TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Torture Memos Released

Here are the OLC torture memos just released by the Justice Department...

An 18-page memo [PDF], dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 46-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 20-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 40-page memo [PDF], dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

Go to it!


14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Was going to frame an intelligent comment here but I'm so thoroughly disgusted by these memos, their evolution and subsequent use, not to mention concealment, I'll just go throw up instead.

user-pic

This does seem to confirm a lot of The Dark Side. I like how since it was used on our soldiers in training exercises makes it ok to use on prisoners because they think it's a training exercise? --wow this just makes me sad.

Though I'm sorry to say - i did smile at the elaborate discussion of the pimp slap and couldn't help but think of Dave Chappell.

But mostly I'm just sad at how low we sank and am just afraid for our men in uniform.

user-pic

That's how low we all are. Though we try to live as if it were not so, the bottom line on any given day for almost all of us is that phantasms of destitution and/or prison are waiting at the bottom of the bottomless pit beneath us. This country runs on fear from knowing the man will come and take your sh*t when he sees fit and how do you keep that from happening, and knowing this makes us willing to do things to each other that we would otherwise eschew. For instance, what's all this competition crap about vying to take someone else's job in a big corporation? That's a lifestyle? That's a VALUE?

How wild would it be if we lived motivated by inspiration, with imagination and love the twin two-year-olds on our social chariot?

user-pic

It can't get any clearer than a president declaring Geneva does not apply - then copycat the very abuses practiced by tyrannical regimes not party to Geneva.

The problem is that far too many Americans are just fine with torture. Initially they were smug about denying along with Bush that it was happening (wink), then that what was happening wasn't torture, that a few bad apples were doing it...

In the end when it is incontrovertible that our president directed what amounts to a criminal enterprise - we are supposed to "look forward".

Under that reasoning there is no reason to prosecute anyone for any crime whatsoever. "Looking forward" is a euphemism for "look the other way", and it is certainly not forward.


user-pic

I think I agree with the position Obama is taking here. If they start prosecuting the CIA lower level guys, they open themselves up to a lot of political attacks that they are undermining National Security, and so on and on and on. And the media is quick to grasp those right wing points and speak about them as if they have any validity. But by getting the memos and all the info out in the open, they are opening a way for a the International Court or someone else to start tackling the issue. It is almost impossible for the Obama administration to be the starter of an investigation of any teeth and not being accused of puting national security at risk for political revenge (it is unfair, but it is going to happen). Probably it is smarter to put the info out in the open and let someone else to take the post.(At least my hope is that this is the strategy)

user-pic

In releasing these memos, the Obama administration is putting the spotlight directly on its authors.

This is precisely the opposite of the previous regime, which prosecuted lower level scapegoats while avidly defending the higher-ups who created the policy.

Its all there in black and white: the tortured reasoning (!), the sad intentional gullibility (as long as you tell him its stings aren't lethal, its perfectly alright to lock someone in a small box with a horde of insects...).

This is premeditated torture, plain and simple, complete with carefully inserted lawyerly caveats to protect the guiltiest. (You assured us you wouldn't be using sleep deprivation for prolonged periods so we're off the hook...)

user-pic
Moreover, you have also orally informed us that although some of these teclmiques may be used with more than once, that repetition wilI not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions., 2002 memo page 2

Did the DOJ write this under distress? Or, what? I guess parrots aren't reared for their typing skills.

user-pic
You have infolmed us that other 'services ceased use of the waterboard because it was so successful as an interrogation teclmique" but not because of any concerns over suy harm, physical or mental, caused by it. -2002 memo page 6

What the #*$?

Congratulations, that was so awesome we never have to do it again. You guys are OK, right?

YES, SIR! Goddamn that was one of the best techliquis ever! Proud to be the last group, SIR!

user-pic
You have also orally informed us that despite his wound, Zubaydah remains quite flexible, which would substantially reduce any pain associated \vith being placed in the box, We have no information frou, the medica! experts you have consulted that the limited duration for \vhich the individual is kept ill the boxes causes any subsmntial physical pain. /\.$ a result, \ve do not think the use of these boxes can be said to cause pain that is oftlle intensity associated with serious physical injury. -2002 page 10

WHAT?! How does having a wound reduce the pain of being put in the box? Just because he's flexible, which in terms of injury merely means he can move despite the injury.

This is completely nauseating.

user-pic
The slap is delivered with fingers slightly spread, which you have explained to us is designed to be less painful than a closed-hand slap. 2002 page 11

Safer option for police & law enforcement officers

"As a result the slap with the open hand to the front and/or the back of the head caused a direct knock out... Some people would say that is crazy. We call it science."

The physics of it doesn't make sense, either. Perforated boards, for example, hurt more than solid boards:

Torture and democracy:

"To strike more painfully, beaters perforated the paddle with several holes. Solid paddles trapped the air between the flat head and the flesh, cushioning the blows."

user-pic
You have informed us that the sound of hitting the wall will actually be far worse than any possible injury to the individual.

And this wasn't the first clue that they are full of sh!? Damn, did you hear that? Yeah, that hurt me more than it hurt him. Hahahahahaha... vomit.

Sorry, I can't stop posting...

user-pic
As we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a singie concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering/' See Section 2340A l""femorandum at 6 n.3. 2002 memo, p. 11

Because if we understood suffering to mean repetition of various tehcdsaliques, in concert for many days, then we may actually be torturing? Huh. Well, I follow a model, and it's called KISS... Keep It Simple, Stupid, and look! it took me all the way to the Ass. Attorney General. Who knew?

user-pic
Additionally, you have informed us that in one use this technique will typically involve at most two slaps. (2002, p. 11)
... repeated several times. Or, two slaps: the front and back of the hand?
In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you would also like to introduce an insect into one of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless caterpiller. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or Severe pain.

If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without illfomillg him that you are doing so, then in order to not commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insec 's nt which has a sting that could produce severe harm or suffering or even cause of death.

... so long as you take e er of the approaches we have described, the insect's placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in that position... if a caterpillar was placed in the box. ... Therefore, ... not constitute a predicate act. (2002, p. 14)

Ummm... is this the DOJ saying, "Well, you can't tell him it's going to sting or hurt, but if you just happen to let an insect into the box, that would get around the Act."

Because you'd have to be silly to think a caterpillar would hurt you, even if you didn't know it was a catepillar and you had a ridiculous fear of insects and you were being "aggressively" interrogated and...

I think this above quote-- cleaned up, of course-- is enough to indict. It explains the CIA's techlidaque violates the law and then proceeds to make a 'guess' as to how the CIA could still do the technique without, they think, violating the law.

Thus, the question is whether any of these acts, separately or as a course of conduct, constitutes a threat of severe physical pain or suffering, a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses, or a threat ofimminent death. (2002, p. 12)

Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged menta! harrn must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. (2002, p. 15)

So, you won't know until you do it, but it does constitute a threat of imminent death meant to convince the terrorist leader that you are 'outside the law' and he could be killed or tortured later on... and the DOJ expects that no reasonable person would consider that threatening imminent death multiple times during interrogations could result in prolonged mental harm?

Hmm. I wonder if PTSD counts as prolonged mental harm because I bet you could get reasonable people to expect these actions could result in PTSD considering the "threat of imminent death" ASSAG so subtly ignores.

As far as things go, if any of these victims are found later to be suffering prolonged mental harm, then the interrogators violated the law since waterboarding was an imminent threat of death, and yet the DOJ thought it was unlikely to cause at least one case of prolonged mental harm despite people quitting the SERE training after the techniques. Take away the ability to leave, and you have a recipe for severe distress.

Based on the foregoing, and based on the facts that you have provided, we conclude that the interrogation procedures that you propose would not: violate Section 2340A. We wish to emphasize that this is our best reading of the law; (2002, p. 18)

Don't you mean most favorable interpretation of the law?

user-pic

The repugnant response to the release of memos (said to be common knowledge) is interesting, given the apathy to torture/murder in the United States of it's own children, such as at youth boot camps. With over one third of American school age children on government mandated dangerous (prescription) drugs (ACLU couldn't care less), child "boot camps" (Gulags) child abuse and torture murder goes largely unnoticed. See http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-gulags.html and other ignored web sites. It is destressing that so many political agenda croc tears are shed for WMD murderers and none for our own children.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address