Bush Torture Memo Slapped Down by Court

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Johnny Dwyer, Time

As the curtain falls on the Bush Administration, one set piece of the Administration's policy on torture has finally been ushered offstage. The Bybee Memo, a 2002 opinion authored by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was brushed aside last week by a federal judge overseeing the nation's first-ever criminal trial of an American accused of torture abroad. The public defenders representing torture suspect Chucky Taylor, a U.S. citizen and the son of former Liberian military strongman Charles Taylor, submitted it for consideration as part of potential jury instructions. But Federal Judge Cecilia Altonaga rejected the terms laid out in the memo, saying, "I will not give an instruction that relies upon that memorandum as its authority."

It was a humiliating epilogue to the Bush Administration's attempt to integrate what many critics describe as undeniable torture into U.S. military and intelligence policy. The Bybee memo, (named for Jay Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel) was largely authored by John Yoo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Office of General Counsel. It provided legal guidance for civilians engaged in interrogating terrorism suspects. Administration officials feared that CIA employees and other nonmilitary personnel could face indictment under the federal law that upholds U.S. obligation to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The memo narrowly defined torture as an act "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

From the outset, critics of the memo viewed the legal thinking behind it as flawed. Then Navy general counsel Alberto Mora identified it as a "dangerous document" that "spots some of the legal trees, but misses the constitutional forest. Because it identifies no boundaries to action — more, it alleges there are none — it is virtually useless as guidance." What particularly troubled Mora and other critics of the memo was that, as a document from the Office of Legal Counsel, its opinions were binding as the Administration's interpretation of the law.

The memo was eventually rescinded after Mora and other critics raised objections directly to the Pentagon leadership that was developing detainee interrogation procedures. It was resurrected by Taylor's defense attorneys in their attempt to win acquittal for their client, in the apparent belief that it could provide legal cover to the acts he was accused of committing, which included electrocution of genitals, melting plastic onto a victim's flesh, pouring scalding water on a victim's hands. Instead, Judge Altonaga summarily dismissed the memo and, on Oct. 27, Taylor, an American citizen, was convicted on five counts of torture under a law known as the extraterritorial torture statute. The judge ultimately relied on the December 2004 Office of Legal counsel opinion that replaced the Bybee Memo, one that defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical pain and suffering other than pain and suffering incident to lawful sanctions."

Rejected now by both court and bureaucracy, the Bybee Memo may have no effective existence. But its notoriety is certain to outlive this Administration. Indeed, critics believe it will be part of the Bush legacy. Says Martin Lederman, visiting professor with the Georgetown University Law Center and former adviser to the Office of Legal Counsel: "the memo will be seen as one of the most extreme deviations from the rule of law and from the President's obligation to take care that the law is faithfully executed."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1855910,00.html

[almaty 19]

torture is wrong...

[IAMX 3,055]

Good for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to call Al Quieda or supposed "terrorists" a country. They are bound by the Geneva convention, as signatories, to abide by the law of the land set forth in this treaty. The President and the executive, as well as every citizen of this country, not being above the law of the land, must bear responsibility for it. I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[Chica Yeyé 41]

torture is wrong...

indeed it is hermano

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

torture is wrong...

indeed it is hermano

Correction,

torture is good as long as the affected party is your sibling

[lucyrich 20]

I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

The problem with impeachment is that it results in President Cheney.

Filing charges after Jan 20 has no such downside, though. And a presidential pardon would perhaps be less likely, regardless of who wins tomorrow (can you see McCain pardoning someone for a policy of ordering torture?).

[Chica Yeyé 41]

torture is wrong...

indeed it is hermano

Correction,

torture is good as long as the affected party is your sibling

Fine. You win

[Heracles 417]

Good for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to call Al Quieda or supposed "terrorists" a country. They are bound by the Geneva convention, as signatories, to abide by the law of the land set forth in this treaty. The President and the executive, as well as every citizen of this country, not being above the law of the land, must bear responsibility for it. I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

And the SVRT method of information extraction is???

[IAMX 3,055]

Good for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to call Al Quieda or supposed "terrorists" a country. They are bound by the Geneva convention, as signatories, to abide by the law of the land set forth in this treaty. The President and the executive, as well as every citizen of this country, not being above the law of the land, must bear responsibility for it. I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

And the SVRT method of information extraction is???

One within the scope as defined by the Third Geneva Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_...risoners_of_War

And the UN Convention against Torture:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/z?trtys:100TD00020:

Both of which are law of the land.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

Good for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to call Al Quieda or supposed "terrorists" a country. They are bound by the Geneva convention, as signatories, to abide by the law of the land set forth in this treaty. The President and the executive, as well as every citizen of this country, not being above the law of the land, must bear responsibility for it. I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

And the SVRT method of information extraction is???

One within the scope as defined by the Third Geneva Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_...risoners_of_War

And the UN Convention against Torture:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/z?trtys:100TD00020:

Both of which are law of the land.

Very good answer. Although obviously, at times our government thinks it can define when and when not to follow the treaties it signs.

[jundp 191]

Good for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they want to call Al Quieda or supposed "terrorists" a country. They are bound by the Geneva convention, as signatories, to abide by the law of the land set forth in this treaty. The President and the executive, as well as every citizen of this country, not being above the law of the land, must bear responsibility for it. I don't care how close it is to January. Impeach the mother ######, and jail the people who engage in this.

[Heracles 417]

One within the scope as defined by the Third Geneva Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_...risoners_of_War

And the UN Convention against Torture:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/z?trtys:100TD00020:

Both of which are law of the land.

The question is are Al Qaeda operatives classified as prisoners of war. The United States is not exactly fighting an army or another nation anymore. Hence the initial mission accomplished.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Aficionado

[Heracles 417]

Very good answer. Although obviously, at times our government thinks it can define when and when not to follow the treaties it signs.

It is not a good answer at all. The same thing happened in Vietnam where the United states was playing by rules while NV was not abiding by any convention whatsoever.

In a time of war, the rules should either apply to both parties or no parties at all.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Aficionado

[IAMX 3,055]

One within the scope as defined by the Third Geneva Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_...risoners_of_War

And the UN Convention against Torture:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/z?trtys:100TD00020:

Both of which are law of the land.

The question is are Al Qaeda operatives classified as prisoners of war. The United States is not exactly fighting an army or another nation anymore. Hence the initial mission accomplished.

That's the Alberto Gonzales definition. Alberto Gonzales also suggested habeas corpus doesn't apply to citizens. Both contrary to what judges, who have more constitutional knowledge than both of us, have ruled.

The rules are right there in the links I gave you. No one is above them.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

Very good answer. Although obviously, at times our government thinks it can define when and when not to follow the treaties it signs.

It is not a good answer at all. The same thing happened in Vietnam where the United states was playing by rules while NV was not abiding by any convention whatsoever.

In a time of war, the rules should either apply to both parties or no parties at all.

There is a reason we learned guerrilla tactics after Vietnam.

NVA waged the war with the tactics they felt would give them an advantage.

Google up NVA members accused of War Crimes. You'll find some under the conventions listed by SVRT.