Aug. 1, 2002 saw the most infamous of the "torture papers," DOJ/OLC chief Bybee's memorandum to Gonzales entitled: "Standards of Conduct for Interrogations, under the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Anti-Torture Act (18 U.S. 2340-2340A)." This memorandum was reportedly drafted by the DOJ for the CIA, and sent directly to the White House without consultation with either the State Department, or the Joint Chiefs and Joint Staff legal experts. It is an extremely detailed, 50-page memorandum, giving the most lenient interpretation conceivable, of the anti-torture treaty and laws. The memo states at the outset:
We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical.
Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention.
We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A's proscription against torture.
We conclude that for an act to constitute torture as defined in Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure.
Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of body function, or even death.
For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years....[...]
We conclude that, under current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A.
When the White House officially released this memo (it already having been leaked), DOJ attorneys suddenly disavowed it, telling reporters that it would be "repudiated" and "replaced." But the official who signed it, Jay Bybee, is now a Federal appellate judge, sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Washington Post reported on June 24, that sometime in December, two Navy interrogators heard military intelligence personnel talking about using techniques which they considered "repulsive and potentially illegal". Their concerns were brought to DOD General Counsel Haynes by Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora. Haynes apparently ignored Mora's appeals until Mora threatened to put them in writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment