Memo shows Whitehouse ordered CIA to use torture

[CptStern]

After years of denials, the CIA has formally acknowledged the existence of two classified documents governing aggressive interrogation and detention policies for terrorism suspects, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

But CIA lawyers say the documents -- memos from President Bush and the Justice Department -- are still so sensitive that no portion can be released to the public.


The disclosures by the CIA general counsel's office came in a letter Friday to attorneys for the ACLU. The group had filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York two years ago under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking records related to U.S. interrogation and detention policies.


Friday's letter from John L. McPherson, the CIA's associate general counsel, lists two documents that pertain to the ACLU's records request.

The ACLU describes the first as a "directive" signed by Bush governing CIA interrogation methods...

The second document is an August 2002 legal memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA general counsel. The ACLU describes it as "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top al-Qaeda members."

so much for the moral high ground, so much for it being a "few bad apples, because america doesnt use torture" bs the bush admin has been spoonfeeding americans for the last 7 years or so

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301221.html

 

[nurizeko]

I've never bought too much into the notion America was really up to no good, but the inability to provide proper public services, the torture...hell, half the Republican party and the people they attract.....



If fascism ever rises again I would be surprised if it wasn't born somewhere in middle-America, you guys scare the shit out of my little liberal European soul.

 

[Pesmerga]

A more appropriate thread title would be

CIA Acknowledges 2 Interrogation Memos

The ACLU describes the first as a "directive" signed by Bush governing CIA interrogation methods or allowing the agency to set up detention facilities outside the United States. McPherson describes it as a "memorandum." In September, Bush confirmed the existence of secret CIA prisons and transferred 14 remaining terrorism suspects from them to Guantanamo Bay.

The second document is an August 2002 legal memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA general counsel. The ACLU describes it as "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top al-Qaeda members." (This document is separate from another widely publicized Justice memo, also issued in August 2002, that narrowed the definition of torture. The Justice Department has since rescinded the latter.)

These memos have not been released, only recognized. The contents of the memo were paraphrased, and did not mention a single thing about torture. There is legal interrogation and without reading the memos themselves, there's no possibility to know they condoned illegal torture as a tool for interrogation.

 

[No Limit]

How convenient. They are super secret memos and we'll never get to see them.

there's no possibility to know they condoned illegal torture as a tool for interrogation.

Illegal torture? as opposed to what? Legal torture?

 

[Pesmerga]

No, my mistake. No torture, as defined as inflicting excruciating physical pain to compel one to give information (or for cruelty's sake), ought to be legal. However, my point still stands that the thread's title and its content is misleading and presumptuous of guilt without evidence.

 

[unozero]

How convenient. They are super secret memos and we'll never get to see them.



Illegal torture? as opposed to what? Legal torture?

it's such a loose term imho

 

[No Limit]

Guilt without evidance? There is no evidance, the CIA is not releasing anything. How many years did it take for them to even admit these memos existed? We will never see any of this evidance. But all of us already know that torture happened. And the way they are covering this up only a naive person (or a partisan hack) would believe that the order to torture didn't come from the top.

 

[No Limit]

it's such a loose term imho

Nothing lose about the fact that it is illegal. And nothing really lose about the term eighter:

http://www.answers.com/torture

 

[unozero]

forcibg somone to listen to music they don't like for 24 hours is considered torture.
Same thing with locking somebody in a cold room with no blanket etc.....

 

[Pesmerga]

Guilt without evidance? There is no evidance, the CIA is not releasing anything. How many years did it take for them to even admit these memos existed? We will never see any of this evidance.

...exactly?

But all of us already know that torture happened.

Until I see convictions and verdicts, I am unmoved by popular consensus. If I had to guess, I'd say prisoner torture in Gitmo or other federal prisons occurred. But I'll be damned if I vote or speak publicly based on a guess.

And the way they are covering this up only a naive person (or a partisan hack) would believe that the order to torture didn't come from the top.

Or someone, who, like, wants to see some proof and a court verdict. I'm not trying to defend those involved with prisoner treatment, I'm trying to defend fvcking logic and thinking for one's self.

 

[No Limit]

...exactly?

Exactly, it's pretty ****ed that our government will cover up a crime and we will sit around and do nothing.

Until I see convictions and verdicts, I am unmoved by popular consensus. If I had to guess, I'd say prisoner torture in Gitmo or other federal prisons occurred. But I'll be damned if I vote or speak publicly based on a guess.

...

Or someone, who, like, wants to see some proof and a court verdict. I'm not trying to defend those involved with prisoner treatment, I'm trying to defend fvcking logic and thinking for one's self.

Right, and OJ Simpson never really killed anybody.

