Report: Justice Dept. Memo Offers Basis for Torture ( August 2002 memo to the White House )

Reuters ^ | Tue Jun 8, 2004 12:23 AM ET | Reuters staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Report: Justice Dept. Memo Offers Basis for Torture Tue Jun 8, 2004 12:23 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department offered justification for the use of torture against al Qaeda detainees in an August 2002 memo to the White House, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. The memo said if a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the newspaper reported. The memo also said that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later, according to the Post. The view from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel -- written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance -- was contained in a 50-page document obtained by the newspaper. It cites government officials familiar with the document as saying that it was offered after the CIA began interrogating suspected al Qaeda leaders after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Post said. Bush administration officials say that, despite the discussion of legal issues in the two memos, the United States has abided by international conventions barring torture. "The president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions," a spokesman for the White House counsel's office told the Post. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal said a classified Pentagon report on interrogation methods concluded that the president was not bound by laws prohibiting torture. That report, compiled by military lawyers, came after commanders at Guantanamo Bay complained in late 2002 that they were not getting enough information from prisoners using conventional methods, the Journal reported.

[potlatch]

Wonder if this is why the President was lining up a lawyer?

[dandelion]

No, because we do not see the original wording. The Washington Post uses only snippets of phrases in conjunction with their paraphrasing of the statements, substituting the word "torture" outside the quoted phrases.

If the original documents had contained the word "torture" then it would be in quotes, in bold type, with no doubt to the fact that this was the original wording of the document...

Instead, we are treated to THIRTY FOUR WORDS from a FIFTY PAGE DOCUMENT. Not ONE of those words in quotes is the word "TORTURE".

I will withhold judgement until I see the document. If it comes from the Washington Post, it is NOT reliable in the least.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think it is more likely related to this:

Russert, Cooper Subpoenaed By Justice Dept.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two journalists, including NBC's Tim Russert, have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department in the investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, according to the journalists' media outlets.

[potlatch]

Ah yes, Ernest, the Robert Novak thing. I knew that and forgot, but I could see the Dems causing trouble over this as they do over everything else.

[conservative in nyc]

A similar article is posted on what appears to be the front page of the New York Times here. The jpeg showing what's actually on the front page isn't on the Slimes' website yet. If this crap is on the front page, but the Reagan articles are not, I will post it.

This is much ado about nothing. There have been no serious allegations of torture at Gitmo, despite what the media would have you believe. They have been trying to tie the policies and legal analysis of the situation at Gitmo to Abu Ghraib. But President Bush has said from the day the Abu Ghraib scandal broke that the Geneva Conventions applied at Gitmo.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

If Novak was the guy that received the leak, why is Russert being called in....???

Very curious.

[potlatch]

I haven't kept up with it as well as I should, but I always watched the show on CNN with Novak and knew he was the first one to speak out, or so I thought??

And it was insinuated that it came from a source in the White House!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Guess it will come out somewhere down the road.

Time to call it a night for me.

[potlatch]

I'm heading for bed too Ernest. It all comes out eventually, Hope I live long enough, LOL!

[potlatch]

Thanks for the site freegle. I'll read it when I don't have letters and comments piling up on me, LOL!

[potlatch]

If I woke up in Heck, I'd have to say DARN.

Or 'dang', at the least!!

[WritableSpace]

I wonder if this is connected to the previoous story in the NYT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1139575/posts

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Don't know, found another item:

____________________________________________________________________________________

Link to Newsweek story:

New Torture Furor
A Defense Dept. memo provides a legal roadmap for prisoner interrogation

[potlatch]

Ernest, Newsmax has a story about the 'undercover' leak that Novak mentioned. I've been gone and don't know if it was on the forum or not.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/3/101951.shtml

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Probably touched on somewhere in this thread:

Bush Contacts Outside Attorney in Leak Case

[potlatch]

Gosh, that was clear back on the 2nd!! Thanks for the link.