Pentagon Releases 2003 Memo Approving Harsh Interrogation Tactics

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Pentagon Releases 2003 Memo Approving Harsh Interrogation Tactics stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

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

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

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The memo was rescinded in December 2003, a mere nine months after Yoo sent it to the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes.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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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.

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 au...
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 au...
Filed by Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
174
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

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

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
- darthmaul I'm a Fan of darthmaul 19 fans permalink

I didn't realize that Yoo's stellar resume included clerking for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Yoo was the perfect person to work for the Bush administration. LIke Alberto Gonzales, Yoo essentially said that the president is above the law and can do anything that he wants because he is the president. I am certain that Berkeley regrets ever hiring this fascist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 AM on 04/02/2008
photo

And Yoo now teaches law at, cna you believe it, UC Berkeley, the crucible for many noteworthy liberal causes. He must be the school's affirmative action neocon.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 04/02/2008
photo

Actually, he's been teaching there since 1993. I would hope that they would fire him if they could, but he probably has tenure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 04/02/2008
- spicegal I'm a Fan of spicegal 19 fans permalink

Harsh interrogation techniques is only a euphemism for torture. And this folks, is what has been going on in our name, sanctioned at the highest levels. Where in the world is the outrage. How many saw the 60 Minutes story about the German guy who was held for 5 years during which time he was repeatedly tortured, despite the fact that early on they determined he was not a terrorist nor had any ties with terrorist. The only way this country can begin to heal the wounds from this atrocity is to hold those at the highest levels of our govt accountable. They're the ones that approved the torture.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 AM on 04/02/2008
- darthmaul I'm a Fan of darthmaul 19 fans permalink

Hey you have it wrong, it's "Enhanced" interrogation techniques. Doesn't that sound so much better then torture?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 AM on 04/03/2008
- DMSmith I'm a Fan of DMSmith 17 fans permalink

It's amazing that it's just lightly mentioned that the rights of prisoners held outside of U.S. soil are different than those held here - when in fact it's us acting barbarically and then saying that hiding it elsewhere makes it o.k.

If this is true of the U.S. then we are a sick nation!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 AM on 04/02/2008
- gcallaghan I'm a Fan of gcallaghan 52 fans permalink
photo

We are not a sick nation - we do however have a twisted-mided simpletoin leading us that allows unamaerican abuses like this to take place in our names.

Try Bush for war crimes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 AM on 04/02/2008
photo

I second that but insist you include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, the aforementioned Yoo, and other similar buggers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 AM on 04/02/2008
- bick I'm a Fan of bick 2 fans permalink

whew! thank god this information wasn't released before the 2004 election, or bush wouldn't have been able to fuck EVERYTHING up. good going, pentagon!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 04/02/2008
- shades3 I'm a Fan of shades3 33 fans permalink

It may not have been "officially released", bick, but the fact that torture was being carried out by the U.S. with the full approval of the Bush Administration was well known, except in the U.S. deliberately.
Canadian and European press and television broadcast reports and documentaries before the 2004 election, which is why many were astounded that this criminal administration was given a second term.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 AM on 04/02/2008
- gevan I'm a Fan of gevan 19 fans permalink

Although I am generally against torture, I would make an exception for those who authored this memo and the folks who carried it out operationally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 AM on 04/02/2008
- ME08 I'm a Fan of ME08 7 fans permalink

Yoo is a detestable scumbag, a war criminal as much as Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rummy.
I use to hate it when he would be on MacNeil-Lehrer pontificating on this subject matter...a­lways made the lamest of excuses and the flimsiest of arguments to support torture...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 AM on 04/02/2008
- calirighty I'm a Fan of calirighty 37 fans permalink

Yeah but it's unacceptable for enemy combatants hell bent on destroying America. And you wonder why you keep losing elections. Guess what? You're going to lose another.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 04/02/2008
- Ramirez I'm a Fan of Ramirez 268 fans permalink
photo

From ABC:
******

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA
November 02, 2007 1:25 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.
****

Read more at:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 AM on 04/02/2008

Jesus was only crucified once. Three is three hundred percent more than was allowed before Bush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 AM on 04/02/2008
- amanda85 I'm a Fan of amanda85 108 fans permalink

Leave it to our resident fascist bot to blindly believe whatever piece of propaganda he is fed by the US government­...