A verdict here is needed. That's the entire point, the ACLU is trying to get that verdict. And our government has been putting up road block after road block. Not only that our government has lied to us on this issue on more than one occasion in the past. Why? Because they are clearly hiding something, they are guilty. You don't need a court to tell you this, you know as well as I do that torture occured. Just like you don't need a court to tell you that OJ did it. Why are you not pissed off?

 

[Pesmerga]

Because I believe in innocence until proven guilty in the court of law? I believe there are people who are more involved in the events, and know more to the story than sensationalist media outlets will ever publish. Attorneys, judges, journalists, and people connected closely to the cases (like those within the ACLU) have far more credible personal opinions than unaccountable websites could ever have.

Because they are clearly hiding something, they are guilty.

This logic is a terrifying example of how a lot of people actually think. The US Government is run by public officials, civil servants, and other specific human individuals. There is no collective "they" that are collectively convicted. It is not the grand arena where the evil guys plot to instigate war and scheme to rape human rights. There are differing ideologies and laws that are broken and these are regular human beings that have the same right to trial as every human on this Earth ought to have.

Just because someone acts suspicious does not mean they are guilty. There are points of view that should be fully explained before presumptions are made. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it any less retarded and uninspired.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I don't know completely about the situation but if they've got quite the compelling evidence, torture the bastard.

 

[No Limit]

Just because someone acts suspicious does not mean they are guilty. There are points of view that should be fully explained before presumptions are made. You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it any less retarded and uninspired.

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be explained and the government is refusing to explain them, that's my point. Saying they are acting suspecious is an understatement of the year, they are flat out lying and covering up. If you think they are lying and covering up because they are innocent I have a bridge to sell you. You can call this point I am making retarded if you have nothing smarter to say but you know as well as I do that torture occured. You said above that torture is and should be illegal. So I don't understand why you think it's okay for the government not to cooperate with an investigation in to this.

 

[Pesmerga]

Again, baseless accusations and presumption of guilt, and guilt that you seem to collectively apply to the US Government as a whole instead of specific individuals. Can we please attempt to think for ourselves? I know, it's boring when you can't use loaded words full of negative connotation; suddenly your argument becomes a lot smarter.

As far as I know, the White House has not illegally obstructed official investigations, or if there are official investigations. It seems that everyone is in a hurry to find a one page conclusion that the US Government is evil and they ought to be sent on a ship to the sun. Ask yourself when it was in your life that you started looking for evidence to prove a conclusion you already made in your mind, rather than asking important questions and looking for all the answers and then, after all possible research has been done, creating a careful and nuanced conclusion.

 

[No Limit]

So you are telling me that this administration never actually lied about torture?

As far as you know the government has not illegally obstructed offical investigations in to torture? What would you call destroying video tapes of interrogations after a court ordered them not to?

If you can not dispute that Bush lied and you can not dispute that the CIA destroyed those video tapes you have to explain to me why they would do this if they have nothing to hide.

Finally, you can go directly to the white house and ask them what torture means to them:

Similar to the document written for the C.I.A. in August 2002, Mr. Yoo’s memorandum offered a narrow definition of what constitutes torture.

“The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result,” Mr. Yoo wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02terror.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

So as long as you aren't doing something that will cause death, organ failure or permanent damage then it's all good. This goes against the dictionary definition and the legal definition of what torture actually is. By the way, Mr. Yoo actually refused to testify in front of congress after this memo came out. Why?

Ask yourself when it was in your life that you started looking for evidence to prove a conclusion you already made in your mind, rather than asking important questions and looking for all the answers and then, after all possible research has been done, creating a careful and nuanced conclusion.

I suggest you ask yourself that question instead. Because I am pointing out some basic facts to you and you continue to plug your ears and scream "I can't hear you!!!!!".

Do me a favor, instead of calling my arguments "retarted", "stupid", or "biased" try to stick to the actual facts, you will look much smarter and we'll be able to have a much better discussion.

 

[Pesmerga]

So you are telling me that this administration never actually lied about torture?

No evidence beyond a statement from Bush denying the use of torture. The rest is piss sensationalist journalism.

As far as you know the government has not illegally obstructed offical investigations in to torture? What would you call destroying video tapes of interrogations after a court ordered them not to?

If you can not dispute that Bush lied and you can not dispute that the CIA destroyed those video tapes you have to explain to me why they would do this if they have nothing to hide.

As far as I can gather from that article, the only potential law that was broken was the destruction of evidence. It may infer a guilty conscious, but is hardly proof that those tapes recorded torture.

Finally, you can go directly to the white house and ask them what torture means to them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02terror.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

So as long as you aren't doing something that will cause death, organ failure or permanent damage then it's all good. This goes against the dictionary definition and the legal definition of what torture actually is. By the way, Mr. Yoo actually refused to testify in front of congress after this memo came out. Why?

