exceptional argument that "the president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture." But the memo goes even further: not only can the president approve interrogation techniques as he sees fit, but "To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a 'presidential directive or other writing' that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'" Reportedly over the objections of some military lawyers, one lawyer who helped prepare the report said the authors "sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert 'presidential power at its absolute apex.'"
PATTERN OF SANCTIONING TORTURE:
The March 2003 memo is just "the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law." It came on the heels of a 2002 Justice Department memo advising the White House "that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad 'may be justified,' and that international laws against torture 'may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations' conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism." That memo, reportedly written in response to requests by lawyers at the CIA for "an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives," said torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Newsweek reported last month on internal administration documents indicating "a bold legal framework" was created to justify systems of interrogation, including "methods that the Red Cross concluded were 'tantamount to torture.'"
