Our research group was assigned the task of talking about the actual policies by the Bush Administration and the US Congress that allowed such conditions to be created. We will begin with a discussion of the many memos produced by the Bush Administration justifying America’s ability to use torture, and my colleagues will discuss the actions of Congress and the Courts, among other things. It should be clear to you from this discussion that the permissive environment for torture was intentionally created by the Bush Administration, including the President himself, and subsequently re-affirmed by the Congress, meaning that they are specifically responsible, although it appears that many, including Rumsfeld, were not aware of what the techniques they authorized were actually like.
Before we begin, it is important to note that Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, specifically states that “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification of torture.” The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights similarly prohibits a state from engaging in acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment even “in times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”
After September 11th, senior administration lawyers, led by then-White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, developed the framework for the administration to circumvent international law restraints on detention and interrogation in a series of legal memoranda. As you can see, there are about 16 main memos that have been obtained by the ACLU and other sources through leaks or Freedom of Information Act requests. We are going to talk about a few of the most important.
On February 7th, 2002, a directive signed by President Bush declared that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda, and that Taliban detainees are not Prisoners of War. However, President Bush said that detainees should be treated “humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.” Note that if it is deemed “military necessity,” detainees may be treated in a manner that is presumably inconsistent with the principles of Geneva.
This directive followed the famous memo authored by Alberto Gonzales on January 25th, 2002, which stated that the Geneva Conventions’ limitations on interrogation techniques were “obsolete” in the war against terrorism.
It might be noted that former Secretary of State Colin Powell objected to Gonzales’ reasoning, saying that it would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general.” Powell advocated for suspension of the Geneva Conventions a case-by-case approach, which he said would accomplish the types of interrogations we seek without any of the international consequences.
In an extraordinary memo leaked to the Washington Post and dated August 1st, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, argued that torturing detainees “may be justified,” and suggested what he called “an aggressive interpretation as to what amounts to torture.” This new definition said that physical pain amounting to torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” The memo also asserts that the President is not bound by international treaties that ban torture. "The president enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his commander in chief authority," it says, and "Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
Many of the rest of the memos deal with requests by military officials for authorization from Rumsfeld to use specific interrogation techniques. In December 2002, Rumsfeld approved 16 interrogation techniques for use with “uncooperative” detainees. In April 2003, he rejected much of the December list but noted that if officials wanted to use unapproved methods, they could ask his permission.
Even more disturbing were documents written in August of 2003 showing a Military Intelligence official in Iraq asking interrogators for a “wish list” of interrogation techniques they felt would be effective, adding, “The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding detainees” [blank] “has made it clear that we want these individuals broken.” Interrogators responding to the request sought approval for the use of “low voltage electrocution, phone book strikes, muscle fatigue inducement, sleep deprivation, closed-fist strikes,” and other coercive techniques that “cause no pernament harm to the subject … [but] often call for medical personnel to be on call for unforeseen complications.”
Finally, in Spetember 14th, 2003, the senior commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Richardo Sanchez authorized a set of interrogation techniques based on techniques authorizedby Rumsfeld in April 2003, and suggestions by Captain Carolyn Wood, head of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion. The memo specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs, sensory deprivation, stress positions, yelling, loud music, and light control.” A month later, Sanchez revises this list to authorize interrogators to “control” the lighting, heating, food, shelter, and clothing of detainees at their discretion, although he required a muzzle for dogs used in interrogations.
Sources:
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25351pub20060427.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/torture_report.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-22-rumsfeld-abuse-usat_x.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54025-2004Jun19.html
Photos:
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/16/abu_ghraib/
Other References:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020664/site/newsweek/
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/050206/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html
http://economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SRRSJNV
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25608prs20060519.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25353res20060427.html
http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2771577
http://cddrl.stanford.edu/news/in_oped_weiner_says_he_feels_betrayed_by_us_violations_of_ban_on_torture_20040609/
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/05117-etn-castle-shays-ltr-young.pdf