America's Debate > New DOJ Memo on Torture:

America's Debate > Archive > In the News Archive > [A] War on Terrorism

Google

Sponsored Links

BoF

Jan 1 2005, 01:05 AM

A memo recently published on the Department of Justice webpage redefines torture and includes “mental torture.”

The Bush administration claims it is already following the guidelines. The memo does not address Bush’s ability to suspend anti-torture laws as part of his role as commander in chief.

QUOTE

WASHINGTON - A prisoner doesn't have to undergo excruciating pain to be considered a victim of torture, the Justice Department now says. But it's not clear whether this revised, broader definition of torture will change the treatment of foreign detainees.

<snip>

The White House says the new Justice Department memo defining torture doesn't reflect a change in policy because the administration has always abided by international laws that prohibit the mistreatment of detainees.

<snip>

But the new document contradicts the previous version, saying torture need not be limited to pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Instead, the memo concludes that anti-torture laws passed by Congress equate torture with physical suffering "even if it does not involve severe physical pain" but still must be more than "mild and transitory." That can include mental suffering under certain circumstances, but it would not have to last for months or years, as the previous document said.

<snip>

The 17-page memo does not address two of the most controversial assertions in the first memo: that Bush, as commander in chief in wartime, had authority superseding anti-torture laws and that U.S. personnel had legal defenses against criminal liability in such cases.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/10534141.htm?1c

Fort Worth Star Telegram link may require registration

The full memo can be found at the Department of Justice web page. This is a pdf file

http://www.justice.gov/olc/dagmemo.pdf

Questions for debate

1. Considering that the Bush administration says that it is already following the guidelines, do you think any changes in U. S. policy will arise from the memo?

2. Should Bush’s authority to supersede anti-torture laws (older memo) be stripped from his authority as commander-in-chief? Why or why not?

Google

Sponsored Links

CatchPhrase

Jan 1 2005, 04:48 AM

What we have is blanket authority to subject detainees who may or may not be guilty of any crime to physical or mental stress (which isn't considered torture).

There is nothing in there about when it is appropriate to subject detainees to physical or mental duress. That is, it appears OK to stress (not torture) prisoners for fun or to make examples of them?

Clearly torturing prisoners without a convincing necessity is banned. But, what about "sub torture" type activities? Activities that subject a person to stress yet don't meet the requirements of being considered torture.

I dont think that sort of activity is ok .. reason being .. not all detainees are guilty of the crimes they are suspected of. In fact many times detainees aren't even charged with anything. A person should only be subject to harsh interrogation methods if there is proof that the individual has the required information. I also find the mention of the fact that it's ok to torture if there is a "necessity" that will cost lives.

There may be many people out there who say "well, its ok to torture some innocent people if it eventually gets us the right guy" .. I ask you .. if torturing innocent people is fine for the supposed greater national security purpose.. would you find the "sacrifice" worthy if dealing with your own children or parents? Don't expect anyone to make a sacrifice you yourself wouldn't be willing to make.

Paladin Elspeth

Jan 11 2005, 11:44 AM

The Christian Ethics of Torture

QUOTE(Miguel De La Torre)

What is new in the torture chambers at Guantánamo is the use of medical personnel during the “interrogation” process, in complete violation of the Hippocratic Oath. The only progress (if you can call it that) reported by the 2004 report over the 2003 findings is that female interrogators have ceased, during the interrogation process, to expose their breasts, sexually touch prisoners or exhibit pornographic material.

<snip>

How has this administration handled the Red Cross’s findings on prisoner torture? They simply ignored the report, stating, according to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s office, that this is simply the Red Cross’s “point of view” not shared by Bush.

This professor of theologies of liberation at Hope College in Holland, Michigan, continues,

QUOTE

Contempt for rules for civilized behavior can best be illustrated by the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to the cabinet post of Attorney General. Gonzales, while serving as the White House chief counsel, was responsible for formulating the policy for treating prisoners, successfully de-toothing the Geneva Convention to provide us with the right to engage in torturing prisoners to achieve our goals.

1. Considering that the Bush administration says that it is already following the guidelines, do you think any changes in U. S. policy will arise from the memo?

Hard to say. First of all, I think the administration is lying. I think this born-again President likes to wink at what members of his administration and their minions do. He is interested in results, and he believes that he only shares responsibility for the wrongdoing if someone brings it up to him, publicly, while it is happening, but it can't be the Red Cross or another international organization. They somehow don't count.

2. Should Bush’s authority to supersede anti-torture laws (older memo) be stripped from his authority as commander-in-chief? Why or why not?

Yes. I am tired of an administration that says one thing and does another completely different. We have witnessed this behavior every time Bush initially opposes things (like the inception of the 9/11 Commission), and then he tries to make people think he was on the high road all along when it becomes necessary for him to come around or suffer political consequences. Further, his appointment of Gonzales as Attorney General is a clear signal that Bush is NOT concerned with following the Geneva Conventions.

Somehow Bush wants us to think that when the other side (whichever one it is) mistreats its prisoners (our guys), it is brutish and evil; but we can mistreat people who are enemy combatants or are suspected of being such with brutality, and we remain on the side of right. He may hoodwink some of us, but not all of us (see the link; this man is also a Southern Baptist minister). If it's wrong when the enemy tortures our people, it's also wrong when we torture the people opposed to us. In addition, information extracted under torture has, over the centuries, been proven to be highly unreliable. People under torture say whatever they think their captors want to hear.

This administration demonstrates the level of ethics seen in professional wrestling: As long as you are labeled the good guy in the match, the audience will cheer you no matter what dirty tricks you pull in the ring.

Google