Pentagon Releases 2003 Memo Approving Harsh Interrogation Tactics

LARA JAKES JORDAN | April 1, 2008 11:10 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas _ so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The memo also offered a defense in case any interrogator was charged with violating U.S. or international laws.

"Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outlined above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability," the memo concluded.

The memo was rescinded in December 2003, a mere nine months after Yoo sent it to the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes. Though its existence has been known for years, its release Tuesday marked the first time its contents in full have been made public.

Haynes, the Defense Department's longest-serving general counsel, resigned in late February to return to the private sector. He has been hotly criticized for his role in crafting Bush administration policies for detaining and trying suspected terrorists that some argue led to prisoner abuses at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Yoo's memo became part of a debate among the Pentagon's civilian and military leaders about what interrogation tactics to allow at overseas facilities and whether U.S. troops might face legal problems domestically or in international courts.

Also of concern was whether techniques used by U.S. interrogators might someday be used as justification for harsh treatment of Americans captured by opposing forces.

The Justice Department has opened an internal investigation into whether its top officials improperly authorized or reviewed the CIA's use of waterboarding, which simulates drowning, when interrogating terror suspects. It was unclear whether the Yoo memo, which focuses only on military interrogators, will be part of that inquiry.

The declassified memo was released as part of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit to force the Bush administration to turn over documents about the government's war on terror. The document also was turned over to lawmakers.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said its release "represents an accommodation of Congress' oversight interest in the area of wartime interrogations."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project, said Yoo's legal reasoning puts "literally no limit at all to the kinds of interrogation methods that the president can authorize."

"The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president's wartime authority," Jaffer said. "The memo was meant to allow torture, and that's exactly what it did."

The 81-page legal analysis largely centers on whether interrogators can be held responsible for torture if torture is not the intent of the questioning. And it defines torture as the intended sum of a variety of acts, which could include acid scalding, severe mental pain and suffering, threat of imminent death and physical pain resulting in impaired body functions, organ failure or death.

The "definition of torture must be read as a sum of these component parts," the memo said.

The memo also includes past legal defenses of interrogations that Yoo wrote are not considered torture, such as sleep deprivation, hooding detainees and "frog crouching," which forces prisoners to crouch while standing on the tips of their toes.

"This standard permits some physical contact," the memo said. "Employing a shove or slap as part of an interrogation would not run afoul of this standard."

The memo concludes that foreign enemy combatants held overseas do not have defendants' rights or protections from cruel and unusual punishment that U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. It also says that Congress "cannot interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the memo "reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration." He called for its release four months ago.

"It is no wonder that this memo ... could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn," said Leahy, D-Vt. "This memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country's status as a beacon of human rights around the world."

___

Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.


 

Comments
178
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

There are some really inane comments going on here. It is remarkable how many people will support criminal activities, ie: torture. Funny, I thought "conservatives" claimed to be all for law and order.

But all you fools who are falling all over themselves supporting torture I have a simple question for you: Why didn't we use torture in WW II? After all the threat from the German, Italian and Japanese militaries were, oh say about one million times more of a threat than al Qaida. On the air land and sea so to speak.

The danger to our troops was always present. The threat to civilians were far greater than anything we see today.

So how come we didn't use torture then?
And since we didn't then, what makes it acceptable today?

That is beside the fact that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 04/02/2008

Torture only accomplishes one thing....it makes the person say whatever the torturer wants to hear.
Historical examples:

Spanish Inquisition: "yes, I am in league with the devil"
Salem Witch Trials: " yes, I cast a spell on goodie Proctors son"
John McCain in Vietnam "yes, I willinging bombed women and children"

If we torture people, let alone innocent people, and the public does not speak up.
What does that say about us? Isn't that how the holocaust was allowed to happen?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 04/02/2008

Torture also makes sense if you want to increase the opposition to your occupation -- or if you read too many comic books and were a little Chicken Hawk who never got enough affection as a child.

Just a guess.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 04/03/2008

"This memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country's status as a beacon of human rights around the world."

Tow question...1: WHAT freaking "Status as a beacon of human rights?

And...2: Around WHICH World?

This shows the despicable pathetic pond of chicken hawks who lead this sorry excuse of lemmings for all this years to be nothing else then a bunch of damned atrocious red necks.

Ha ha ha..what a comedy you play dear "America"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 04/02/2008

I like that the memo put in a clause about "self defense." I'm sure that the interviewer with the table with all the straps on it that lowers the interviewee's head into a bucket, is in jeopardy of being attacked.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 04/03/2008

All the Bush regime had to do to justify their illegal Oil War in Iraq was to torture some poor slob into saying they had met with that head hi-jacking chimp, Mohammed Atta, on Saddam"s behest.
If they could torture someone into that admission there is your justification for the Bush regime"s Oil War in Iraq!

This un-American torture had nothing to do with protecting "We the People" from terror attacks and had everything to do with justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq and securing AWOL Bush"s place in history as protector and not the dictator he really is!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 04/02/2008

"Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture."

