Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chertoff was one of the architects--along with Gonzales--of the Bushist torture policy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 11:27 AM
Original message
Chertoff was one of the architects--along with Gonzales--of the Bushist torture policy.
Is it mere coincidence that the Bushists want torture apologists as AG? :think:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/03/159203

Thursday, February 3rd, 2005
Chertoff's Role in Aug. 2002 Torture Memo Called into Question at Confirmation Hearing

At the confirmation hearings for President Bush's Homeland Security chief nominee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) questioned Michael Chertoff about his role as head of the criminal division of the Justice Department in the formulation of the Aug. 2002 so-called "torture memo" that provided a very narrow definition of torture. We hear an excerpt of the hearing. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held confirmation hearings yesterday on Michael Chertoff, President Bush's nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Chertoff is a federal judge who worked under John Ashcroft in the Justice Department after Sept. 11. He led the government's move to jail hundreds of Muslim and Arab men without pressing charges. He was also a chief architect of the USA Patriot Act. Chertoff is expected to be easily confirmed when the committee votes on Monday.

Yesterday's hearing was overshadowed by the continuing Senate confirmation debate of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. While most committee members praised Chertoff at the hearing, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan questioned Chertoff's role in the infamous Aug. 2002 so-called "torture memo." That justice department memo provided a very narrow definition of torture, arguing that only physical abuse "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure," amounted to torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. CHERTOFF OKs TORTURE: Bizarre Choice for Homeland Czar Deep in Scandal
Even wingers are queasy about Chertoff the Torture Apologist. This is also from February 2005, when Gonzales and Chertoff were being vetted in the press before their rubber stamp confirmations:


http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/chertoff_oks.html




By James P. Tucker


Controversy continues to swirl around Michael Chertoff, President George W. Bush’s pick to replace Tom Ridge as chief of the Homeland Security Department. As the Senate began considering Chertoff’s nomination on Feb. 2, news broke that Chertoff had been implicated in advising the CIA on the legality of various means of torturing detainees held in U.S. prison camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.



But as per its usual stand in the face of criticism, the White House officially denied that Chertoff did anything wrong or that he even had any part in issuing legal advice on torture techniques.



However, according to The New York Times, one current federal official and two former senior officials say Chertoff told the CIA that certain forms of torture were entirely permissible under the currently existing U.S. anti-torture statute.


Chertoff allegedly issued his advice in his capacity as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division following inquiries from CIA employees who wanted legal counsel as to how far they could go in physically manhandling terror suspects who were being interrogated.

Evidently the conflict in the stories between Chertoff and his accusers arises because the Justice Department does not want to be seen as having issued any standards that could be construed as unconditional approval for the use of torture.


It is alleged that Chertoff left open the possibility of other forms of mistreatment, depending on the condition of the suspect.


OK WITH ME IF OK WITH BYBEE


Chertoff told the CIA that it could use forms of mistreatment if they were in accordance with an August 2002 memorandum from Jay S. Bybee of the Office of Legal Counsel to Presidential Counsel Alberto Gonzales.


Bybee’s memo said that harsh interrogation techniques qualified as torture only if they were enough to cause organ failure or imminent death. This is the same memo that has plagued Gonzales, Bush’s pick to replace Attorney General John Ashcroft.


It has been argued that this memo set the legal justification for the CIA and the Department of Defense to use brutal, inhuman methods on terror suspects as documented in reports by the FBI, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department.


Legal experts say that the memo, along with Chertoff’s recommendations, violates specific international conventions and the anti-torture statute passed by Congress in 1994, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113(c), Sec. 2340(a) and 2340(b) which provides for 20 years in prison or even death for torture.


Chertoff has denied that he made any specific recommendations on torture to the CIA or the Pentagon.





Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. Chertoff and the torture of John Walker Lindh ("The American Taliban")
Edited on Mon Aug-27-07 12:12 PM by BurtWorm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-32.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by The Nation
Chertoff and Torture
by Dave Lindorff


Back on Friday, June 12, 2002, the Defense Department had a big problem: Its new policy on torture of captives in the "war on terror" was about to be exposed. John Walker Lindh, the young Californian captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 and touted by John Ashcroft as an "American Taliban," was scheduled to take the stand the following Monday in an evidence suppression hearing regarding a confession he had signed. There he would tell, under oath, about how he signed the document only after being tortured for days by US soldiers. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis had already said he was likely to allow Lindh, at trial, to put on the stand military officers and even Guantánamo detainees who were witnesses to or participants in his alleged abuse.

The Defense Department, which we now know had in late 2001 begun a secret, presidentially approved program of torture of Afghan and Al Qaeda captives at Bagram Air Base and other locations, had made it clear to the Justice Department that it wanted the suppression hearing blocked. American torture at that point was still just a troubling rumor, and the Bush Administration clearly wanted to keep it that way. Accordingly, Michael Chertoff, who as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was overseeing all the department's terrorism prosecutions, had his prosecution team offer a deal. All the serious charges against Lindh--terrorism, attempted murder, conspiracy to kill Americans, etc.--would be dropped and he could plead guilty just to the technical charges of "providing assistance" to an "enemy of the U.S." and of "carrying a weapon." Lindh, whose attorneys dreaded his facing trial in one of the most conservative court districts in the country on the first anniversary of 9/11, had to accept a stiff twenty-year sentence, but that was half what he faced if convicted on those two minor charges alone.

But Chertoff went further, according to one of Lindh's attorneys, George Harris. Chertoff (now an appeals court judge in New Jersey) demanded--reportedly at Defense Department insistence, according to what defense attorneys were told--that Lindh sign a statement swearing he had "not been intentionally mistreated" by his US captors and waiving any future right to claim mistreatment or torture. Further, Chertoff attached a "special administrative measure," essentially a gag order, barring Lindh from talking about his experience for the duration of his sentence.

At the time, few paid attention to this peculiar silencing of Lindh. In retrospect, though, it seems clear that the man coasting toward confirmation as Secretary of Homeland Security effectively prevented early exposure of the Bush/Rumsfeld/Gonzales policy of torture, which we now know began in Afghanistan and later "migrated" to Guantánamo and eventually to Iraq. So anxious was Chertoff to avoid exposure in court of Lindh's torture--which included keeping the seriously wounded and untreated Lindh, who was malnourished and dehydrated, blindfolded and duct-taped to a stretcher for days in an unheated and unlit shipping container, and repeatedly threatening him with death--that defense lawyers say he made the deal a limited-time offer. "It was good only if we accepted it before the suppression hearing," says Harris. "They said if the hearing occurred, all deals were off." He adds, "Chertoff himself was clearly the person at Justice to whom the line prosecutors were reporting. He was directing the whole plea agreement process, and there was at least one phone call involving him."

"It is outrageous that Chertoff didn't allow testimony about Lindh's torture by American forces to come out," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "It is off the charts in terms of morality, and it should definitely be a line of questioning at Chertoff's confirmation hearing: What did he know about Lindh's treatment in Afghanistan, and why did he go to such lengths to silence him about it?" But that might never happen at Chertoff's (as yet unscheduled) hearing, since the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman, has endorsed the nomination.

Chertoff's judicial office is referring all inquires to the White House press office. Calls there and to the Justice Department, asking for comment, were not returned.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. Chertoff mentored the DoJ's Criminal Division's recess appointed Alice S. Fisher
she's ok with torture, she's a Frist family friend and former HCA lobbyist, despite many objections she was put into the lead position of the DoJ Abramoff "investigations", she and Paul McNulty were heading the DoJ's National Procurement Fraud Task Force-she's got to go too

"The Alice S. Fisher DoJ connection" (5-9-2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x847120#853059

and as far as torture issues- the interim AG, Paul D. Clement, represented war criminal Donald Rumsfeld et. al. among other things

"BREAKING: AGAG's interim replacement-Cedarburg's own Paul D. Clement" (8-27-2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x21683#21964

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. kick
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thanks for kicking this, bobthedrummer!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC