BushCo Against Torture: Now They Tell Us

A new memo on torture and the Geneva Conventions:

The Justice Department released a rewritten legal memo on what constitutes torture, backing away from its own assertions prior to the Iraqi prison abuse scandal that torture had to involve "excruciating and agonizing pain."

The 17-page memo omitted two of the most controversial assertions made in now-disavowed 2002 Justice Department documents: that President Bush, as commander in chief in wartime, had authority superseding U.S. anti-torture laws and that U.S. personnel had several legal defenses against criminal liability in such cases.

The new document said torture violates U.S. and international law. "Consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture," said the memo from Daniel Levin, acting chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Better late than never. Update [2004-12-31 11:25:8 by Armando]: On "better than late never" - tongue firmly planted in cheek.

•  The mother of all flip-flops?

  I mean, seriously...is this just pre-prep for the Gonzales nomination, an attempt to stave off more controversy from the ACLU docs...

  ...or an admission from Bush that he may have been wrong?!

  On a separate note...Armando, can you post link to your latest diary on why we must opposed Gonzales?  I wanted to read it but didn't get to it this week.  Thanks!

  by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:13:05 AM PDT

  •  Looks Like a Parting Shot...

    ...from Powell to me.

    by dave on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:15:52 AM PDT

    •  why Powell - it's DoJ

      by Hprof on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:17:45 AM PDT

      •  Parting shot from Ashcroft

        Finally it makes sense why they got rid of him.

        by Go Vegetarian on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

    •  Weird Coincidence

      I doubt Powell is involved, but oddly enough this comes on the heels of a memo written by several Clinton administration lawyers which argued that the Office of Legal Counsel is to provide advice on what the law is, not help the President find a pained justification for his policies.

      I can't the Bushista would actually listen to someone from the Clinton era, so I'll chalk this up as a strage coincidence.

      by expriest on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:32:18 AM PDT

      •  oops

        "I can't imagine the Bushistas would actually listen" is what I meant.

        by expriest on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:33:03 AM PDT

      •  It's No Coincidence

        "Prompted in part by concerns about the August 1, 2002 OLC memorandum "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A," disclosed last Summer, the undersigned former OLC attorneys have engaged in a series of conversations about that memorandum and also more generally about the practices OLC should follow in advising the President and the Executive Branch on the legality of contemplated action."

        by Apian on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 03:01:13 PM PDT

    •  Parthian shot

      Completely OT, but I'm pretty sure it's a 'parthian shot' instead of a 'parting shot'.

      Supposedly the Parthians could shoot their bows backwards while riding away from their enemies as a sort of farewell gift.

      by pixelmaster on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:38:50 AM PDT

      •  for all intensive purposes

        -- I mean intents and purposes -- you've got another thing coming -- I mean another think coming -- I mean, isn't it odd how expressions morph into other words that sound kind of similar? Nice history on the Parthian/parting shot.

        by Em on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:15:27 AM PDT

  •  Torture-man Gonzalez trying to change his tune

    Now that the head torture enabler is up for confirmation Bush is publicly backing off from his "torture is OK if  I say it is" stance.  This will not change the torture flights to other countries or his the secret detention and torture by his special group of operatives.

    Bush is a proven liar so this is just spin for the masses.

    Chimpeach

    by MD patriot on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:20:02 AM PDT

  •  The Gonzales Diary

    Why We Must Oppose Gonzales For AG

    by Ascendent on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:13:50 AM PDT

  •  Armando

    Don't be fooled by this new memo.  Go to UnFair Witness and read what tex has to say about it.  It's timed to give Gonzales a cover for his confirmation hearings.

    The WSJ states: Still, the memo concludes that even under its wider definition of torture, none of the interrogation methods previously approved by the Justice Department would be illegal.

    tex is right when he calls it the CYA Torture Memo.

    by theologicus on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:29:55 PM PDT

•  "Better late than never"

  If they are actually going to stop having people tortured, then sure, better late then never. But do you believe they're going to stop? I don't.

  by gong on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:14:18 AM PDT

  •  Smoke Screen

    They aren't going to change squat. They are basically saying torturing within the United States is illegal. It just means they have other ways to torture.

    This finding doesn't rule out sending people to "friendly" countries. What was the quote? Send them to Jordan for a serious interrogation, Syria to be tortured, and Egypt to disappear.

    Also, they maintain that Guantanamo is under Cuban law and not U.S. law. Wouldn't you just love to see Castro try to enforce Cuban law?

    And what about Diego Garcia?

    Don't believe it for a minute. The fact that this came through official channels means that it is proopganda. And we know how truthful this so called "moral" President is.

    Hey, W. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

    by Aguas de Marco on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:19:15 AM PDT

    •  W stands for war criminal

      This evil liar is just throwing the RWCM a little  bone to lead them off the track- you are right that torture will continue whenever it suits Bush and his minions.

