Shit, meet fan.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061504B.shtml
- Interrogation Abuses Were 'Approved at Highest Levels'
- Time Bombs in the Files
------------------------------------------------------------

    Interrogation Abuses Were 'Approved at Highest Levels'
    By Julian Coman
    Telegragh U.K.

    Sunday 13 June 2004

    "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."

    New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at
Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will
emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.

    The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents
implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been
passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them
public shortly.

    According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will
contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed
that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.

    "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior
figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New
York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the
administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be
dropped."

    A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed
that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and
the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture
did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror.

    Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on
interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States
attorney-general, John Ashcroft.

    As the growing scandal threatens to undermine President Bush's
re-election campaign, senior aides have acknowledged for the first time that
the abuse of detainees can no longer be presented as the isolated acts of a
handful of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib.

    "It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the
administration about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser
to the Pentagon. "And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now
that it's in the open, the administration is having to change that answer
somewhat."

    In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked
documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq,
approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and
sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu
Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of
Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign,
set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use -
including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days.

    The White House has ordered a damage-limitation exercise to try to
prevent the abuse row undermining President Bush's re-election campaign.
Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, has ordered that all deaths of
detainees held in US military custody are to be reported immediately to
criminal investigators. Deaths in custody will also be reported to the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and to Mr Rumsfeld
himself.

    The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of
inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links
with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert
Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme
interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not
going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is
finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."

    A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into
abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by
a more senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not
have the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that
the Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven
military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees.

    Legal and constitutional experts have expressed astonishment at the
judgments made by administration lawyers on interrogation techniques. In one
memo, written in January 2002, Mr Gonzalez told President Bush that the
nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on
questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions".

    Scott Silliman, a former US air force lawyer and the director of the
Centre for Law Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said: "What
you have is a culture of avoidance of law rather than compliance with it."

    A separate memo, written by Pentagon lawyers in March 2003, stated that
"the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or
mental is insufficient to amount to torture. [The pain] must be of such a
high level of intensity that it is difficult for the subject to endure".

---------------------------------

    Time Bombs in the Files
    By Angie Cannon
    U.S. News and World Report

    Monday 21 June 2004

    More memos on torture bedevil the Bush team.

    Just when the Bush administration thought the fuss over prisoner
treatment at Abu Ghraib was dying down, a newly uncovered set of memos on
the legality of torture has given opponents the fuel to turn up the heat.
Things began to sour last week, when Attorney General John Ashcroft refused
to turn over to Congress several Justice Department memos leaked to the
press that suggest a wartime president doesn't need to obey international
laws forbidding torture of detainees.

    Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft insisted that
the administration does not approve of torture, even of al Qaeda terrorist
suspects. "This administration rejects torture," he said, noting that
President Bush has not issued orders that would have allowed violations of
such laws prohibiting torture. Bush insisted last week that he ordered U.S.
officials to adhere to the law and international treaties.

    Legalese. Still, the memos show that inside the administration it was
anything but clear what exactly the law was An August 2002 Justice
Department memo obtained by the Washington Post last week, for instance,
says the Justice Department told the White House that torturing al Qaeda
terrorists held abroad "may be justified" and that international antitorture
rules "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" in the terror
war. Other memos offer a theoretical legal foundation that the
administration could use to get around antitorture laws.

    A March 6, 2003, draft report prepared by Pentagon lawyers, for
instance, outlines narrow definitions of torture and suggests legal
arguments why government agents who might torture prisoners could not be
prosecuted. "Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from
his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the
requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good
faith," it says. That memo says that "in light of the president's complete
authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise,
criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate
authority in these areas."

    "There's a real bad flavor to these documents," says Scott Horton, chair
of the Committee on International Law at the New York City Bar Association.
"They're presenting arguments that are not fair and balanced and seriously
misstate the law. I don't think lawyers would do that without being placed
under tremendous pressure."

    Bush told reporters last week that he doesn't remember seeing the
Justice Department memos. Ashcroft says he's not releasing the 2002 memos to
senators because the president is entitled to receive private legal advice.
But Democrats aren't letting up. "If some in the administration believe that
prosecuting privates and sergeants will make this scandal go away," Sen.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a statement, "they are mistaken."

    Some Democrats are even hoping to drag President Bush into the
controversy. "The focus will be how high up it went - did the president have
to sign something?" says a Democratic strategist assisting lawmakers. The
impasse will come to a head this week as the Judiciary Committee is set to
meet Thursday. Steps under discussion are a subpoena, a resolution - perhaps
even a special counsel. Says a Democratic staffer: "The Department of
Justice would have a conflict of interest in investigating itself."


_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/