How disgusting that the Justice Department is peopled with those who apparently have never read the US Constitution or just don't care about it! The US is bound by and all international treaties to which it is a party. Period. There is no gray area and there is no provision for ignoring provisions because of wars!
Article 6: ...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 04/02/2008

Tell me. Which one of you would not do what it takes to protect their own child? Don't respond by calling me names like typical libs do. Just answer the question honestly.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 04/02/2008

Yes, that"s it. We torture FOR the children.

Nice try. But since a tortured person will say anything to make the pain stop most of what they say will be BS. Therefore your logic is in itself twisted and not reality based, which is coincidentally the preferred republiCON propagandist spin.

Torture good. Constitution and international law bad. It is logic only a fascist/republiCON could embrace.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 04/02/2008

calirighty, your hypothetical instance doesn't match the nature of this memo. They're not talking about a ticking time bomb, they're talking about institutionalized torture. They're talking about torture as more or less standard practice. There's an enormous difference, don't you have to agree?

If one person had my child and I had my hands on the neck of that person's partner, I don't know what I would do, but it probably wouldn't involve waterboarding. The question here is much deeper, and I hope you take the time to think about these things deeply enough to consider the actual situation of proper handling of prisoners in the larger context, rather than base your decisions on non sequiturs.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 04/02/2008

Let's put this in really simple terms for you. I believe we would all do whatever it takes to protrect our children. But it would be up to us then to face a judge and jury for our actions and to let them decide if our actions were justified. If we broke a law and the evidence didn't deliver a verdict in our favor then we'd go to jail.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 04/02/2008

If I felt the need to do something as despicable as torture, I would own up to it, and take the punishment. That's the only way back to any semblance of humanity after taking part in torture. If one takes responsibility, and accepts the legal consequences, it's still wrong, but there might be a modicum of respect to be given to such a person. There's no one like that in evidence in any of this however. They're all sniveling cowards who are just trying to cover their own asses after having committed death penalty crimes. If I'd done what they did, I'd be happy to face a firing squad...cause I wouldn't be able to live with myself anymore. How's that for your "typical libs" answer?

And I avoided insult, but that said, when YOU ask not to be insulted, perhaps it's best not to insult the people you are admonishing to reply, with a comment like "typical libs". That is an INSULT.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 04/02/2008

When I say "typical" that is based on ACTUAL experience. If you don't like the label then maybe you should talk to some of your blog mates on here. The name calling is HORRENDOUS.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 PM on 04/02/2008

It's all a matter of degrees. Insults can be horrendous, or "based on ACTUAL experience", but they're still insults when they create inaccurate descriptions of otherwise honorable people.

But, considering the nature of these discussions, I'd develop a thicker skin. I have...because the personal attacks are SOP here. And "they" are not my "blog mates" anymore than you are. I refuse labels, and believe that each person should be taken on the merits of their writings, whatever they may be. For instance, I think that Clinton should spend the rest of his life in prison, for crimes against humanity (not lying about receiving fellatio) that he committed, and I will not vote for Obama or Clinton. That's not to say I'd EVER vote for a Republican, or John "Mad Dog" McCain, I wouldn't. The only one I'd consider, is the only one who has consistently worked all his life for the betterment of people, Ralph Nader. Some would say that's a throw away, but if one won't vote anyway, it's not a throw away...it's a statement that the good man should win. However, the bad men, and/or woman, will win. And we will lose, once again, as we always have, and always will as long as criminals like Bushemada are allowed to openly violate the law and get away with it.

And torture is against the law...period.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:35 PM on 04/02/2008

When I have gone to "right" oriented sites the name calling makes this look like gentle pillow talk. the defense of justification and the concept of civil disobedience have a history. If you believe you are justified to break the law for some exigent and greater good you can and this is a recognized defense. but you have to be right!!! to allow torture is to allow abuse and unjustified misuse. You simply must be sure and you proceed at your own risk if wrong. What the administration wants is authorize torture whether it turns out you had good cause or not. one can act in bad faith and then claim one thought there was some justification with impunity.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 04/02/2008

To quote Keith Olbermann, who I very much like, "You sir, are a moron."
Don't feel singled out, I think the same of most right wing trolls.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 04/02/2008

Over-simplified loaded hypothetical questions are not taken seriously in the real world of issue debate. Whatever made you think your question, which is couched in the context of this issue of Bush Administration-sponsored torture could be answered with a simple yes or no?

You may try to frame your question with more specificity, such as, "do you think a person should be subjected to United States government sanctioned torture in the hope that any information gained from that person could be used to save lives in the future?"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 04/02/2008

My answer would be yes. See? Pretty simple.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 04/02/2008

My answer is no, because I realize that a country without judicial due process is just another country and therefore is not worth protecting.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
--Benjamin Franklin

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 04/02/2008


then I think you should be executed in the hope that we will be preventing some unjustified torture of innocent people in the future.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 04/02/2008

There's no point in name-calling. However, the real point is not whether we would "do what it takes", so much as whether we would do WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS. Study after study (you can start with the Holy Inquisition) has shown that torturing a person will merely get them to tell you what they think you want to hear. And just to reverse the picture: what do you think an American agent would tell his torturers if a bomb were set to go off which could kill Osama Bin Laden or one of his top operatives in one hour? The truth?