      What a disgrace to America to have such a slime in office.

      by MD patriot on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:22:12 AM PDT

  •  Well you know the old saying...

    It's not illegal until you get caught. (I actually heard this saying from an ex-cop driving instructor I had when I was learning to drive).

    So maybe they're taking it to heart.  It's not like the media will go looking for torture or anything.

    by DawnG on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:39:15 AM PDT

  •  It reminds of something my local

    SWAT commander (great guy, for a cop) said to me once about a certain pernicious habit of mine;

    ITS NOT ILLEGAL UNTIL YOU GET CAUGHT

    But they have been caught, so its too late.
    (at least in Geneva and the Hague, if not Springfield, USA)

    Whatever they say now has the same moral force and weight as a child- molesting Priest prosyletizing against the "homosexual lifestyle"

    by TustonDAZ on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:40:15 AM PDT

    •  ha ha!

      Beat you to it. :)  but it'd be funny if that's a common cop saying. (funny ironic not funny ha ha)

      by DawnG on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:17:53 AM PDT

      •  And it's not wrong

        until a Democrat is caught at it.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

•  Bush's bid to get Gonzales

  the AG position?

  by crkrjx on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:15:43 AM PDT

  •  won't this hurt Gonzales

    and give the Dems a stronger hand in questioning him, since it is at odds with a position on which Gonzo previously signed off?

    by Hprof on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:22:25 AM PDT

    •  Dems are spineless- Gonzo will evade questions

      This won't hurt torture man's confirmation, Bush rules the world so he can stick any evil SOB he wants into the AG's office- first the criminal Ashcroft, now the torturer Gonzalez.  His next nominee for AG will be someone like mobbed-up Giuliani boot-licker Kerik.

      If the Dems had any spine they would rake Gonzalez over the coals and rub it in the face of the Repub lackeys on the committee.  But they are mostly complacent millionaires who enjoy their rich man's club on Capitol Hill.

      Impeach Bush- save our soldiers

      by MD patriot on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:33:37 AM PDT

      •  You're correct on all counts.

        
          How much effort would it have taken for Hillary (how she's so vilified by the Right Wing Nut Jobs remains a mystery to me), and other Dems who jumped on the Kerik bandwagon, to have simply said:
        
         "I know Mr. Kerik and am somewhat familiar with his accomplishments.  That said, I will reserve judgment on whether or not I can support him for the post of Secretary of Homeland Security until after I and my staff have looked into his background more thoroughly.  We all know that the President and his staff ran Mr. Kerik through their own thorough vetting process before nominating him, and I and my office intend to do no less.  My constituents would expect no less of their Senator.  Thank you."
        

          And, you know, if Dems like Hillary gave that same boilerplate statement for ALL nominees, then she would have the rock-solid foundation of even-handedness to stand on.

          But, you see, such things make too much common sense and, once you become a Senator or Member of Congress, the Rule (with few exceptions) requires that you check your common sense at the door of the Capitol and pick it up on your way out.  Sheesh.

         BenGoshi
        ________________

        by BenGoshi on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:46:58 AM PDT

  •  This is pure political huzpah for the Torture Guy

    In yet another astonishingly brazen political gambit, the Bush administration has returned to it's usual and infallible reliance upon the American public's ignorance, just in time for Gonzalez, "the Torture Guy's" confirmation hearings.  

    It will work because:

    a.  They are right about the American public's ignorance- Joe Blow doesn't know who Gonzalez is or what his role or position on torture was, and:

    b.  MOST IMPORTANTLY: The Senate Democrats are totally inept at understanding that this actually is an issue that Joe Blow might care about, and they are clueless as to how to do it.  Hence they have already roled over on yet another controversy that most Americans would support if they knew what was going on.

    We always miss our opportunities and they don't.  Remember them making hay with Anita Hill?  

    Every battle is an opportunity. Why are we so clueless?  

    For a different approach see my latest ATTACK AD OF THE DAY in the following comment.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:47:21 AM PDT

    •  Attack Ad of the Day- The Torture Guy

      
      
      Black screen with Voiceover: "Ever wonder why we're having so much trouble convincing Iraqis that we're on their side? Well, maybe it has something to do with this...."

      Screen fades to shots of Iraqi prisoner abuse fading into one another every few seconds as the Voiceover continues...

      "Who's responsible for this? The same man that George Bush now wants to become the top law enforcement officer in the nation."

      Screen fades to black as Voiceover continues, "Is this the kind of people we are? Call your senator today to ask them to stop the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. Don't let this...."

      Fade back to torture shot.

      "...continue to be the face of America."

