Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without 'severe pain' intent

Status
Not open for further replies.

jillio

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
60,213
Reaction score
22
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture when there was no intent to cause severe pain, according to a Bush-era memo on the tactics released Thursday.


Attorney General Eric Holder says government workers who followed protocol won't be prosecuted.

"To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," said an August 2002 memo from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to John Rizzo, who was acting general counsel for the CIA.

"Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. ... We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent," Bybee wrote.

The Bybee opinion was sought on 10 interrogation tactics in the case of suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.

The memo authorized keeping Zubaydah in a dark, confined space small enough to restrict the individual's movement for no more than two hours at a time. In addition, putting a harmless insect into the box with Zubaydah, who "appears to have a fear of insects," and telling him it is a stinging insect would be allowed, as long as Zubaydah was informed the insect's sting would not be fatal or cause severe pain.

"If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so ... you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death," the memo said.

Other memos allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet.

On waterboarding, in which a person gets the sensation of drowning, the memo said, "although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result" to violate the law.

Authorities also were allowed to slap a detainee's face "to induce shock, surprise or humiliation" and strike his abdomen with the back of the hand in order to disabuse a detainee's notion that he will not be touched, the memos said.

Bybee noted in the memo that the CIA agreed all tactics should be used under expert supervision. Other memos said waterboarding can be used only if the CIA has "credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent" and if a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent, disrupt or delay an attack, and other methods fail to elicit the information.

Another memo to Rizzo, from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury on May 10, 2005, noted that nudity could be used as an interrogation technique.

"Detainees subject to sleep deprivation who are also subject to nudity as a separate interrogation technique will at times be nude and wearing a diaper," it said, noting that the diaper is "for sanitary and health purposes of the detainee; it is not used for the purpose of humiliating the detainee and it is not considered to be an interrogation technique."

"The detainee's skin condition is monitored, and diapers are changed as needed so that the detainee does not remain in a soiled diaper," the memo said.

Another Bradbury memo laid out techniques and when they should be used in a "prototypical interrogation."

"Several of the techniques used by the CIA may involve a degree of physical pain, as we have previously noted, including facial and abdominal slaps, walling, stress positions and water dousing," it said. "Nevertheless, none of these techniques would cause anything approaching severe physical pain."

Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without 'severe pain' intent - CNN.com

This is the biggest bunch of double speak I have ever seen.
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Interrogation tactics such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture when there was no intent to cause severe pain, according to a Bush-era memo on the tactics released Thursday.


Attorney General Eric Holder says government workers who followed protocol won't be prosecuted.

"To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," said an August 2002 memo from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to John Rizzo, who was acting general counsel for the CIA.

"Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. ... We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent," Bybee wrote.

The Bybee opinion was sought on 10 interrogation tactics in the case of suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.

The memo authorized keeping Zubaydah in a dark, confined space small enough to restrict the individual's movement for no more than two hours at a time. In addition, putting a harmless insect into the box with Zubaydah, who "appears to have a fear of insects," and telling him it is a stinging insect would be allowed, as long as Zubaydah was informed the insect's sting would not be fatal or cause severe pain.

"If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so ... you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death," the memo said.

Other memos allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet.

On waterboarding, in which a person gets the sensation of drowning, the memo said, "although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result" to violate the law.

Authorities also were allowed to slap a detainee's face "to induce shock, surprise or humiliation" and strike his abdomen with the back of the hand in order to disabuse a detainee's notion that he will not be touched, the memos said.

Bybee noted in the memo that the CIA agreed all tactics should be used under expert supervision. Other memos said waterboarding can be used only if the CIA has "credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent" and if a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent, disrupt or delay an attack, and other methods fail to elicit the information.

Another memo to Rizzo, from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury on May 10, 2005, noted that nudity could be used as an interrogation technique.

"Detainees subject to sleep deprivation who are also subject to nudity as a separate interrogation technique will at times be nude and wearing a diaper," it said, noting that the diaper is "for sanitary and health purposes of the detainee; it is not used for the purpose of humiliating the detainee and it is not considered to be an interrogation technique."

"The detainee's skin condition is monitored, and diapers are changed as needed so that the detainee does not remain in a soiled diaper," the memo said.

Another Bradbury memo laid out techniques and when they should be used in a "prototypical interrogation."

"Several of the techniques used by the CIA may involve a degree of physical pain, as we have previously noted, including facial and abdominal slaps, walling, stress positions and water dousing," it said. "Nevertheless, none of these techniques would cause anything approaching severe physical pain."

Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without 'severe pain' intent - CNN.com

This is the biggest bunch of double speak I have ever seen.

:shock::shock::shock:

Well. I'm really...I'm really disappointed, I guess. I always thought America was fairer then that. The whole 'eye for an eye' thing does NOT work...when will people see that? I mean, maybe none of these things cause 'severe physical pain' but what about severe mental pain? I mean, geez. I thought the Geneava Convention prohibted the use of torture (which this IS) anyway...what happened to that?
 