Ironically, the Military Channel ran a documentary "The Richie Boys", about Jewish men who fled Nazi occupied Europe to later return with the US Army. One of them became an interrogator whose job it was to interrogate captured Nazis. The one thing he said that stands out is that he wanted to make the person being interrogated as comfortable as possible, and not to feel they would be harmed in any way. And that's from a Jewish man whose job it was to interrogate Nazis.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 04/02/2008

It has nothing to do with protecting 'our' children. Our children are over there being shot at, bombed, IED etc. Think about it, if we do it then they will do it and that protects NO ONE.
All they need is 1/2 a reason to do the same thing and they think nothing of beheading someone, so what the hell was the speedbump thinking when he thought he could override something like that.
Do any of you want your kids/grandkids tortured??

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 04/02/2008

Protect a child from what?

a. This was demonstrably NOT the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

b. As the al-Libi torture clearly proved, torture is unreliable.

c. Going back to WWII, humane treatment has proved an effective means of getting cooperation..

d. Torture is a violation of domestic and international law.

e. Torture diminishes our standing in the world, damages the people who do it and undermines our society.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 04/02/2008

So are beheading. Desecrating bodies. Dragging dead soldiers in the streets. Hanging soldiers from bridges and burning them. What War Crimes are you complaining about these situations? What U.N. sanctions do you suggest to stop this? Why is this never addressed by the left. Only America and Americans are subject to international law. The hypocrisy is dumbfounding.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 04/02/2008

Actually what I hear is that only ameirca is NOT subject to international law. Seems to me what you have argued here.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 04/02/2008

I'm not your enemy, Cali, so chill, but... realize that if WE , AMERICANS do not stand for a higher something, an ideal, even when that sometimes hurts us or seems to put us at a disadvantage (as in dealing with people who are desperate and committed enough to their idelogy to blow themselves up), then the whole shebang comes tumbling into a nihilistic, cannibalistic mess.
What happened to truly Christian ideals in this administration? They are always tossed out the door when it comes to the real tough situations, and only used or deformed to oppress minorities in order to get votes from wombats and rednecks and such in the case of crooks like Pat Robertson and that ilk, who are about as Christian as venus fly traps.
What we have left in most people's eyes in this administration s a bunch of greedy old men playing cowboy while beating people with a Bible they secretly laugh at, and using other people's kids as shills to make Big Oil and themselves lots of money.
Moreover, we're acting more like fundamentalist intrepreters of the harshest parts of the Qu'aran than practicioners of any serious Christianity.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 04/02/2008

Here is a 'typical' conservative answer...
All this president and his policy of torture has done is weaken a country and taken protections away from our children.
Should we let the next Democratic president have the same power as he sees fit? Perhaps take away
guns from people for their own good or torture 'perceived' enemies of the state?
Come on.....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 04/02/2008

If I were elected President I would seize bush, cheney and their close associates and send them somewhere for harsh interrogation to be sure we cleared up any lingering issues about 911 or the death of Tillman or the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 04/02/2008

Not too far away from torturing American citizens. . . any year now.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 04/02/2008

Also of concern was whether techniques used by U.S. interrogators might someday be used as justification for harsh treatment of Americans captured by opposing forces.

...limitless harsh interrogation TORTURE (I mean "TREATMENT, TACTICS, TECHNIQUES") defined by THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION "as the intended sum of a variety of acts, which could include acid scalding, severe mental pain and suffering, threat of imminent death and physical pain resulting in impaired body functions, organ failure or death".

The memo says that Congress "cannot interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war."

And SANCTIMONIOUS "RIGHT-TO-LIFERS" intend to vote for MORE of this "WARTIME authority"!... to vote for MORE of this "TORTURE that threatens our country's status as a beacon of human rights around the world"!?

Well THIS PATRIOTIC AMERICAN will vote for NO MORE of it!!!

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 04/02/2008

Can we please impeach now? Please? What more will it take, release of the videos and a vial of blood from several victims? It takes away any moral high ground that we may have had in this folly along with any outrage we may feel if our troops get repaid in kind.

Forrest Gump had it right..."Stupid is as stupid does". Jeeesh.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 04/02/2008

hear!! hear!!
Lets get the ball rolling on this. ASAP is not soon enough.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 04/02/2008

Yoo should be tried as a war criminal. Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Addington, Wolfowitz, Feith, and many others should as well.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ordered the behavior at Abu Ghraib, and then they sent a bunch of grunts to prison.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 04/02/2008

So...the CIC can proclaim himself God and repudiate treaties at will. How is this not fascist?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 04/02/2008