      Come on, you know you can do one of these, for others go to http://www.attackadoftheday.blogspot.com/.

      by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:48:56 AM PDT

•  now lookee here

  Revising history. Whodathunkdat?

  by moeman on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:16:39 AM PDT

•  He is still

  a war criminal in my eyes, and always will be.

  by daisy democrat on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:19:26 AM PDT

•  one of those

  we never did it but we promise to stop memos

  by rasbobbo on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:19:46 AM PDT

•  Um...We were just kidding???

  I agree--better late than never.

  But still.  If he was ready and willing to trample US and international law once, he'll do it again.

  And this time, he'll have more support in the Senate to do just that.  

  My God, these people are evil.

  by AuntiePeachy on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:27:10 AM PDT

•  This

  Flip-flop comes just in time for Alberto's confirmation hearings next week.  Now the questions he'll have to answer regarding sick sense of what torture is, will be slightly less humiliating.

  by erickh on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Not Necessarily

    "Mr. Gonzalez, you are personally responsible for the torture of American prisoners in Gunatanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows where else. How can you guarantee this country that you will not allow such gross abuses of morality and law to occur under you watch?"

    by Aguas de Marco on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:33:32 AM PDT

    •  No senator will read your comment on the floor

      You won't find any US Senator to read that sort of indictment of this evil Gonzalez.  The Dems are perfecting the show of resistance followed by the quick  roll-over.

      by MD patriot on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:35:36 AM PDT

      •  Maybe I'm Naive

        But even at 39 years of age I hold out hope. If Russ Feingold can stand up and vote against the Iraq war resoultion, then maybe one senator will stand up and give a black eye to Alberto the Torturer.

        by Aguas de Marco on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:03:02 AM PDT

  •  "Torture is abhorrent

    both to American law and values and to international norms."  First sentence of the new memo.

    So what does this say about the legal competence of the White House Counsel who signed that earlier torture memo?

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:11:04 AM PDT

    •  Lawyer?

      Lysi,

      You always have the best comment on the path to torture. Are you an attorney?

      by Aguas de Marco on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

      •  I Plead Guilty.

        Yes, I am a lawyer now.  (My original training was as a Greek and Latin scholar, but jobs in that field are hard to get.)

        by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:28:37 AM PDT

        •  Continuing this thought,,,

          The "revised" memo is a clear admission that the old one was wrong as a matter of law, morality, principle, national security, American troop protection, ...the list goes on and on.

          So, we ask Torture Guy:

          1.  Did you review the first memo?
             
          2.  Did you approve the first memo?
             
          3.  Did you feel the first memo had a sound basis in American and international law?
             

          (4.  If not, why did you approve it?)
          

          5.  Which personnel were covered by the first memo?
             
          6.  What was the date of the first memo?
             
          7.  Did the first memo, the you approved, constitute the official policy of the Administration on the use of torture in interrogation?
             

          (8. If not, do you know that CIA agents, military lawyers and other military personnel thought it reflected the official policy of the United States?  Do you know that they relied on the first memo when interrogating Afghani, Iraqi and other detainees?)
          

          9.  Until when was this the official policy of the United States?  (Answer: either 2002 - either June or late December 2004)
             
          10.  SO FOR TWO YEARS THE FIRST MEMO, THE ONE YOU APPROVED, GOVERNED THE ACTIONS OF US PERSONNEL WHEN INTERROGATING DETAINEES, WHETHER AT GITMO, ABU GHRAIB OR IN AFGHANISTAN?

          11.  Have you reviewed the pictures from Abu Ghraib?
              
          12.  Are you familiar with the reports from the Red Cross to the United States government that charge US personnel with committing torture?

          (etc...go through all examples)

          13.  Are you aware that the first memo has been revised and superseded?
              
          14.  Did you direct the revisions/
              
          15.  Do you know why it was revised?
              
          16.  Have you reviewed the revised memo?
              
          17.  Are you aware that the revised memo no longer...<go through changes point by point>

          ---

          ALL FOR NOW...

          by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:14:03 PM PDT

          •  I will make this more coherent

            and get a longer list going...

            We will have a list of questions we want answered in the next couple days.

            Would like Kossacks to contribute!!

            by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 03:15:21 PM PDT

          •  Great Questions

            I'll have to think before I contribute any additional questions.

            by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:08:44 PM PDT

•  So fucking what?

  with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture

  All this indicates is that we've outsourced torture to Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis as we stand and watch and collect whatever information that comes out...

  This ain't foolin' nobody...

  A collection of carefully couched phrases meant to misdirect - that's all this memo is...

  by Mike Stark on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:33:41 AM PDT

  •  No, it IS fooling everybody

    Sorry, but the biggest point to be taken from this is that Bush/Rove understands fully that they can get away with this stuff because nobody will keep them honest, least of all the Senate Democrats.

    They're gonna kick our asses with this just like they always do.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:15:52 PM PDT

•  how can we use this new memo..

  .. to hang them for what they've done?