Pain is pain. Regardless of the mental humiliation or physical.

How does one rate pain? Each person has a tolerance level.

This is a bunch of crock!!
 
Exactly, ladies. It is a very poor attempt to justify what cannot be justified. The whole purpose of these techniques is to cause mental distress and physical pain that is severe enough that the recipient is in constant fear. It is intended to dehumanize.
 
Pain is pain. Regardless of the mental humiliation or physical.

How does one rate pain? Each person has a tolerance level.

This is a bunch of crock!!

Exactly! I mean, what hurts me barely seems to phase my husband a lot of time. This really bothers me. It's just not right. I know these people are at least suspected of great wrong, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and right to a trial, and all that kind of thing? Gosh. It's given me the creeps.
 
Exactly! I mean, what hurts me barely seems to phase my husband a lot of time. This really bothers me. It's just not right. I know these people are at least suspected of great wrong, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and right to a trial, and all that kind of thing? Gosh. It's given me the creeps.

When we use techniques like this, and refuse due process to people we have imprisoned, we are no better than the people we are label "terrorist."
 
That's horribly true. I'm really shocked right now, though I know this has been going on for a bit now...I tend to be a little withdrawn as I don't really watch TV and, obviously, don't listen to the radio. But, I mean, what about the Geneva Convention? I think it's been ratified by some 194 countries, including the USA. As I understand it, prisoners of war are protected through the third Article...in which it's stated that, in ALL circumstances, prisoners are to be treated humanely...and torture and humiliations are prohibated. Sentencing has to be done in a regularly constituted court. We are acting AGAINIST this Convention, which, as far as I know most other countries that have bound themselves to it follow. What kind of example is this? How are we expecting to get away with it? What's the rational here?
 
That's horribly true. I'm really shocked right now, though I know this has been going on for a bit now...I tend to be a little withdrawn as I don't really watch TV and, obviously, don't listen to the radio. But, I mean, what about the Geneva Convention? I think it's been ratified by some 194 countries, including the USA. As I understand it, prisoners of war are protected through the third Article...in which it's stated that, in ALL circumstances, prisoners are to be treated humanely...and torture and humiliations are prohibated. Sentencing has to be done in a regularly constituted court. We are acting AGAINIST this Convention, which, as far as I know most other countries that have bound themselves to it follow. What kind of example is this? How are we expecting to get away with it? What's the rational here?

The rationale is that Bush thought he was above the laws of this nation.
 
:shock::shock::shock:

Well. I'm really...I'm really disappointed, I guess. I always thought America was fairer then that. The whole 'eye for an eye' thing does NOT work...when will people see that? I mean, maybe none of these things cause 'severe physical pain' but what about severe mental pain? I mean, geez. I thought the Geneava Convention prohibted the use of torture (which this IS) anyway...what happened to that?

Because Geneva Convention applies to SOLDIERS of affiliation with nations. These terrorists don't. This is a very new war for us so there's no doubt that Obama Administration, Congress, legal scholars, and bunch of ph.d's will have to work together to revise the laws regarding terrorists.
 
Does interrogation even work for terrorists? Seems like interrogation only works for those who have logic and/or something to lose.
 
Because Geneva Convention applies to SOLDIERS of affiliation with nations. These terrorists don't. This is a very new war for us so there's no doubt that Obama Administration, Congress, legal scholars, and bunch of ph.d's will have to work together to revise the laws regarding terrorists.


I'm not wanting to argue, but the third article of the Geneva Convention applies to more then soldiers. "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

I'm not saying these people are innocent, it's just that I don't know they are guilty either, and I don't believe that torture is a civilized behavior. Of course, 9/11 was horrific...but I don't think we are going to win this war by becoming obvilious to human rights that we have agreed to follow. I disagree with your understanding of the Convention, but I'm not a scholar and I don't know everything. Maybe I misunderstand something here, but they sure sound like we aren't supposed to be torturing...why we even need a Convention to tell us not to torture in the first place is beyond my powers of imagination.
 
That's horribly true. I'm really shocked right now, though I know this has been going on for a bit now...I tend to be a little withdrawn as I don't really watch TV and, obviously, don't listen to the radio. But, I mean, what about the Geneva Convention? I think it's been ratified by some 194 countries, including the USA. As I understand it, prisoners of war are protected through the third Article...in which it's stated that, in ALL circumstances, prisoners are to be treated humanely...and torture and humiliations are prohibated. Sentencing has to be done in a regularly constituted court. We are acting AGAINIST this Convention, which, as far as I know most other countries that have bound themselves to it follow. What kind of example is this? How are we expecting to get away with it? What's the rational here?
No we are not acting against the Convention. The rational here is... how do we fight against these irrational, suicidal, dangerous fanatics whose goals are to destroy us when lawyers, rights, laws mean nothing to them? These terrorists do not represent the countries and many many many countries hate them (except a few rogue countries). Many of these countries are torturing terrorists FARRRRRR worse than what we did - which usually resulted in death.

