2002 Justice memo OKs CIA interrogation tactics

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

PAMELA HESS and LARA JAKES JORDAN | July 24, 2008 11:46 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
In this image reviewed by the U.S. Military, a detainee is pictured at the medium security Camp 4 detention center, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, in Cuba, Wednesday, July 23, 2008. (AP Photo/Randall Mikkelsen, Pool)

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department in 2002 told the CIA that its interrogators would be safe from prosecution for violations of anti-torture laws if they believed "in good faith" that harsh techniques used to break prisoners' will would not cause "prolonged mental harm."

That heavily censored memo, released Thursday, approved the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques method by method, but warned that if the circumstances changed, interrogators could be running afoul of anti-torture laws.

The Aug. 1, 2002, legal opinion signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee was issued the same day he wrote a memo for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales defining torture as only those "extreme acts" that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure.

The Bybee legal opinion defining torture was withdrawn more than two years later. Justice spokesman Peter Carr said Thursday the interrogation techniques currently authorized by the Bush administration are legal. It's unclear, however, which of those outlined in the second memo are still being used. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to address whether waterboarding, for example, is legal since the CIA no longer uses it.

Waterboarding is a form of simulated drowning that critics call torture. CIA Director Michael Hayden banned waterboarding in 2006 but government officials have said it remains a possibility if approved by the attorney general, the CIA chief and the president.

Secret Bush administration memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques have been made public starting in 2004, when the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal revealed detainee mistreatment. Thursday's release adds to the growing record of the still secret program launched after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The new Bybee memo was obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union along with two other previously unreleased documents dealing with the CIA's interrogation program. The Bybee memo specifically approved proposed interrogation techniques that were devised for use against al-Qaida suspects who were resistant to traditional questioning methods.

The standards used to judge how physically rough an interrogation could be are blacked out. But interrogations that stress a detainee psychologically or emotionally were not allowed to cause "prolonged mental harm." That was defined as harm lasting months or even years after the interrogation.

Story continues below
advertisement

The memo suggests psychiatrists or psychologists should be consulted prior to interrogations to assess the likely mental health effect on the prisoner.

"The healthier the individual, the less likely that the use of any one procedure or set of procedures will result in prolonged mental harm," the memo states.

The new documents indicate that senior Bush administration officials were aware of the controversial and potentially problematic use of certain interrogation methods, including waterboarding.

In a second memo, dated Jan. 28, 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet authorized CIA officers to interrogate a terror suspect using an "enhanced technique" and ordered a record to be kept of it as the interrogation was happening. It was not clear whether such a record would be taken via notes, videotape or audiotape, but it was to include the "nature and duration of each such technique employed, the identities of those present" and other factors.

Tenet's memo also authorized the use of both "enhanced techniques" and "standard techniques," and said no other methods could be used "unless otherwise approved by headquarters."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project, said the Tenet document suggests the CIA at least contemplated techniques that went beyond waterboarding.

He said the interrogation records, if released, could be used as evidence by defendants in military tribunals at Guantanamo to prove they were tortured or coerced.

A third document released Thursday is undated but likely was written in 2004, well after the last confirmed use of waterboarding against a CIA prisoner. It addresses a planned interrogation, saying that it should go forward only with the clear understanding of all policies pertaining to the treatment of prisoners.

That unsigned memo defends interrogations but warns those authorizing them to be fully aware of the then-emerging international and U.S. legal debate surrounding the issue. It appears to serve as groundwork to defend the legality of interrogations _ including waterboarding _ if necessary.

"Intelligence gained using the interrogation techniques has saved Americans lives and property," the unsigned memo states.

It pointed to the Aug. 2002 Justice Department opinion that concluded "interrogation techniques including the waterboard do not violate the torture statute."

For several years, the Bush administration relied on the findings in that 2002 opinion to maintain its interrogations did not amount to torture _ and therefore had not violated any U.S. or international treaties on how detainees are treated.

However, the one-page undated memo highlights legislation by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. The amendment was approved by the Senate in June 2004 and was part of a 2005 military budget bill that became law in October 2004.

It also notes a 2004 Supreme Court decision _ which found that terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detention in U.S. courts _ that "raises possible concerns about judicial review of the program, and these issues."

The Bush administration maintains waterboarding was legal when it was used by CIA interrogators in 2002 and 2003 against top al-Qaida detainees Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. CIA Director Hayden said waterboarding was used, in part, because of widespread belief among U.S. intelligence officials that more catastrophic attacks were imminent.