  Seems like they have openly gone against this in the past, so can't we use this to prosecute them for what they've done?

  After all, Bush used to say "we don't do anything against the law."  Well, that was when his version of the law included torture.

  by Sue in NH on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:43:02 AM PDT

  •  NEWS FLASH - Remember the International Court?

    Gee,  could this be the type of thing that the Bush administration wanted to keep out of the hands of the International Criminal Court?

    The truth is, nobody's gonna keep these guys honest.  Not the democrats, not the 529s, not us, and not the international community.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:19:02 PM PDT

•  This could blow up in their face.

   The timing is just SO bad on this that it may hurt Gonzales, seeing as how it's obviously done to insulate Bush.

  by Anderson Republican on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:48:39 AM PDT

  •  Rule No. 1

    Protect Dear Leader at any costs to others, be they soldiers or elderly people or wounded vets or Secretary of State or generals or cabinet nominees.
    

    by Carnacki on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:29:27 AM PDT

  •  Who's gonna light the fuse?

    Not even the most liberal Democratic sentators will even bother with making this a public issue.  Gonzalez will be confirmed within a week and some of them will even vote for the SOB.

    Mark my words.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:20:56 PM PDT

•  Legal opinion

  This almost reads like attempts by guilty parties to establish alibis after the fact. Could the Bush compound be growing worried about the legal implications of their actions?

  by Carnacki on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    Given the noise about "shut up and say Merry Christmas!" from the far right in a subtle attempt to demonize the ACLU, and now this new revision to the DOJ's position on torture...I think this signals that there is probably more to come regarding past actions of the administration in condoning the use of torture.

    WaPo's latest article on the subject I think shows that they're also starting to lay the groundwork for this.

    Gotta run...but just couldn't let your observation pass without commenting!

    by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:01:32 AM PDT

    •  Criminals

      Thanks grannyhelen.

      It does sound me to like the behavior of criminals, be they people or corporations.
      "I was in Cleveland at the time that burglary occurred." Or "These documents prove that we did not know that product was unsafe or if it was unsafe that we were working to correct the safety issue."

      by Carnacki on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:27:12 AM PDT

  •  It's a Political Alibi, Not a Legal One

    I'd agree with you except nobody's ever going to get prosecuted by anyone.  Who's going to appoint the special prosecutor, the Republican Congress?

    They could care less about the legal ramifications, that horse will never leave the barn (unless we get a Democratic landslide in '06).  

    This is a political alibi plain and simple.  It gives them an alternate piece of paper to throw into the news cycle when the original torture memos come up during what will be Gonzales' all-too-brief confirmation hearings.

    Forget about ever seeing these guys in jail unless we get a clue about tough messaging and throw these guys out in 06.  

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

  •  Legal Opinion

    Nine days before The New Improved Torture Memo was released, a memorandum on "Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel" was sent to Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Acting Assistant Attorney General Levin (whose signed The New Improved Torture Memo.

    "Prompted in part by concerns about the August 1, 2002 OLC memorandum "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A," disclosed last Summer, the undersigned former OLC attorneys have engaged in a series of conversations about that memorandum and also more generally about the practices OLC should follow in advising the President and the Executive Branch on the legality of contemplated action."

    It was prepared by and signed by 19 former Office of Legal Counsel Attorneys.  I think this explains the timing of the release of The New Improved Torture Memo.

    For anyone who thinks that Leahy is soft on Gonzales, please go to the above link.  

    by Apian on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:06:32 AM PDT

•  Gonzalez never advocated torture.

  The Iraq war was never about WMDs.

  Whatever it was, the President never said that.

  We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  Remain calm.

  by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:27:29 AM PDT

  •  The republicans are a big tent party

    tax cuts will balance the budget

    your check is in the mail

    compassionate conservatism

    tinkle down economics helps us all....

    by baba durag on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:46:11 AM PDT

  •  an orwell revision that might not be so bad

    Gonzalez never existed.

    Ramsey Clark had been (re) appointed to Attorney General.

    Bush never advocated eliminating separation of Church and State.

    Happy Winter Soltice

    by SonofFunk on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:45:40 AM PDT

•  Mocking the rules

  I stayed up very late last night, watching THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI.  I kept picturing Bush (and his tool, Alberto Gonzales) every time the Japanese camp commander, Saito, flaunted the Geneva Conventions. At one point, Col. Saito slaps the British officer played by Alec Guinness in the face with the Geneva Convention booklet, then later spits out "Do not speak to me of rules. This is war!" Scary to think that now we are our own worst enemy, that now we are the face of evil in this world. It was eerie, as was the fact that the beautiful landscape I was looking at was just indelibly changed forever--the film was shot in Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon.

  No matter the spin they try to put on this--and they can backpedal until they circumnavigate the globe ass-first--they cannot change the fact that they have, by their actions, which apparently speak louder than words, belittled us all in the eyes of the world (and that's putting it quite mildly). So write your memos, Gonzo, and try to squirm out of what you have wrought, but I'm not buying it. And I hope Congress doesn't, either.

  by lulu57 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:36:47 AM PDT

  •  Great awful image

    OT - what a wonderful actor the fellow who played Saito was.  He really struggled with the English according to the anecdotes - but  delivered a great performance.

    by Armando on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

    •  Saito = Sessue Hayakawa

      Who according to imdb.com had a film career extending from 1913 to 1966.

      by outside observer on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:52:08 AM PDT

  •  Well said, but...

    Congress WILL buy it, unless we put a highly public fire under their butts in the next couple days.  

    Sorry, but I think this is going to be yet another golden opportunity lost.  Here we have it in black and white, and it's not going to mean a thing.

    Is it any accident that this comes out on New Year's Eve?  

    Anyone want to bet this gets more than 10 seconds on the network news tonight?

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

•  BushCo Against Torture:

  Who would have thunk it?

  by DCDemocrat on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

  •  Shows how far we have sunk..

    ... an American Administration shouldn't have to write memo's and make statements showing they are oppossed to torture. It shouldn't have ever been a question in the first place.

    Sad times. Very sad times.

    by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:55:04 AM PDT

•  So did the Bush Administration just...

  disavow Alberto Gonzales?

  Is the memo being discredited the one that Gonzales wrote in favor of torture?

  If Bush does not support his own AG Nominee's positions and believes them illegal under international and american law... isn't the next logical step to withdraw the nomination of the man with such misguided and flawed judgement?

  Oh... sorry... just re-read my own comment... logic... I tried to apply logic to the actions of this administration. Sorry. My bad.

  by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Supersedes DOJ/OLC August 2002 Memo.

    The new memo explicitly supersedes a different memo, that of Aug. 1, 2002 issued by the same office, the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.  That memo's author was John Yoo, who was in that office the first couple of years of Bush's administration, but who has now returned to teaching in law school.

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 08:51:59 AM PDT

    •  Correction: Bybee, not Yoo.

      I just remembered.  That Aug. 2002 memo was signed not by Yoo, but by Jay (?) Bybee, the DOJ/OLC lawyer   who later became a federal judge on the court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (Yoo had written earlier memos on torture, enemy combatants, and Guantanamo._

      by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:01:48 AM PDT

      •  WaPo: It Was Bybee.

        Washington Post article on new memo confirms that author of superseded memo was Jay S. Bybee.  (Somebody suggested on this forum a day or two ago that Bybee might be nominated for the Supreme Court.  I think that is now virtually impossible.)

        by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:10:16 AM PDT

    •  aaah... ok

      So it is Ashcroft's Justice Department that they are disavowing.

      Gonzales wrote a memo regarding "proceudres" at Guantanamo Bay I think it was (which were then transfered to Abu Ghraib). It would be interesting to compare and contrast the various position papers and see who's knocking who.

      Gonzales needs to go down. Anyone advocating torture as an acceptable policy for the USA needs to never be allowed to work in government again.

      by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

•  more to come?

  THE BEAST HAS FLINCHED! But, it is awfully infuriating that in effect, all they are saying is "oops, my bad!" Shouldn't this be titled "Bush Administration Re-Redefines Torture"?
  Notice, as well the cynical timing of this release: One week before the Gonzales senate hearing, everyone is focused/distracted by the tragedy in Asia, and the administration is warding off hits for being stingy. Raise any complaints now, and you're framed as a victimizer, and Dub flashes the "scarlet letter" of a poor victim. It's a masterful bait and switch (or masturbate and bitch?). Also, as bad news has always been handled by RoveCo, this little document is dribbled out over the weekend and during a major holiday to boot, with no fanfare or acknowledgement, when the press is shut down in essence, and no one is really paying any attention. The day is young! We may yet get another "midnight confession", depending upon how well this one floats in the Tsunami debris pool.

  "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

  by Dood Abides on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:12:12 AM PDT

  •  Now We're Talkin'

    Thanks for pointing out that this is a classic Rove technique.  How come we're always surprised when they pull this crap.  They've got it down to a SCIENCE.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:35:39 PM PDT

•  Two things come to mind...

  ...in reaction to this.

  1. They're lying out the wazoo to help Gonzalez in the confirmation hearings.  SOP for this bunch - the press release isn't worth the paper it's printed on, most likely.

  2. A very public declaration by the Iraqi insurgents that either some important civilian (in the eyes of BushCo, at least) or a handful of American soldiers are POWs is about to break.  And the press release is preparation for reaction to this situation.

  My two bits...

  by Palamedes on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't say it's exactly worthless.

    I think this means that any American inflicting or authorizing torture in the future lacks the legal protection that the earlier memos were designed to provide.