Only three? And we know that exactly how? Riiiiight, just trust the US government, they NEVER lie, right ramirez? BTW, any sign of Saddam's WMDs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 AM on 04/02/2008
- MAX1 I'm a Fan of MAX1 13 fans permalink

.

Gee,
ONLY THREE?

Thank goodness it wasn't four, 'cuz then THAT would be a crime... NO?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 AM on 04/02/2008
- avicenna I'm a Fan of avicenna 25 fans permalink
photo

Good grief - talk about incompetence! If only 3 of the tortured souls were "Al Qaeda figures" -according to our unfortunate team suffering from an endemic plague of "failure of American Intelligence" - who the heck were the rest of them? (I wouldn't ask McCain - he can't tell an Al Qaeda operative from a member of the Saudi family with whom his close confidant, Cheney, recently spent a leisurely time boating).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 04/02/2008
- Ramirez I'm a Fan of Ramirez 268 fans permalink
photo

The three subjects were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 AM on 04/02/2008
- bick I'm a Fan of bick 2 fans permalink

so...that'­s three counts of WAR CRIMES against george bush. one is enough for the death penalty. that lucky duck keeps hitting trifectas!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 AM on 04/02/2008
- Marioth I'm a Fan of Marioth 32 fans permalink
photo

I think we are seeing the wisdom of holding fire on impeachment play out. Impeachment is for poltical crimes. What we have here are serious war crimes, and not just a few. It was a huge mistake to piss off the judiciary, from Yoo to Gonzales to Meirs. Now you've got U.S. attorneys mad as hell. Who wants to be on the receiving end of THAT? Only a matter of time now.

Rove, it appears, was a distraction. In Alabama, some lawyers are trying to crack his nut, and if they get purchase, it could lay the groundwork for war crimes trials, and the timing assures it will unfold after those responsible can no longer be pardoned by W.

The act of keeping the Senate in session for, what, nearly a year now, reflects some serious concerns over where this is all headed. We are in the middle of the Bush Debacle though he will be gone in 10 months (where each month is 10,001 centuries).

America cannot begin its healing until war crimes are brought. Impeachment is meaningless in the context of what has elapsed.

I agree, we are entering perhaps the most treacherous era of the Bush presidency. The next one inheirits a living nightmare. For even war crimes trials will not stop the water from coming.

Pax,
M.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 AM on 04/02/2008
- MAX1 I'm a Fan of MAX1 13 fans permalink

INCORRECT!

Impeachment is not reserved for JUST political crimes.

Your argument attempts to make impeachment political when it is clearly stated in the Constitution, Article II Sec. IV that:
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html#art2
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason is NOT about politics but the Nation.
Bribery is NOT about politics but about pay to play.
OTHER High Crimes and Misdemeanors is NOT political but instead open to interpretation.

IMPEACHMENT is about the process of removing an elected official from their office when convicted of said crimes. If the President or V.P. have committed crimes, even WAR CRIMES, then I say;
LET THEM STAND TRIAL...
LET THEM DEFEND THEIR ACTION...
LET THE PEOPLE WITNESS...
LET THEM SERVE NO LONGER IF GUILTY!

I M P E A C H M E N T
The method used by the House to investigate facts while the elected officer sits in power.

T R I A L
The act held in the Senate pursuant to the facts revealed by the House in the discovery phase.

C O N V I C T I O N
The verdict handed down by the preponderance of evidence as amassed by both Houses of our Government.

Let the process begin!

What kind of American argues to let be, a war criminal as their president?