The rationale is that Bush thought he was above the laws of this nation.
Bush's just doing what he had to do with the tools broken by previous Administration and he had to create new laws and new tools to combat this issue. Now you have clearly seen the use of those tools and laws created by Bush used by Obama.... Is Obama above the law too?

Obama Tilts to CIA on Memos
The Obama administration is leaning toward keeping secret some graphic details of tactics allowed in Central Intelligence Agency interrogations, despite a push by some top officials to make the information public, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now
That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.
 
Does interrogation even work for terrorists? Seems like interrogation only works for those who have logic and/or something to lose.

well apparently it did work. no terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.... What separated us from other countries' interrogation tactics is that ours is much more humane. but of course.... the interrogation methods are classified. Some were released because the public was angry and hungry for info.
 
I'm not wanting to argue, but the third article of the Geneva Convention applies to more then soldiers. "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

I'm not saying these people are innocent, it's just that I don't know they are guilty either, and I don't believe that torture is a civilized behavior. Of course, 9/11 was horrific...but I don't think we are going to win this war by becoming obvilious to human rights that we have agreed to follow. I disagree with your understanding of the Convention, but I'm not a scholar and I don't know everything. Maybe I misunderstand something here, but they sure sound like we aren't supposed to be torturing...why we even need a Convention to tell us not to torture in the first place is beyond my powers of imagination.

I completely understand your position. My my... such a great dilemma and extremely difficult situation since it's a very gray area, si?

here's some interesting comments by an author (same link as above) who was a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York and the author of two New York Times Bestselling books. His comment -
One of the things I always found so striking about debates over Bush/Cheney executive power abuses was that Bush followers who admittedly had no substantive arguments to justify those actions would nonetheless still find reasons to defend their admired leader: Bush knows more than we do and probably has secret reasons for doing it. Bush is a good person and well-motivated and there's no reason to think he's doing bad or abusive things. Rights for Terrorists pale in comparison to other more important issues. Republican critics of Bush are hysterics and paranoids who are only criticizing him because they want to get on TV and sell books.
 
Consider, instead, what Barack Obama -- before he became President -- repeatedly claimed to believe about these issues. The Supreme Court's Boudemiene ruling was issued at the height of the presidential campaign, and while John McCain condemned it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," here is what Obama said about it in a statement he issued on the day of the ruling:

Obama - Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.

My, what a ringing and inspiring defense of habeas corpus that was from candidate Barack Obama. So moving and eloquent and passionate. And that George W. Bush sure was an awful tyrant for trying to "create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" -- apparently, all Good People devoted to a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution know that the place where the U.S. should "create a legal black hole" for abducted detainees is Bagram, not Guantanamo. What a fundamental difference that is.

Even worse, here is what Obama said on the floor of the Senate in September, 2006, when he argued in favor of an amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. I defy anyone to read this and reconcile what he said then to what he is doing now:

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

..... rest were deleted because it's too long. you can continue to read more here
So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that

I'm not trying to fingerpoint at Obama but I'm just pointing out that Obama's finally understanding the complexity of this terrorism issue and also.... to show you that what Bush did was necessary to America's National Security. and Obama's even using it.
 
Does interrogation even work for terrorists? Seems like interrogation only works for those who have logic and/or something to lose.

Good point. They are indoctinated to believe that to die for "the cause" is the noblest death of all. Being tortured just makes their sacrifice all the more nobel.
 
No we are not acting against the Convention. The rational here is... how do we fight against these irrational, suicidal, dangerous fanatics whose goals are to destroy us when lawyers, rights, laws mean nothing to them? These terrorists do not represent the countries and many many many countries hate them (except a few rogue countries). Many of these countries are torturing terrorists FARRRRRR worse than what we did - which usually resulted in death.


Bush's just doing what he had to do with the tools broken by previous Administration and he had to create new laws and new tools to combat this issue. Now you have clearly seen the use of those tools and laws created by Bush used by Obama.... Is Obama above the law too?

Obama Tilts to CIA on Memos


Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now

Well, you certainly don't "fight against them" by employing the same tactics they use.:cool2:
 
well apparently it did work. no terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.... What separated us from other countries' interrogation tactics is that ours is much more humane. but of course.... the interrogation methods are classified. Some were released because the public was angry and hungry for info.

According to the memos, they weren't more humane. That is the whole point. We reduced ourselves to the level of the terrorists. Quite frankly,it makes us more vunerable.
 
well apparently it did work. no terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.... What separated us from other countries' interrogation tactics is that ours is much more humane. but of course.... the interrogation methods are classified. Some were released because the public was angry and hungry for info.

I understand keeping some information secret. However, is there information you know about that gives you the idea that it is working? It can't be just that there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11, surely there were gaps before. Is it because Obama hasn't changed any policy (or at least didn't PUBLICLY change the policy) since he came in, giving the illusion that "Wow Bush was right"?
 
Well, you certainly don't "fight against them" by employing the same tactics they use.:cool2:

and what tactics do they use? IEDs? beheading? raping and threatening to kill families for cooperating with enemies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top