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:54:21 AM PDT

    •  But that assumes...

      ...that BushCo gives a damn about legal protection.  

      And frankly, I think if they want to commit torture directly, or outsource the process, they'll just do it in a way that is on the QT, or that somehow doesn't happen on US soil.

      Or they'll just do it in the open and dare us to state the contradiction in public, risking the wrath of the jingoists.

      by Palamedes on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:19:03 AM PDT

      •  They Were Worried About Legal Protection

        when they got those first torture memos written.

        by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:14:46 AM PDT

        •  Well, I hope you're right...

          ...but would this then be retroactive, and thus require punishment for those who violated this most recent document?  It wouldn't surprise me if not, but...

          by Palamedes on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:03:54 PM PDT

          •  Yes.

            This actually brings up an interesting conundrum for Gonzales (and, by extension Bush) and for all the people who followed the memo directives and not the law.

            This would be a good discussion to have on a separate thread, i.e. the implications of the new memo.

            by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:30:35 PM PDT

            •  "the memo directives"

              apologies for not typing and not proofing:

              it should read:

              /...and for all the US personnel who tailored their conduct to the first memo and not to a well-accepted reading of US and International law.

              by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:32:29 PM PDT

    •  Torturegate: The Gloves Are Back On

      Yes, Lysias, that's it exactly!  And the reason why the Torture Policy is now revised is that those legal protections (Bybee memo August 2002)were not legal.

      "Torture is abhorrent" the memo begins.  Funny, those are the exact words used by Amnesty International to describe it.

      The New Torture Policy approaches legality within the Geneva Conventions and the International Court.  The definition of torture is now broadened to mean just what one think it means.  Intent doesn't matter.  Immunity for the Commander-in-Chief isn't there, nor is the power of the President to determine the legal status of detainees.  Bush cannot be held accountable (even if he did authorize torture) because he publically comdemned it.  Or can he?

      Conspiracy to Commit Torture

      There is no change in the law against Conspiracy to Commit Torture.  The sentence if guilty, 20 years to death penalty, if the victim dies.

      Yesterday I wrote to one of the Lawyers with Lawyers Against the War:

      "In advance of the Gonzales Confirmation Hearings, I have been reading through a letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales dated August 1, 2002.  It says that the 2001 Patriot Act makes it a crime to conspire to commit torture.  I think that the `torture memos' when taken together, with the FBI e-mails that refer to Executive Order and Cover-up, are evidence of a conspiracy to commit torture.  Do you think that is so"

      Her answer:  Definitely!
      

      by Apian on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:21:05 PM PDT

      •  Why do you need the PATRIOT Act

        to make conspiracy to commit torture a crime?  I think the federal torture statute itself includes conspiracy to commit torture, but, even if it doesn't, don't the federal torture statute plus the common law of conspiracy together suffice to make conspiracy to commit torture a crime, even without the PATRIOT Act?

        by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:13:38 PM PDT

        •  PATRIOT ACT: Conspiracy to Commit Torture

          PA is most recent and sacrosanct legislation.  But that is not my point.  (I'll get you the exact language in a bit.) The Gonzales memo tries to weasel out of the Geneva Conventions.  The new memo tries to weasel back in.  There is a cost to this.

          *****************  

          In July 22 there was a meeting at the White House, Gonzales and Yoo attending.  The CIA was asking for guidelines on how far they could go in interrogating terror suspects.  Under discussion:  waterboarding, mock burial, slapping without bone damage.  "Gonzales and the lawyers also discussed in great detail how to legally justify such methods." (Newsweek)

          Out of this meeting came the Bybee August 2, 2002 memo that the Justice Department has now completely overwritten.

          Every time these people met to discuss how to torture without being prosecuted, every time they wrote memos on the same -- that is Conspiracy to Commit Torture.

          by Apian on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:03:51 AM PDT

        •  Not my call

          The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute.  It includes "extraordinary renditions" -- deporting prisoners to countries where torture is practiced.  This, too, has been done.  See:  Torture by Proxy, ABA & Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.

          by Apian on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:50:38 PM PDT

•  Covering Bush's Ass

  Consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the president's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture,

  That's the money quote right there. This is an attempt to cover Bush's ass by claiming that he's never authorized torture and that any memos in which he does are fakes. They're attempting to rewrite history and protect the President, not back down from their pro-torture sadist stance.

  by RHunter on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:52:50 AM PDT

  •  That "unequivocal directive"

    may be what's in effect now.  But the existence of any such current directive does not contradict the existence of earlier contrary directives (which would now presumably be superseded by the new one).

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 09:57:02 AM PDT

    •  unequivocal directive

      Looking for the quote where Bush says 3,000 prisoners are no longer a problem anymore.  He implies he did away with them.