.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 AM on 04/02/2008
- Marioth I'm a Fan of Marioth 32 fans permalink
photo

Spirited, yet unrealistic, as noted by a scarfoot's polarized legislature proviso.

This is not a fight for the Well of the House. It for a war crimes tribunal. Treason, in the context of impeachment, remains a polticial crime. Impeachment would only result in removal of office. Not enough. And this will happen in less than a year anyway.

Better to build the rock-solid case and hit them with it once they cannot be pardoned.

Pax,
M.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 04/02/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 274 fans permalink

If BushCo attacks Iran, you are going to wish we had distracted them with impeachment.

a False flag incident to allow martial law is another scenario that failing to impeach may allow.

BushCo is dangerous. They have no qualms about kill millions of innocents. Hell Bush and Hagee both believe in the rapture...­soon.

Start the impeachment hearsing, put BushCo on the defensive. Disrupt their plans. reveal their crimes. Voters should know what republicans have been up to before the elections.

Then, yes, try them for war crimes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 AM on 04/02/2008
photo

The time for Impeachment is passed. ABOLISH this nonrepresentational government as prescribed in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence on April 19th in Philadelphia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 04/02/2008
- scarfoot I'm a Fan of scarfoot 2 fans permalink

Thanks for this thoughtful post. Though, as elsewhere noted by MAX1, impeachment is not just for political crimes the other constitutional non political crimes (treason, bribery...­.) are not in evidence here. I agree that taking the I word off the table was an error but given recent history believe not pursuing it reflects the political consideration that conviction would have been impossible to obtain in this polarized 51/49 senate. Thus would the process have only served to harden the conviction of those who support Bush, force the fence sitters to make a political, not evidentiary choice, shut down the process of government and in general paint the Democratic Party with the same partisanship that stains the Republicans.

Will we see preemptive pardons to apply to those whose crimes are under investigation now but will not come to fruition till after Bush leaves office? Can Bush preemptively pardon himself?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 AM on 04/02/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 274 fans permalink

Goddamn America's use of torture.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:41 AM on 04/02/2008

Yoo is a legal quack. He should be disbarred for such clearly inaccurate readings of US constitutional law and international law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 AM on 04/02/2008

John Yoo is a disgrace to the human race, as are his masters. I hope that his students at Berkeley walk out on his classes and boycott any future classes he is allowed to give. He is a disgrace to the rule of law, and should be disbarred immediately. This man shouldn't be allowed to wash dishes, he shouldn't be allowed to dig a ditch. He should be an outcast of society. There is an ethical standard that American's are supposed to stand for, and this man, and those he enabled are the anti-thesis of everything those ethical standards mean. American's should hang their heads in shame that such men have been allowed to wield the power of this nation in so cold blooded a manner, in such violation of everything that civilization itself stands for. Bushemada said that it was the terrorists that were trying to destroy civilization, and as usual, he lied...he is the one who is trying to strip back the layers of civility that the centuries of savagery and questioning of savagery have brought us. He is the one who would have civilization fall by the wayside, so he could "practice his love" on the bad guys, so he could be THE LAW, and even, in his twisted vision, a god...for it is God that speaks to him alone, and guides his hand in slaying the "evil doers".

This is a very dark time for this nation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 04/02/2008

Part 2 of 2

""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.­"

"Necessity or self-defense" are always the excuse for torture, from the days of Tomás de Torquemada to Lord High Inquisitor Bushemada. These animals have gone through the looking glass darkly, and can never come back. These are the people that prisons are designed to house. John Yoo is a torture advocate, who's "opinions" have lead to uncounted thousands of innocent people being tortured and killed. War Crimes Act of 1996 applies to him, Bushemada, and all that have taken part in this medieval game they've been playing. There's no difference between what Torquemada did, and what they're doing...ot­her than the fact that these demons can destroy the world.