 
 

Comments
24
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

View Comments:
- abouttime See Profile I'm a Fan of abouttime

Put the American terrorists on Trial!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 07/25/2008
- rwe See Profile I'm a Fan of rwe

Harsh and intense and long interrogations do not torture equal....Remember , no terrorist acts here since Sept 11.... And as Tom Dreesen says,,, If you have an Islamo Fascist terrorist who has pending info on the imminent deaths of innocents and won't tell and the government wants to hook up a car battery to his tesitcles , you have to make two points.... Red is positive and black is negative

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 07/25/2008
- dwmulenex See Profile I'm a Fan of dwmulenex

The clearest evidence that the president, the vice president and everyone in the decision chain --Rice, Ashcroft, Tenet, Powell--knew they were breaking U.S. law is the extraordinary attempt made to gin up specious DOJ opinions to legalize torture by appealing to the "good faith" of the unfortumate torturer . After Gonzales failed in his attempts at coverup, the Senate chumps replaced him with a smarter if no more ethical man in Mukasey, whose principal job is not to enforce the nation's law, but watch the back of his political masters and hide their probable criminal actions until they can Scooter Libby themselves into absolution by fading into history. Erernal vigilance may indeed be the price of freedom, and our senators and congresspeople, like the air force crew sleeping with launch codes in hand, were not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 AM on 07/25/2008
- CocteausTwin See Profile I'm a Fan of CocteausTwin

I think the POTUS should be t.o.r.t.u.r.ed in good faith to protect our ideals and find out what happened. The results can be kept classified.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 AM on 07/25/2008
- Vinca See Profile I'm a Fan of Vinca

I hope everyone will TUNE IN AT 10 am TO WATCH KUCINICH'S HEARINGS OM C-SPAN

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 AM on 07/25/2008
- 1differentdrummer See Profile I'm a Fan of 1differentdrummer

Conyer's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 07/25/2008
- scouserinlondon See Profile I'm a Fan of scouserinlondon

I am sick of the way "in good faith" has been incorporated into political spin and BS. as the bandage to cover a lie."In good faith= I lied, now prove me wrong" Bliar was the originator of this one,when The Lie started to unfold.." I read the "Intelligence"...... (pause for dramatic affect, ........jab finger on lectern in House of C ommons........ adopt grieved face and wronged voice)
in (really really special emphasis here) GOOD FAITH"........"But I thought; I was only doing right, I never lied!!!!!....they mislead me!!!! (sob,sob, wrings hands)....I only ever acted in GOOD FAITH...... you gotta believe me .....me good boy"Yeah right.
Fraid the minute "In good Faith" falls from their pouting lips, I know I am about to be snowed.
I just mentally switch off, otherwise another TV would got hurtling out the window.
In Good Faith goes in the dump basket along with " have no plans to " "at this present time" "have no recollection/cannot recall" and my all time favourite " But... the cheque is in the post!!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 AM on 07/25/2008
- deke33 See Profile I'm a Fan of deke33

I think it is time we tried these enhanced methods of getting data from those that thought it up and okayed it. Some questions worth torturing for are
1. Why make Iraq the fall guy?
2. What is the dolid evidence and irrefutable prooof of Iraq's wmds?
3. Why was Iraq a threat when it had been soundly defeated under Bush 1?
4. What data did our fly overs gather to prove Iraq was embarking down the nuclear road?
5. What data did the U2s and the spy in the sky produce of Iraq's wmds?
6. How many of our fly over planes were shot down?
7. Wasn't Saddam a paper tiger?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 AM on 07/25/2008
- danoj See Profile I'm a Fan of danoj

Sadam's own generals thought he had WMD's. Turns out Bush 1 destroyed them all, and Sadam pulled the wool over the worlds eyes for 15 years. Bush 2 parroted teh same garbbage Clinto did when he bombed Saddam. Maybe had Clinto not set up high hurdles for our intelligence agencies we could have gathered better intell. That and about 1 mill other should have and could haves led up to this. I know you all like to blame the repubs and Bush for this, but I could start quoting Rockefeller, HRC, and John Kerry about why the invasion was neccessary. Heck accourding to HRC she was up on all the White House intell during her husbands admin; for sure she should have known if it was acurate or not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 07/25/2008
- JiminNC See Profile I'm a Fan of JiminNC

