Google

Web Capitol Hill Blue

 
July 25, 2008 - 6:37am.

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The Bybee legal opinion defining torture was withdrawn more than two years later.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.

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.

»

Well, where was Attorney

Well, where was Attorney General John Ashcroft during this time? Could he have questioned some of the CIA/White House decisions about torture? The day he felt nervous about the bare marble breast over his right shoulder caused a massive velvet curtain to hung behind him but realized that torture was being done is typical of a religious man who had to remove the offending breast but allow torture to our enemies.

Is there any way we can clean out the CIA or is it now bigger than our federal government? Are we dealing with our own American nazi group?

»

Lillibet Operation

Lillibet Operation Paperclip
provides the answer to your question. Read the history of the CIA, its ties to Bonesmen, and the relation of that august body of spies and spooks to those of a more totalitarian bent than has generally been thought of as "the American way". Then answers will astound you.

As for the relative size of the CIA, vis a vis the size of the federal government, that is a good question. Another good question is why so many private contractors are providing the 'green badge' work. That is, privateers are running and staffing the intelligence agencies. Theoretically, this is to provide those services at a greater efficiency than the old civil servants could provide.

As for the bust covering, the drape was a mere $8000. Word is, the statue suffered no permanent physical damage substantially likely to cause death, organ failure, or long term mental health damage. All, as they say in government parlance, at less than 10% of a spy's annual salary, if said spy is a GS-11 or so.

»

Lillibet, I just received

Lillibet, I just received "The Secret History of the CIA" by Joseph Trento. It is a massive tome but I will try to plow through it. It was written in 2001 so it probably won't be updated to include Bush 43. My poor old eyes will give it a go!

»

Shall I send eye

Shall I send eye drops?

There is much additional information (as if you'll have time to look with that on the reading list), on the old "Internets". Just remember that even the secret histories get a look see by the CIA folks before publication. They have what amounts to approval or not, in the process.

As always, 'follow the money'.

sigh...

Lillibet

»

I think it should be pointed

I think it should be pointed out that this was The Aug. 1, 2002, legal opinion signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee.

That is before Congress authorized Bush to go to war with Iraq.

Was the Patriot act even voted on by then?

»

The USA PATRIOT Act is a

The USA PATRIOT Act is a controversial Act of Congress that United States President George W. Bush signed into law on

    October 26, 2001

. The acronym stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in

    October 2002

as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

Wikipedia Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

»

The piece by Phil Hoskins

The piece by Phil Hoskins which points out that Harry Truman was really guilty of starting the "preemptive" war policy, with the Korean War, is great. America has been sliding down the drain for quite a while. The mess we're in is an "historical inevitability" as Marx would have said.

»

I read several years ago

I read several years ago that Clinton had written an Executive Order that was used as the model for the Patriot's Bill. Someone in the Bush Administration did a rewrite and the bill was approved but not read by any member of Congress.

Deja, a combination of a dishonest set of Presidents, a lazy Congress and lazier voters surely screwed us all. I wonder if thefe is any hope for November.

»

The hope lies within us

The hope lies within us SAndra. Changes will happen but it will take the people to demand these changes and then make them happen.

We did it before and we will do it again. But first we must exterminate the White House and Washington of all these damn neo-con cockroaches.

Because if they are allowed to take over our government for 4 MORE YEARS, America will be no different than Germany before it started World WAr 2!

»

Sandra, I just finished

Sandra, I just finished reading "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. The inside story of how the war on terror turned into a war on American ideals. An excellent book, I highly recommend it. It points the finger directly at Cheney with David Addington and John Yoo writing the terrible "rules" for the extreme torture. The FBI refused to go along with their plan but the CIA really got into the terrible torture and it tells the horrible things they did to some of the prisoners. Bill Moyers interviewed Mayer on his show Friday evening. She's quite young, which was a surprise to me. Others in the administration were in on the decision making - Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Card and Tenet. Congress needs to go after these people and maybe after the hearings yesterday with Kucinich and others, we will start to see some beginnings of justice. Let us hope so!
Colocritic

»

Torture is total sickos

Torture is total sickos being total sickos.

'Nuff said.

.........................

Don't tread on me.

»

Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments

Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name.

Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue

Sign up for Capitol Hill Blue's email newsletter
Get our headlines each morning.

Email:

User login