NYT~ Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights

[maddezmom]

By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: May 21, 2004


QASHINGTON, May 20 — A series of Justice Department memorandums written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002 were crucial in building a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners, lawyers and former officials say.


The confidential memorandums, several of which were written or co-written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. They were endorsed by top lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the vice president's office but drew dissents from the State Department.

The memorandums provide legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war. They also suggested how officials could inoculate themselves from liability by claiming that abused prisoners were in some other nation's custody.

`snip~

One of the memorandums written by Mr. Yoo along with Robert J. Delahunty, another Justice Department lawyer, was prepared on Jan. 9, 2002, four months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The 42-page memorandum, entitled, "Application of treaties and laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees," provided several legal arguments for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.

~snip~

The memorandum, addressed to William J. Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, said that President Bush could argue that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was a "failed state" and therefore its soldiers were not entitled to protections accorded in the conventions. If Mr. Bush did not want to do that, the memorandum gave other grounds, like asserting that the Taliban was a terrorist group. It also noted that the president could just say that he was suspending the Geneva Conventions for a particular conflict.

~snip~
more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21MEMO.html

[saigon68]

1. WAR CRIMINALS or the End justifies the Means

The Bush Doctrine

Kill and Humiliate as many brown men as necessary to steal all their oil

[R Hickey]

2. Another smoking gun...

How many of these can Bush explain?

[maddezmom]

3. Democrats Ask to Recall Haynes New Questions for Judicial Nominee

~~~
As the Pentagon's top lawyer, Haynes "clearly was -- or should have been -- involved in many of the issues now in controversy" and should be asked about them before the Senate votes on his nomination, Kennedy said in his letter to Hatch.

Although Hatch has not responded, according to aides to the two Democrats, a Hatch spokeswoman has told reporters that Hatch will not order new hearings. "Senator Hatch has stated that the committee has completed its work on Mr. Haynes's nomination . . . and Mr. Haynes will not be recalled to the committee," said Margarita Tapia.

Kennedy will continue to press Hatch on the issue and, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will seek to question Haynes as part of that committee's probe of prison abuses, according to Kennedy aide David Smith.

Separately from the request for a hearing, Kennedy fired off a letter May 7 to Haynes with 21 specific questions about his role in the "establishment and oversight of legal standards of conduct in U.S. military prisons and detention facilities." Kennedy asked Haynes to describe the "full extent" of his role in the prison investigations, when he became aware of conditions at Abu Ghraib, what steps he took in response to Maj. Gen. Anthony M. Taguba's report on the abuses, and whether he approved sleep deprivation and "stress positions" for use in military interrogations.

~~~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34518-2004May17.html

[yellowcanine]

11. Sounds as if Kennedy has Hatch by the short hairs with these latest

revelations about Haynes. Remember how Hatch used to bleat about Janet Reno not investigating every little twitch by the Clinton administration? He is getting his comeuppance now and I for one am thoroughly enjoying it. Woo hoo!

[enough]

4. kick (nt)

[LeftHander]

5. THAT is IT!!

Bush once again knew! The intention was to use TORTURE!

How much shit has to pile up beofre the dam breaks and goes cashing into the fan?

Systematic, widespread total disregard for the Geneva Convention by TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS!!!!!

[Just Me]

6. All arguments without a legal basis.

They have become so accustomed to just making shit up,...that they make up (legislate) new precedent. I would call this ultra vires (acting outside the scope of their authority). I would also call it a war crime.

[Cocoa]

7. Yoo has appeared on McNeil-Lehrer

acting as an apologist for various Ashcroft excesses.

I'm not sure if his position in the govt. was fully disclosed, it seems he was just identified as a professor at Berkeley.

[Jacobin]

8. "just a handful of out of control privates" my ass

They planned for and attempted to avoid liabiity for these war crimes. They were purposeful and go all the way to the top.

They should all be arrested and sent to the Hague for war crimes trials.
Bastards, lying bastards.

[gratuitous]

9. This is exactly how it works

Note the timing of these "memos," because it tells you something very important: Late 2001, early 2002. At that time, it was the intention and soon to become the policy of the Bush administration to use extra-legal methods, up to and including torture, against anyone captured or detained by the United States.

First the question gets batted around: Should we abjure the use of torture in every circumstance? Well, what about {insert urgent scenario here}. Or what if it was your daughter buried alive, and the scumbag on the other side of the table knew where she was?

The scenarios get more and more desperate, more and more Hollywood style. Torture passes from the unthinkable to the thinkable, which is half the battle. Then, it passes from the thinkable to the doable, the stage at which the reprehensible Professor Yoo and Mr. Delahunty write their little memos.

Over the months, the memos are circulated and discussed. Torture as a method goes from thinkable to doable, and finally to where these bastards wanted it all along: The imperative. We must torture the people we capture, or else we fail our sacred mission to maintain security.

And that torture (or "abuse") is not merely imperative, but is morally imperative: We can't take the chance that someone in custody might have valuable information that could save soldiers' lives. How could we face the American people if they knew that we had hold of the mastermind behind some unspeakable atrocity, and hadn't done everything we could to find out what he was planning, and tried to stop it? Of course {lip service duly paid to civil rights and basic humanity} we don't want to torture or abuse anyone, but the people of Iraq, by being brutalized by the Saddam regime for so long, can't be trusted to respect humanity the way we do. They must suffer so that our people are not in danger.