God...when is this country going to wake up and stop this insanity? Whole family lines have ended in Iraq when US soldiers, frightened of everything that moves, ended their lives because they don't know the language, the customs, the conditions­...and end up killing entire families out of sheer ignorance! Babies die. Children die. Women and girls, men and boys...inn­ocent victims of Bushemada's mad messianic vision based in nothing but a desire for profit for his "base".

My god...ther­e's nothing more to say....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 AM on 04/02/2008

Part 1 of 2

This release should first, see John Yoo in jail. And second, time to impeach and remove from office the man who has said on multiple occasions, American's don't torture. Not to state the obvious, but he is a fucking liar.

""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."

Ok, let's run that through the Constitution again. "Customary" or not, international law, and in this specific case, international TREATIES, are the LAW OF THE LAND. I know Mr. Yoo has never read the Constitution, but those precise words are there....L­AW OF THE LAND, in reference to international treaties.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 AM on 04/02/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 105 fans permalink
photo

There is an apparent error in the second paragraph, which reads:

"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."

Captors refers to miliary interrogators, not their *captives.­*

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 04/02/2008

Too bad the terrorists don't have any restraints on their interrogation techniques. Huffpo would like you to believe that there is an equivalency between the two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 04/02/2008
- MsLiz I'm a Fan of MsLiz 105 fans permalink
photo

Au contraire! The US is not supposed to be the equivalent of terrorists. We are supposed to be better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 AM on 04/02/2008

We are far and away better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 04/02/2008
- scarfoot I'm a Fan of scarfoot 2 fans permalink

Exactly, MsLiz.
Let us never forget it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 AM on 04/02/2008

This has never been about THEM. It doesn't matter what they do...unles­s we're cowards, in which case it does. Then, as cowards, we can do as we please. Cowards take the easy path...bei­ng as bad as our enemies so we can be as good as we are doesn't carry water. We either have ethics, or we do not. If we have ethics, and we believe in human dignity, then we do the hard thing, we stand by our principles, and we do the right thing...wh­ich is to NOT TORTURE. Is that clear? Probably not...but so what...any­one who defends the use of torture is un-American, period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 04/02/2008

If it was a Democrat in the White House who approved these interrogation methods you'd all be singing a completely different tune.The bottom line is you people never got over losing Election 2000 and you've been putting your own selfish partisan interests over the national security of this country ever since.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 AM on 04/02/2008
- scarfoot I'm a Fan of scarfoot 2 fans permalink

Hear Hear. agree completely. Cowards torture.

President's oath requires that he "preserve protect and defend"...­..not American Citizens, but the "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." Founders knew what it was like for citizens to face threat on our own soil and wrote this anyway.

Preserving, protecting, defending the Constitution is the province of a heroic executive who leads a brave people. Frances Scott Key got it right... we must make his phrase again ring true:
O'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Declaration's closing makes it clear and answers the argument of those who in this matter might contend that the Constitution is not a suicide pact:

.....we pledge our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor...

A brave people can do no less to defend a land of the Free.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 AM on 04/02/2008

ResidentChimp (aka G. W. Bush) - there was no equivalency between Nazi war criminals and their techniques and the Allies. That is the important thing to note. Nazis did stoop so low the world was shocked and stunned. Now Americans have stooped as low as those they want to overthrow so why bother overthrowing them. Just admit they are like Americans. Not hones, not nice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 AM on 04/02/2008
- MAX1 I'm a Fan of MAX1 13 fans permalink

so,
In your world two wrongs are the right thing to do?
The madness of the "ENEMY" justifies your own madness?

What kind of American debates the merits to being LESS American in principle?

The bigger person isn't the one who carries the bigger stick but instead is the one who does the principled right thing, not the unprincipled unjust act, not unlike your common variety "ENEMY" you're afraid of. Now, what does that mirror say to you but that it is you who advocates being more like your enemy, "If they can do it, then why not I?"

.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 AM on 04/02/2008

Google this: Waterboarding My Kids Is Not Torture

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 04/02/2008

I must say I agree... Usually they kind of like it and want you to do it again...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 AM on 04/02/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect