And more information continues to drip out regarding ‘harsh’ interrogation techniques, who authorized them, and what the military felt about them. Short answer- the military was against them:
Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.
Despite the military lawyers’ warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.
In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.
The memorandums were declassified and released last week in response to a request from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Mr. Graham made the request after hearings in which officers representing the military’s judge advocates general acknowledged having expressed concerns over interrogation policies.
The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the “more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law” as well as military law.
Again, we are now in euphemism central, so I don’t know where these ‘harsh’ interrogation methods would fall in the acceptable methods/abuse/torture continuum. All of the differing terminology is mind-numbing, and I don’t think I am being overly cynical in believing this is by design, rather than an accident. An administration that has shown a clear understanding of communication strategies (e.g., when I say ‘flip-flp, you think what?) does not let this sort of confusion ‘just happen.’
I would write more, but I am having massive problems with my internets.
Vladi G
C’mon, John, haven’t you heard the lates wingnut talking point? Those were military lawyers. JAG guys. The real military hates the JAG guys, or so the pro-torture wing of the right would like everyone to believe.
R Matheson
If I state that I dissaprove of our government’s policy on torture, can I still be a Republican? In 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections I have voted for a ticket with the name George Bush on it. It is beginning to look like that was one time too many,
Tim F
To paraphrase Countertop,
“RINO’s simply don’t understand why [JAG officers] continue to waste [their] energies attacking Bush when [they] could otherwise engage with the real enemy at hand.”
Damn straight. Less criticizing torture, more killing brown people.
ET
John – you being overly cynical – never!
Stormy70
Show me the actual proof of torture, please. The last outbreak of torture ranting didn’t pan out for you lefties. The majority of Americans really don’t care about a few uncomfortable terrorists at Gitmo. I don’t care if we offend a friggin’ terrorist’s sensibilities. I am offended by their desire to blow me up or behead me. I take that personally, so if their air conditioning isn’t up to standard, I don’t give a flying #$%@!
wilson
I support the JAG, and am disappointed Roberts failed to do more when he had a chance in the Hamdan case. Roberts implicitly reasoned, I gather, (1) that Congress generally said Bush should take all steps to stop terror so (2) denying courts-martial-type due process to undetermined detainees (those not yet adjudicated to be unlawful combatants) was ok.
If the Prez acted in violation of the Geneva Convention, Roberts reasoned (joining without written opinion), the other signatories to the Convention need to take the US aside and make us adjust. The Courts have no right to interfere, since the military tribunals are minions of the Prez, who acted with authority from Congress, and are not subjecrt to regulation by Article III judges.
This, to my mind, demeans the JAG who supply military judges and are supposed to help regulate military tribunals. The Prez should reform the procedures. If he will not, Hamdan should be submitted for en banc review, then taken (if necessary) to the USSCT.
Lamont
Where does “harsh interrogation technique” end and sadistic humiliation begin? And if the Senate can’t debate this issue, where is the proper forum?
Maxwell
The Administration’s position on interrogation is self-contradictory. Either:
1) We don’t have a policy allowing torturing prisoners. There have been a few isolated low-level incidents which are being dealt with. OR
2) The Commander-in-Chief needs every tool at his disposal to defeat the terrorists. Don’t legislate restrictions.
Sojourner
Get off your ass and look for it. I’ve already told you one source. We’re way past the point of you being able to claim there isn’t proof. You’re just not going to like it when you find it.
wufnik
Glad you picked this up–I was hoping you would. As a veteran, one of things I’m most upset with these people about is way they have simply corrupted and compromised every institution they come in contact with–and the military in particular. I’m not a big fan of Powell, especially in his role as Bush’s enabler, but I will give him credit for rebuilding the morale of the military, although it took decades to do it. And–voila!–how long did it take these guys to just blow the whole thing up. How many years will it take to rebuild the military as an institution of integrity after this fiasco? We’re talking decades. We’ve reached the point where serving in the military is clearly a strike against you if you run for office, after all.
Mike S
.
How about this reprint of a Boston Globe story.
The fact that the bill was pulled because the admininstration doesn’t want the Republican amendments doesn’t give me much confidence that these types of things are not still going on.
Tim F
Useless. Stormee will keep re-defining torture until you have to kill somebody by slowly flaying their skin in order to qualify.
Kimmitt
I think sodomizing little boys will count no matter what, so Stormy’s in for a shock in a few weeks.
The Quiet Storm
Hmmm. Funny how Stormy has left the building. Unless of course young boys being RAPED by Iraqi guards (all on film) is something that amuses and arouses her.
Tim F
Did the little boys die? No. They probably regained control of their bowel movements after a week or two, tops. My magic rightwing eight-ball reads ‘not torture.’
Steve
Let’s be fair. Many of the most outrageous acts being described here relate to Abu Ghraib, not Gitmo.
dlnevins
Steve, the same organization that’s running Abu Ghraib is also running Gitmo. Somehow that doesn’t fill me with confidence.
jg
Soldiers raping boys?!!!
I have trouble beleiving that one.
Tim F
Iraqi guards under the supervision of US guards AFAIK. If turns out to be wrong then highly-credible people with access to the materials will be proven to be liars.
DougJ
Sorry, liberals, but torture works. Would you rather the country be safe or that the terrorists be comfortable in Club Med Fed down there in Gitmo? Sadly, I think I know the answer already.
Sojourner
Sorry, asshole, torture doesn’t work. Try listening to the experts rather than running your mouth.
DougJ
Liberals, if you don’t like torture, maybe you should move to Europe. They’re oh so nice to terrorists over there.
Sojourner
Whoops. I’m sorry. I slipped a fact into what I was saying. Sorry to get in the way of your delusions.
W.B. Reeves
One doesn’t have to be a liberal to oppose torture. However, I doubt you can be a Christian and support it.
DougJ
“However, I doubt you can be a Christian and support it.”
Really? Show me where in the Bible, it says that torture — under extreme circumstances — is wrong.
I’m waiting…
albedo
I would perhaps be grudgingly pro-torture if there was a shred of evidence to support the notion that it produces reliable testimony. But every credible expert I’ve heard talk about it says the same thing: prisoners under extreme physical duress will say anything to make it stop. The best intel almost always comes from gaining the detainee’s confidence or otherwise manipulating him/her psychologically.
DougJ
I’m still waiting, Reeves….
Stormy70
I had to work for a bit, but I am referring to Gitmo here, not Iraq. So far, nothing I’ve seen shows any torture going on at Gitmo.
Iraq – If Iraqi guards are raping and beating up anyone then they should be strung up themselves. I did not realize that the Boston Globe cared so much about rape. I must have missed the stories of Saddam’s rape rooms and Afghanistan’s Taliban types raping the women and children of that country. Show me any document that states the Bush Administration condoned the rape of children as an interrogation technique, please. Or do you people really believe any American soldier will let that type of behavior go on without telling on them. Abu Ghriab was being investigated long before the media knew anything about it.
DougJ
I’m still waiting Reevers…
Stormy, amazing how the Globe and their masters at the NYT only care about rape and torture when the US is being accused of it. When terrorists and despots do it, they couldn’t care less.
W.B. Reeves
Are you really so far gone you’d claim that Jesus was pro torture? You know Jesus right? The fellow who said that if someone strikes you on one cheek to turn and let him strike you on the other? If you can reconcile the teachings of Jesus with torture, the only thing that could help you is prayer.
DougJ
Just show me where — anywhere — in the Bible that torture is explicitly forbidden. That’s all I’m asking.
Sojourner
Stormy’s favorite argument – as long as it’s not as bad as what Hussein did, the US is free to do whatever the hell it wants.
DougJ
I’m still waiting, Reeves. Where in the Bible does it forbid torture?
Sojourner
First of all, we all knew this stuff was going on. Since the NYT is the only newspaper I read regularly, I’m pretty confident I read it there. Second, why shouldn’t we be more concerned about what happens under our watch? We claim to be the moral authority – some of us truly want our country to be that. We expect terrorists and despots to do evil things. We don’t expect that of Americans.
DougJ
Oh, I guess I’m forgetting about the mythical 11th commandment “Thou shalt not torture.” If the liberals had their way, there’d be a whole bunch of extra amendments “Thou shalt not speak against evolution”, “Thou shalt not cut taxes”, “Thou shalt not create new jobs.”
albedo
I’m still waiting, Reeves. Where in the Bible does it forbid torture?
The Bible doesn’t explicitly forbid setting babies on fire, either. Or, let’s see, cutting off the arms of old ladies. I never realized the Bible gave Christians such behavioral latitude. Maybe it’s time I converted!
Stormy70
It all suddenly becomes clear. Say hi to Jayson Blair for me.
Sojourner
You asked for evidence. The evidence is provided. You ignore it. You’re a shameless hack.
Andrei
The plot thickens. From WaPo:
The Truth About Abu Ghraib
Lawstudent11
The problem with interrogation and torture is that it harms the credibility of the law enforcement. There should be mandatory taped interrogation such as is in Minnesota and Alaska. There are excellent resources about taped interrogation at http://www.neilnelson.com/pages/1/index.htm