Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Condoning Torture?

Senate Democrats plan to closely question Michael Mukasey, the nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, about his views on torture...

Print Friendly

Senate Democrats plan to closely question Michael Mukasey, the nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, about his views on torture following revelations that the Justice Department issued secret directives legally justifying harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last Friday that the series of memoranda, issued in 2005 and disclosed in the New York Times last week, had "reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret."

Leahy and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, have long been stymied in their efforts to obtain copies of the confidential opinions, which were drafted by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under disgraced former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, a longtime George W. Bush loyalist.

Shortly after Gonzales took office in 2005, the Office of Legal Counsel found a loophole to protect CIA interrogation techniques from legal scrutiny. Officials decided privately that according to the restrictions outlined by the international Convention Against Torture, the CIA is barred from using torture, but it did not necessarily have to abide by the convention’s ban on "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" treatment.

The explicitly approved methods included what the New York Times described as a "barrage … of painful physical and psychological tactics."

Prominent human rights groups are also urging Congress to closely scrutinize Mukasey when confirmation hearings begin on October 17. A former federal judge, he is widely regarded as a consistent conservative with a reputation for independence.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee should seek a commitment from the next attorney general that the Justice Department will no longer rubber-stamp White House requests for legal cover for torture," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights First.

"Congress should be clear: it will not confirm another attorney general who advises the president that it is okay to break the law," said Joanne Mariner, a director for Human Rights Watch, which is also urging Congress to hold hearings on the role of Gonzales and other administration officials in facilitating detainee abuses.

Previous attempts have been made in recent years by both the Justice Department and Congress to define what is on-the-books legal for interrogations.

The original "torture memo," as it has become known, was drafted in August 2002 by John Yoo, who was then assistant attorney general. The memo notoriously advocated the possible legality of torture and argued that "enemy combatants" could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions.

But when Yoo left the Justice Department in 2003, the new head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, did not agree with Yoo’s conclusions. The policy was formally withdrawn in 2004, and a new legal opinion with an overtly anti-torture tone was then posted on the department’s website.

In 2005, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain introduced an amendment to the 2006 Defense Department Appropriations Bill prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees." But just before the bill passed, the Justice Department issued another legal opinion stating that techniques used by the CIA did not breach these standards.

Even while detaining suspected terrorists at "black sites" in Afghanistan, Thailand, and Eastern Europe, CIA officers questioned whether techniques being used were legal. As their concerns filtered back to the CIA legal counsel, the Bush administration turned to the Justice Department for the approval it needed to give CIA officers the go ahead.

These techniques—sometimes used in combination—included holding prisoners for hours in freezing cells while they were naked, slapping their heads, confining them in stress positions for hours, depriving them of sleep, and "waterboarding," a technique that simulates for prisoners the experience of drowning.

Still, Bush defended the techniques at a press conference last Friday, insisting: "This government does not torture people. We stick to U.S. law and our international obligations."

"The American people expect us to find out information, this actionable intelligence, so we can help protect them. That’s our job," he added. In July, Bush signed a new executive order permitting "enhanced" interrogation techniques; exactly what they are remains secret.

Bush also said the techniques had been "fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress."

However, some key legislators say they were left out of the loop and have demanded copies of all legal opinions issued by the Justice Department relating to interrogation techniques since 2004.

"I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by the New York Times than by the Department of Justice," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a letter to acting attorney general Peter Keisler.

According to the New York Times, the CIA is also again holding suspects in so-called black sites, secret overseas prisons where detainees are kept incommunicado, with little or no public oversight.

"The administration often asserts that the rules for interrogation are somehow unclear," said Massimino of Human Rights First. The Times’ "revelations about more secret Department of Justice memos show once again that it is not the rules that are unclear, but rather the administration’s commitment to upholding them."

"This is the fundamental problem that you get when your approach is, ‘How do we circumvent the law?’ instead of, ‘How do we interpret the law?’" said Jumana Musa, advocacy director for Domestic Human Rights and International Justice at Amnesty International’s USA chapter.

Many CIA professionals now believe that these types of extreme techniques are unnecessary for interrogation. Instead, they feel that measured and consistent interrogations, undertaken by well-informed officials, are often equally effective.

With a new attorney general waiting in the wings, rights groups are looking to the revelations as a moment of opportunity to change the course of the administration’s track record.

"After experiencing nearly three years of a broken Justice Department under an attorney general with one of the worst civil liberties legacies in our nation’s history, it is long overdue for the Bush administration to come clean on its record on torture. This despicable episode highlights the need for renewed scrutiny and accountability," said American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

Abra Pollock writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Abra Pollock, "Condoning Torture?" Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, October 8, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Established in Baltimore in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest Zionist organization in the United States—and also among the most aggressively anti-Arab ones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and chosen by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a 2016 Republican presidential candidate.


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

President Trump and his Iranophobe supporters are itching for a war with Iran, without any consideration of the disastrous consequences that will ensue.


Print Friendly

The war of words and nuclear threats between the United States and North Korea make a peaceful resolution to the escalating crisis more difficult than ever to achieve.


Print Friendly

The new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, is anything but non-partisan or apolitical. For the deeply conservative Kelly, the United States is endangered not only by foreign enemies but by domestic forces that either purposely, or unwittingly, support them.


Print Friendly

The prospects of Benjamin Netanyahu continuing as Israel’s prime minister are growing dim. But for those of us outside of Israel who support the rights of Palestinians as well as Israelis and wish for all of those in the troubled region to enjoy equal rights, the fall of Netanyahu comes too late to make much difference.


Print Friendly

Rich Higgins, the recently fired director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, once said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program, that “more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS than have been killed fighting for the United States since 9/11.”


Print Friendly

This is how the Trump administration could try to use the IAEA to spur Iran to back out of the JCPOA.


Print Friendly

President Trump seems determined to go forward with a very hostile program toward Iran, and, although a baseless US pullout from the JCPOA seems unlikely, even the so-called “adults” are pushing for a pretext for a pullout. Such an act does not seem likely to attract European support. Instead, it will leave the United States isolated, break the nuclear arrangement and provide a very reasonable basis for Iran to restart the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent in earnest.


RightWeb
share