Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

[kskiska]

Source: NYT

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Spazito]

1. Thanks for posting this...

Mike Malloy was just talking about it and I just knew I would find the article link on DU!

[crud76]

35. This, and

the Newsweek article about the Constitution and the Washington Post feature on Cheney are just about too little too late, although the gritty reality of the * administration ("My government," as * called it a few months ago) may now begin to seep into the mainstream and finally create the outrage that's been missing most of the past six years. Really, I'm still hopeful for this country.

[usregimechange]

2. More evidence of lies and immorality.

[RamboLiberal]

3. War Crime Trials - These bastards need to be tried

Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, the whole lot! When Japan and Germany did that to POWs in WWII we tried their butts and gave quite a number the death penalty. And we were outraged at what the North Vietnamese and the VC did to American POWs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. Ram, you said it. NOW, not tomorrow.

Gonzales deserves serious jail time.

[RamboLiberal]

38. John Yoo as well

He is one dangerous jerk that I'm going to keep track of in the coming years. He deserves serious jail time - preferably in Gitmo!

[ShortnFiery]

4. IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!

Impeach ... with extreme prejudice. :grr: :nuke: :grr:

[bos1]

28. in a functioning democracy, investigations and then impeachment proceedings

would start immediately on just this one issue alone, never mind all the other even bigger issues of the last few years.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. How long has it been since we've had a functioning democracy? n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

40. Scary question

None of us really know, do we?

[Zensea]

32. That assumes a majority are against torture

If a majority are in favor of torture, then in such a functioning democracy this news would sit quite well with people and they would see no reason to impeach.

I would not assume that a majority of people in this country are against torture.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. It assumes a majority supports the rule of law. Torture is already illegal

under the constitution, international treaties, and various statues.

In any given case i suppose a majority sentiment to "string up the bastard" might be found, however, the rule of law precludes these majoritarian feelings from being translated to action.

So one need not assume either way what popular opinion may be, because the rule of law is superior to popular opinion, and for good reason. To impeach requires a solid argument, such as rule of law, instead of mass opinion on torture of fictional figments of imagination and hypothetical Al Qua-ida operatives who know all and can save everyone from a hypothetical attack if only we could torture him....

No, Impeachment needs to be for the willful attacks on the rule of law, for the criminal obstruction of Congress, for illegally spying on Americans. Criminal negligence is also good one.

Fortunately, there is a lot of people out there who are either in favor of, or not opposed to, impeachment, possibly as many or more than those who fantasize about the benefits of torture.

If you lump that group in together, who are either in favor of, or not opposed to, impeachment you get a solid majority is my best guess, probably in the high 50's to low 60's % And the reasons are simple. You can't fool all the people all of the time.

So, really, what individuals believe about torture in some dreamlike scenario from the American psyche isn't the issue here I hope. What's next? Public stoning of evil doers in the name of democracy and as a defense against impeachment?

[Zensea]

45. Your point is not the point I was addressing though

Yes, but is there any reason to suppose that the majority supports the rule of law?

I was addressing the question of what the majority may or may not think.
The rule of law is a different question.
There is nothing that says a democracy has to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is what eventually resulted in civil rights for example even though at the time of the Brown vs Topeka Board decision the majority was still in favor of segregation.
If it had been a true democracy, it is doubtful that desegregation would have started when it did.

I am not defending torture, I am simply pointing out that critiquing torture and calling for impeachment based on some hoped for majority opinion on the subject is off base (which is the argument the post I responded to was making) -- You are actually agreeing with me even though you are couching it in such a way as to make it appear to be a disagreement with what I wrote.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Torture has been deemed against the law for a long time. There are people in

prison for it.

Should torture be off the list of impeachable offenses?

[Zensea]

48. Why are you asking me this?

You either have trouble comprehending what I wrote or are being intentionally dense.

Did I say that torture should not be an impeachable offense? No.
Did I say that torture should not be against the law and that it has not been against the law? No.

So what's your point?
Stating the obvious?
Seeing everything through a single filter?
Arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Whoa_Nelly]

5. Impeach! What's it going to take to impeach?

And, also try these thugs for their crimes?

[still_one]

6. Not with our SO-CALLED leaders in Congres /nt

[intheflow]

7. No shit!

But most newspapers and newscasts will not carry this story, so most people will remain blissfully ignorant of it. If they ever hear about impeachment, it is discussed with disdain and made fun of. Media consolidation sucks! x(

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. But, don't you think that since NYT is spreading this news

that national to international will have to pick it up, print and TV alike?

(wake me when there's an honest MSM...)

[Contrary1]

8. "“These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature — can they be combined

Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”

It just never stops.

[rodeodance]

24. YOO and Addington seem to behind most of this (Cheney office)

> Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions were sometimes close calls that required consultation with the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest tactics.
>
> That opinion, which would become infamous as “the torture memo” after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo, a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by Mr. Addington, the vice president’s adviser. Their close alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming eagerness to give the White House whatever legal justifications it desired, a Justice Department official recalled.
>
> Mr. Yoo’s memorandum said no interrogation practices were illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or “even death.” A second memo produced at the same time spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long they could be used

[Mojorabbit]

10. This quote says it all

“We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die,’” Mr. Comey said. But he argued that government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.

“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”

[enki23]

11. comey was fucking wrong.

maggots, and sociopaths, don't feel shame.