Why waste time on this. Nobody is going to do anything about anything.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 AM on 07/25/2008
- danoj See Profile I'm a Fan of danoj

I love this the Dems can pound away on this issue, not that any sane American cares, but the Admin can't answer how many plots have been broken up because they slapped a terrorist around. Why, because all of that is classified info and the Dems know it. So they pound away on it to keep there nutty base happy, and the admin can do almost zero about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 AM on 07/25/2008
- 1differentdrummer See Profile I'm a Fan of 1differentdrummer

I see, and your rights are so secure that a runaway official or court can't deprive you of them? Think again, danjo. Your rights are only as secure as those "detainees'" rights are. On Mon. I saw a court deprive a defendant of his first amendment rights because the ADA requested it and defense did not object or fight at all. Gagged, just like that, for no good reason.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 07/25/2008
- DontSpinMeBro See Profile I'm a Fan of DontSpinMeBro

I guess you have been in a coma and don't know that the government says it has abused the "national security" classification over and over again.
Anyway, glad you finally woke up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 07/25/2008
- egal See Profile I'm a Fan of egal

Please. They knew torture was illegal, both by American laws and international. They knew the miitary reasons we can't torture: it makes our enemies more likely to engage in kamikaze and suicide tactics; it harshens their treatment of our imprisoned soldiers; it destroys our allies' trust in us.

And the penultimate reason soldiers don't torture: TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.

It almost invariably results in false information (95% verifiably false, the rest only believed to be useless and/or lies) that, if acted upon, too often results in loss of lives, equipment, and other resources. And the government knew this--we briefed them on all these reasons and on the legal quandary they would face for breaching our own laws and international treaties. We were ignored, in favor of the CIA's old-school tactics that have been outdated and proven ineffective and even dangerous to our security for most of the past century.

With lengthy studies and experienced military interrogators making a strong case against torture as even remotely and occasionally valid information-gathering tool, the government had no excuse whatsoever for refusing to follow our Constitution and choosing to put our soldiers in additional avoidable danger just to broaden executive power.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 AM on 07/25/2008
- kellygrrrl See Profile I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl

anxiously awaiting Atty Gen John Edwards seeking Criminal Charges against these Thugs

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 07/25/2008
- LITU See Profile I'm a Fan of LITU

How many violations does it take before a crime has been committed? A nation of laws my A*s! More like a nation of privilege.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 AM on 07/25/2008
- AzRealProgressive See Profile I'm a Fan of AzRealProgressive

If I was faced with a prisoner who had information that would save the lives of many, I would have no hesitation about doing what was necessary to extract that information. And if I thought his dog had the information, the dog would be next.

The live people would be my thank you. I have no stomach to look others in the eye and say, I did not try because some may consider it torture. So all had to die. Nice contrast

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 AM on 07/25/2008
- LITU See Profile I'm a Fan of LITU

In that case you should consider relocating. The benefits of torture have been denounced by every plausible, knowledgeable authority not associated with the practice. In my opinion, yours are the words of a coward, because only a coward would find a disavowed tactic to be acceptable.

Which brings me back to my comment, in that it is because of citizens of low report like you that has led to the degeneration of our national standards, and therefore, open violation of our laws.

I don't care how you color it, ole son, there is nothing progressive about you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 07/25/2008
- memphispaul See Profile I'm a Fan of memphispaul

18 USC 2441 is quite clear....
However, so are the attempts by this administration and the compliant congress to circumvent it.
This will allow officials that either participated, authorized or assisted with the same to face unconventional arrest authorities and removal to legal jurisdictions that will enforce international legal standards since they no longer apply within the US.
There will be no safely anywhere in the world for these war criminals.
Simply because the US has been arresting folks all over the globe and returning them to the US to face the federal bar of justice and many nations have been waiting for such an opportunity to turn the tables on officials in the US.
What goes around comes around.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 PM on 07/24/2008
- Danny See Profile I'm a Fan of Danny

I guess Paraguay is where the admin's criminals will all end up. No extradiction treaty. How convenient for the war criminals.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 07/25/2008
- RTIII See Profile I'm a Fan of RTIII


The extradition issue could be resolved. And, it doesn't speak to what The Hague might do...
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 07/25/2008
- JiminNC See Profile I'm a Fan of JiminNC

You are right. It will not be long before we are raising hell about our kids being tortured in Russia or Iran.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 AM on 07/25/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com