      'We should have seen it coming. In Bush's January 2003 State of the Union Address, he said: "All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate." He added, "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."

          Bush was admitting he had sanctioned summary execution, in direct violation of international, and United States, law.'

      --Bush & Co.: War Crimes and Cover-Up, Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | 20 September 2004

      by Apian on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 05:40:01 PM PDT

      •  Kind of reminds me

        of the oblique and mocking way Hitler refers to the fate the Jews are meeting in his speech in the Bürgerbräukeller of November 1942 (right before the encirclement of his troops at Stalingrad).

        by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:15:35 PM PDT

  •  What if Bush Changes His Mind Again?

    By the way, that quote does raise the question of what DOJ/OLC's position would be if Bush again decided to permit torture.

    (I remember reading some place that the original language about presidential power was added to one or more of the memos at the insistence of David Addington, who is Cheney's counsel -- and who was general counsel at DOD when Cheney was SedDef.)

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:06:44 AM PDT

    •  Holy Cow!

      You're right... This memo is nothing but an attempt to cover Bush and Gonzales' asses in the face of the ACLU memos. I'm willing to bet that the memo's wording conveniently leaves open the possibility of the President authorizing torture off US soil...

      by RHunter on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 10:45:21 AM PDT

    •  privilege to torture

      Depending on the actual wording of the memo, it does look like the "Presidential directive" language essentially neuters any mention or weight given the document gives to international and U.S. law.

      Predictably, it looks like an attempt to preserve the argument that Presidential privilege is competent to permit torture should the President so desire it.  It is only inappropriate at this time because the President says it's inappropriate.

      Well, I certainly feel better now.

      by curious in minnesota on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:40:33 AM PDT

  •  dammit.. why did this ACLU article blow over?

    I mean for chimpshits sake, I still can't believe the unearthing of an executive order for torture wasn't a bigger scandal than abu ghraib.

    .... must've been those cute hoods they used. "them few bad apples. oh yeah. and support our troops. or else.

    commies."

    E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques: Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department's Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses

    by SonofFunk on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:04:25 PM PDT

    •  White House Statement

      The ACLU thing blew over because the White House made a claim that the FBI agent in question was "mistaken". That's all they said - that he was mistaken. Of course, if any media outlet hadn't dropped it, you can bet Powell Jr would've used the FCC to make their lives hell...

      by RHunter on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:51:55 PM PDT

    •  But...

      this thing is not dead yet by a long shot.  The fact that team W actually went back and drafted a new memo, and they dropped it right before New Year's and right before Gonzales testifies is an indication that team W appreciates the magnitude of this thing.

      It's up to us to make hay on this one.  

      by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:35:15 PM PDT

      •  FBI memos refer to Executive Order to Torture

        This is the smoke, now where's the gun?

        The FBI memos came out of a year old Freedom of Information Act lawsuit waged by the ACLU.  There are 9,000 documents!!!

        I've only read four of them: Operative words:  Executive Order, Cover-up, Witnessed (but did not participate in), What Constitutes Torture
        http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia

        "Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress, increasingly critical of the war in Iraq, will likely hold hearings on alleged U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan detailed in FBI documents released this week. "

        The thing is to let Congress know you want a complete investigation.  It has been public reaction, and pressure from groups like Human Rights First, that has resulted in the New Revised Torture Guidelines

        by Apian on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:23:52 AM PDT

        •  It's Not Just the FBI Memos

          (which might, after all, conceivably be mistaken.)

          The Bybee memo says only the president can authorize extraordinary interrogation techniques.  Those techniques were used.  Ergo, there was a presidential authorization.  QED.

          by lysias on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:02:41 AM PDT

          •  Chain of Command

            No, that's not it.  If you read some of these FBI memos for yourself you will see that they are a true report, and that the reporter risked all to tell it.  There was an Executive Order, the job is to find it.

            When Bush announces at a 2003 Press Conference that 3,000 prisoners are no longer a problem.... what happened to them?

            There were loads of authorizations for illegal interrogation methods.  From Rumsfeld, for example.  Then, some of the harsher methods were rescinded, and you could only use say, sleep deprivation by special request. Miller was sent to Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib because he was a torture specialist.  

            The thing that really concerns me is the CIA going to the department of Justice to establish torture guidelines.  Who, besides Yoo and Gonzales, was at that White House meeting July 22?

            by Apian on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:57:47 PM PDT

            •  David Addington?

              I would be very interested to know whether David Addington, Cheney's counsel, was at that meeting.

              by lysias on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 01:14:48 PM PDT

              •  You got it in one!

                "White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions." -- Global Torture System, Part II, Tom Dispatch

                Yoo was also there, according to Isikoff of Newsweek

                by Apian on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:17:41 PM PDT

          •  Not Just the FBI

            Lysias, Ratner agrees with your logic.

            Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has sued the administration over its interrogation policies, said Friday that the redefinition of torture policy "makes it clear that the earlier one was not just some intellectual theorizing by some lawyers about what was possible."

            "It means it must have been implemented in some way," Mr. Ratner said. "It puts the burden on the administration to say what practices were actually put in place under those auspices."

            Then, there's this:

            What's more, the FBI papers state repeatedly and unequivocally that Bush himself had authorized the aggressive techniques. They also note that in May 2004, after the scandal at Abu Ghraib, Bush had specified that "certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted." Thus some of the most disturbing abuses -- actions which the interrogators nonetheless felt comfortable enough to commit in front of FBI agents -- have been carried out with direct White House or Pentagon approval. -- Veterans for Common Sense

            A two-page FBI e-mail message refers to "a Presidential Executive Order" and contends President George W. Bush directly authorized interrogation techniques that included sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.," the ACLU said.

            The FBI message was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander -- Baghdad" to senior FBI officials.  The techniques are "beyond the bounds of FBI practice but within the parameters of the executive order ... " The message said some FBI personnel witnessed the use of the techniques but did not participate. --Washington Times, Dec 20, 2004

            by Apian on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:11:34 PM PDT

  •  Good Call

    Nobody will care about the sequence or timing of this memo IF it ever rises to the level of public debate, which it won't.  But just in case, Bush will say that this memo is proof that his hands were clean.  You can bet money on it.

    by jsmckay on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 12:38:34 PM PDT

•  Uh, I actually voted for torture...

  ...before I voted against it.

  by rtoes on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:08:00 AM PDT

•  "damn where's my totalitariansm yet?"

  Again, monkeyshits throught he could establish as law this decree of torture so that he can continue pushing his far-right agenda right out in public view. And again, he's OVER-estimated his success in turning this country into an Orwellian state.

  "Gosh darn Jeb, guess we'll have to go back to torturing in private again. Them Saudis are still so far ahead of us, ah hyooka!"

  by SonofFunk on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

•  What next?

  A Presidential condemnation of the Iraq war?  Of the false pretenses for invasion?
  A Presidential scolding about the deficit and the tax cuts for the rich?

  Remember the press conference (summer, 2003?) Bush gave with Blair in which he blamed the poor economy on the media's constant drumbeat of "March to war! march to war!"

  Purpose of the newest anti-torture memo:  Text for Fox News to quote when criticisms of Gonzales arise during confirmation hearings.  And--you watch--pundits quoting the new memo will not mention its recent date.

  by Plan9 on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

•  Gonzales just trying to score points?

  An early New Years gift from Gonzales? Perhaps he's trying to butter up that Senate confirmation committee...

  www.politicalthought.net

  by ivolsky on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

•  The administration's position remains that persons

  detained as "enemy combatants" do not exist under the law; ie they quite literally have no rights.  Whatever the administration's ever shifting position vis. torture may be, it is deemed by these BUSHCO rogues as "policy" to be concocted at the whim of DOJ, Pentagon or State Department authorities.
  Human Rights, e.g., the right to be free from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, or from arbitrary detention, or extrajudicial killing-- rights which all of the world recognize as residing inherently of all individuals finding themselves under the authority or jurisdiction of state authorities -- do not apply to the many detainess held in Guantanamo and many other places of detention-some secret- in Iraq, Afghanisatan, and elsewhere.  Even after the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo detainees must have access to Courts, the Administration is obscenely now arguing that, yes, they can go to court, but that there are actually no substantive rights they can assert before the court.
  So we should not make too much out of this new policy pronouncement. We still have an outlaw regime arrogating to itself the power to strip away legal personhood from whomever it so chooses.

  by normal family on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 01:48:06 PM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    We must fight Gonzales.  We can put this revised memo in our quiver.  See up thread for a good start to questioning Gonzales - The Poster Boy for Torture.

    by maxschell on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 04:38:00 PM PDT

  •  No rights?

    Didn't the Supreme Court rule last summer that putative "enemy combatants" are entitled at least to a hearing to determine whether they are in fact enemy combatants?

    by lysias on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 06:17:28 PM PDT

    •  BUSHCO is disingenuously

      interpreting the supreme court ruling to mean only a right to habeas corpus, ie, a right (to appear in court) without a remedy.  In respect of determining "enemy combatant" status (in any event an entirely fictitious designation with no meaning in international or US law), the administration claims that these kangaroo tribunal being set up by the military, as opposed to judicial courts which exercise proper due process. are adequate.

      by normal family on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 05:10:19 AM PDT

•  Seems to be a running theme among righties.

  I seem to recall a certain General who was truely annoyed that a mere president thought he could order him around.

  And then there was that other fella... Dick something?

  by cdreid on Fri Dec 31, 2004 at 07:07:27 PM PDT