These criminals that have seized control of our country must be stopped.

[Eloriel]

18. SUPERB analysis and insight

so much so, I'm copying this to my notes. Excellent. Thanks.

[gratuitous]

20. Thank you

I'm going around and around with Bartcop on this one, as well.

The value of rehearsing your position a couple of times.

[robbedvoter]

23. I DO remember the question being batted around in 2002

I was watching Crossfire and Carville was for it (so I stopped watching). I remember Dersh backing it up. It was a "public debate" connected = like everything else to 911.
Another anomaly: the soldier who is now court-martialied for desertion brought in his defence the fact that he was required to commit such acts (and others were already investigated for it). The Judge in Georgia refused all that evidence. So, the guy who refused to torture will end up serving a harder sentence than the guy who tortured and pleaded guilty. And these are our values.

[ze_dscherman]

10. CEO politics

Evading international law like evading taxes.

[proud patriot]

12. Impeach The Traitors Now

BASTARDS !!!!

Un Patriotic Disgrace to everyone who has
Served Honorably in the Military .

bush has got to go NOWWWWWWWWW !

[PaDUer]

25. Quickly...

it can NOT wait til election time...It must be NOW.

[keithyboy]

13. Maybe some day, some where, an international body with clout and guts

will hunt down, arrest and prosecute this administration as war criminals.

[Beetwasher]

14. They Think This is a VALID LEGAL ARGUMENT????!!!!

"A lawyer and a former government official who saw the memorandum said it anticipated the possibility that United States officials could be charged with war crimes, defined as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The document said a way to avoid that is to declare that the conventions do not apply.

The memorandum, addressed to William J. Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, said that President Bush could argue that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was a "failed state" and therefore its soldiers were not entitled to protections accorded in the conventions. If Mr. Bush did not want to do that, the memorandum gave other grounds, like asserting that the Taliban was a terrorist group. It also noted that the president could just say that he was suspending the Geneva Conventions for a particular conflict.

So, can I get away with murder by declaring that the laws against murder don't apply because, well, because I said so? Isn't that just the most absurd reasoning you ever heard??? WTF?!?

[maddezmom]

15. just pretend they were never in custody by the US??????

~~~~
Another memorandum from the Justice Department advises officials to create a situation in which they could plausibly claim that abused prisoners were never in United States custody.

That memorandum, whose existence was acknowledged by two former officials, noted that it would be hard to ward off an allegation of torture or inhuman treatment if the prisoner had been transferred to another country from American custody. International law prohibits the "rendition" of prisoners to countries if the possibility of mistreatment can be anticipated.

The former officials said that memorandum was explicit in advising that if someone were involved in interrogating detainees in a manner that could cross the line into torture or other prohibited treatment, that person could claim immunity only if he or she contended that the prisoner was never in United States custody.

~~~~~~~

[Tinoire]

16. It's so cynical. You know... Maybe we should give a medal to Lynndie

and every sick soldier who posed for and took photos of these crimes.

Without them, all of this would never ever have come to light. I say that cynically of course.

[struggle4progress]

17. The House Committee's Report on the 1996 War Crimes Act ...

has been posted in pdf format at

http://pegc.no-ip.info/_LAW_/hr.104-698.pdf

It's relatively short (16pp) and may merit a peek.

[Just Me]

19. Thanks. I had intended to print that out but lost track of the link. n/t

[Aries]

21. 'Contract interrogators hired to avoid supervision'

'Contract interrogators hired to avoid supervision'
By Joshua Chaffin in Washington
Published: May 20 2004 18:47 | Last Updated: May 21 2004 0:16

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1084907716218&p=1012571727102

"...Several high-ranking military legal officers believe the Pentagon used private contractors to interrogate prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in a deliberate attempt to obscure aggressive practices from congressional or military oversight, according to a civilian lawyer who has spoken with them.

The civilian lawyer said that the military lawyers, part of the Judge Advocate General corps, complained to him about the use of private contractors during meetings last year, before the scandal over abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison became public.

"They believed that there was a conscious effort to create an atmosphere of ambiguity, of having people involved who couldn't be held to account," he said...."

[Mandate My Ass]

22. obscuring oversight

Should be the official motto of the Bush* administration.

On second thought, deflecting blame is now overtaking the lead.

[Sparky McGruff]

26. Deflecting blame, obscuring oversight.

Put the two together, and it's a catchy slogan!

Or, to borrow an old SNL line...

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Bush Administration."

[maddezmom]

24. AP-2002 Justice Memos: POW Laws Don't Apply

By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Memos written by top Justice Department (news - web sites) lawyers for the Pentagon (news - web sites) in early 2002 laid out legal reasons why the United States did not have to comply with international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners.


One key draft memo, dated Jan. 9, 2002, states that the normal laws of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions, do not apply to al-Qaida and Taliban militia prisoners. The memo calls these groups "non-state actors" who should not be considered a party to international treaties governing war conduct.


While the memos were written before the war in Iraq (news - web sites), they authorized methods of interrogation for the Afghanistan (news - web sites) conflict that some human rights organizations have said laid the legal groundwork for the violations seen months later at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.

Justice Department officials had no comment on the memos Friday.
~snip~
more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20040522/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/prisoner_abuse_justice