[trusty elf]

15. self-delete

[Trillo]

17. What was comey wrong about?

This article appears to cast a favorable light regarding his steel against torture. What facts did the NY Times get wrong this time?

[enki23]

43. sorry. i was being a bit cute with the title of the post. comey was wrong about this:

that the bushies would be "ashamed" when their scurrilous scurrying was brought into the light.

[trashcanistanista]

12. Will this be what it takes to

put impeachment on the table?

[rateyes]

31. No. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that Bush and Cheney

are above the law.

[Maven]

13. Sick, sick, sick.

We've been living in this nightmare for so many years and yet I still can't believe this is our government.

And nothing will be done to stop them or make them pay.

[eShirl]

14. Oh, boy, they're REALLY in trouble *this* time...

again...

[kysrsoze]

16. Just kickin' it.

[sbyte]

18. The Right, the Wrongs and the need to get to truth

What is the greater good? I was under the impression that our dear leaders lived under the fear of God and respect for the decency of of human life. But what happens when those we are fighting don't have a shared belief and a wholly different ideologue and who don't appear to have any respect for innocent life or rules of war. It drags down the whole Idea of respect for others down, in a confrontation.
Counter terrorism, the main focus of defense operations could be calculated more precisely by an administration that doesn't wake up scared. These administrator are school teachers and businessmen. LOOK, Bush or Cheney got out of going to vietnam, They lack real military experience and have Way Over Reacted.

[noise]

19. Many experts say torture doesn't work

The only people who claim it works are the fascists in the Bush administration. They can claim it's required to save lives and prevent attacks all day long. I don't believe them.

Like many citizens, I've taken a close look at 9/11. The lack of police state tactics was not the reason the attacks were not prevented. At best, we had key officials (POTUS, NSA Rice, CIA Director Tenet, acting FBI Director Pickard, NSA Director Hayden, etc.) derelict in their duty. Instead of trashing the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions it would have been better to prosecute some government officials and hold impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney. In fact, it's still a damn good idea.

[provis99]

20. I'm opposed to torture even if it works

everytime. Quite frankly, I find torture so morally repellent that even if breaking bones and beating someone into a pulp until they are dead yields usable information, I would still be against it. Any country that adopts torture as a sanctioned official technique isn't worth saving or fighting for, no matter the justification for torture.

[Orsino]

27. It works very well, though not on the tortured.

What it does well is to dehumanize the torturers, turning them into willing tools for nearly any atrocity those in charge could want.

[AntiFascist]

49. Torture is effective in one case...

when you want to force confessions that aren't true.

[rodeodance]

21. "soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival"------

[rodeodance]

22. "the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed,"

.......Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

[Senator]

23. James B. Comey -- War Criminal

Sorry, but you don't get to euphemize criminality as "overreaching" then skulk away from those terrible "bruising clashes." It doesn't magically become something to be ashamed of "when the world eventually learn{s} of it."

The duty is to enforce and uphold the law -- including US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes.

The onus is currently on the DC Dems in Congress.

Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime.

Do we remain a War Criminal Nation or not?

----

[usregimechange]

25. wtf?

[Broadslidin]

26. If no Impeachment, then obviously, the D.C. Dems are also "Lucifugous Ghouls"

:argh:

[f the letter]

33. Torture gooooood

Welcome back to medieval times. Is the iron maiden back in fashion or anything yet? Or the rack?

[defendandprotect]

37. Living in the age of un-Enlightement with Bushco...Medieval tortures --

McCarthy Era tactics --

[tom_paine]

34. Yawn. Is there anyone who didn't KNOW this was going on?

Sure, it's always nice to have confirmation of what is obvious to anyone who has studied the nature of totalitarianism and totalitarians in the least.

Also, what is nice about it is that, very likely, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not even see these tiny leaks of truth once the Bushies have completed their slower (than the Naizs) process of gleichschaltung ("bringing into line").

[bonito]

36. Impeach now! Many are still calling for it

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=

[rodeodance]

39. AP (RESPONSE): White House denies torture assertion

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject White House denies torture assertion
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3016345#3016345
3016345, White House denies torture assertion
Posted by maddezmom on Thu Oct-04-07 09:59 AM

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday denied reports that a secretly issued Justice Department opinion in early 2005 cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics that the Bush administration had earlier seemed to renounce.

"This country does not torture," White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters. "It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture and we do not."

~snip~

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came a year after a 2004 opinion in which Justice publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

Asked about the story Thursday, Perino confirmed existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion but would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning. She said the 2005 opinion did not reinterpret the law.

Instead, Perino said the 2004 anti-torture opinion was a "broad and general" interpretation of the law and "the February 2005 one was different in that it was focused on specifics."

"It's a different document altogether," she said.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism_2

[Trillo]

44. When I read the NYTimes piece last night,

one of the White House assertions stood out. It's on page 3:

Six months later, the Justice Department quietly posted on its Web site a new legal opinion that appeared to end any flirtation with torture, starting with its clarionlike opening: "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms."

It 'felt' like a King's Assertion to me: since they define the laws, nothing they do can possibly be "torture", even though masses of citizens would immediately recognize the techniques allegedly used as torture.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Toture is as American as apple pie (with apologies to

H. Rap Brown)

[ProSense]

46. War crimes of a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it"

War crimes of a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it"