This seems to be the appropriate link Cpt. Stern should have posted originally. In it are held the actual contents of the CIA memorandums that concern the military's provisions of detaining and interrogating enemy combatants during a time of conflict or war.

I suggest you ask yourself that question instead. Because I am pointing out some basic facts to you and you continue to plug your ears and scream "I can't hear you!!!!!".

Do me a favor, instead of calling my arguments "retarted", "stupid", or "biased" try to stick to the actual facts, you will look much smarter and we'll be able to have a much better discussion.

I haven't made a single baseless accusation, not even a conclusion. I am listening to your arguments very carefully, I just said they were subjective, baseless, and uninformed arguments.

Now that I've had a chance to glance over (but not yet read fully) the CIA memos, I am more inclined to believe that international law has been violated. But that does not mean that federal US law had been violated: the memos were approved by the Justice Department. Months later, reported use of "harsh interrogation methods" were conducted on enemy combatants in foreign US prisons. Afterwards, the Justice Department rescinded those memos. Law does not apply retroactively, meaning that you cannot punish someone for doing something that was once legal but isn't anymore. If there is evidence that torture persisted beyond the voiding of those memos, I'd be all eyes.

No Pentagon investigations have found that any senior Bush administration officials were complicit in the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

The only potential laws being broken are international laws (along with destruction of evidence as previously mentioned), specifically Geneva Conventions, of which I have too little experience with to speak upon with any certainty. I can guess, however, that torture in all obvious forms are considered highly illegal, to which I'd agree.




Shame on Stern for posting an article written in 2006. I was stupid not to check the date of the article. Even still, the thread title is misleading. The Justice Department (aka: the attorney general) had Mr. Yoo (The attorney general's legal advisor) write up an opinion on the pertinence of domestic and international law when concerned with interrogation and detention. The DOJ approved the paper, granting CIA operatives to use harsh interrogation (which cannot be specifically proved to be torture, although it is implied). There is no evidence that the Bush administration exclusively ordered the CIA to commit torture in exchange for information.

A paraphrased memo can be found here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Justice_Department_Memo_on_Torture
And its completed form found here http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/OLC_Memo1.pdf
and here http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/OLC_Memo2.pdf

 

[No Limit]

This is getting a little absurd.

No evidence beyond a statement from Bush denying the use of torture. The rest is piss sensationalist journalism.

I gave you evidance later on in the post with the memos. Bush knew he was lying when he made that statement.

As far as I can gather from that article, the only potential law that was broken was the destruction of evidence. It may infer a guilty conscious, but is hardly proof that those tapes recorded torture.

Right, they destroyed the tape because nothing illegal took place. They were just hugging the al queda suspect and didn't want that to come out. You can't be serious.

Now that I've had a chance to glance over (but not yet read fully) the CIA memos, I am more inclined to believe that international law has been violated. But that does not mean that federal US law had been violated: the memos were approved by the Justice Department. Months later, reported use of "harsh interrogation methods" were conducted on enemy combatants in foreign US prisons. Afterwards, the Justice Department rescinded those memos. Law does not apply retroactively, meaning that you cannot punish someone for doing something that was once legal but isn't anymore. If there is evidence that torture persisted beyond the voiding of those memos, I'd be all eyes.
...
The only potential laws being broken are international laws (along with destruction of evidence as previously mentioned), specifically Geneva Conventions, of which I have too little experience with to speak upon with any certainty. I can guess, however, that torture in all obvious forms are considered highly illegal, to which I'd agree.

The point is these memos that came from the white house were in itself illegal. If it violated international law it violated US law. Our consitutation clearly states that we must abide by any treaty we sign, all you need to know is that we signed on to the geneva conventions. So every time Bush violates those conventions he is breaking the law.

Let's review here real quick as this is about to turn in to a quote war and the main points will get lost.

I gave you proof that our government destroyed evidance, that Bush lied, and that the white house itself approved torture with the Yoo memos. Originally in this thread you said that torture is and should infact be illegal. You now have more than enough evidance here that torture occured and it was approved by the white house. Nothing I am saying here is retarted, stupid, or biased, those are the facts. Are you now outraged at this administration or do you need a judge to tell you that you should be outraged (even if this administration continues to stonewall all legal cases in this regard)?

 

[i am HOLLYWOOD]

Torture is such a ridiculous concept really.

Either you do it to get information from someone

or you do it because you're a sadist,

if you're in the first group, you're going about it all wrong. If i start removing your skin with a potato pealer and i tell you that if you say 'I love My Little Pony' that i'll stop, wouldnt you just say it? I mean really. No one is that stupid. I would bet you a large sum of money (i had such a thing), that about 70% or better of the information gotten in this fashion is faulty.