MySpace


Subscribe To Our Blog!
Add Us As A Friend!
October 4, 2007 - Thursday 

Category: News and Politics
Remember when the Bush administration silenced all the critics of a 2002 DoJ memo that appeared to condone torture by releasing another memo in 2004 stating that "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms."  But as the New York Times is reporting, Gonzo decided to get into this business of writing torture memos.  He had also learned from the mistakes of his predecessors, and kept his thoughts on terror a secret.
 
His secret memo, according to the New York Times, "provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."  James Comey, the problem child of the Justice Department that also had objections when Gonzo tried going over his head to an incapacitated John Ashcroft a few years earlier, told Gonzales and his co-workers that they will be "ashamed" when this memo came to light.  This memo was written shortly after Gonzales took the reigns of the Justice Department in February of 2005.  James Comey, perhaps one of the few principled men to be connected to this administration, announced his resignation in April of 2005, and officially left in August.
 
Gonzales' first super-secret memo was such a huge success, he felt an obligation to his fans to come out with a super-secret sequel.  So while Congress was debating a bill in July of 2005 "To affirm that the United States may not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," Alberto Gonzales wrote that super-secret sequel that his torture-enthusiast fanbase demanded.  This one simply negated all the work that Congres was doing, and declared that none of the CIAs "enhanced interrogation techniques" are cruel, inhuman or degrading.  Gonzales had so much confidence in the accuracy of his legal opinion that he didn't publicly release this interpretation.   
 
Folks over at the Justice Department point to Dick Cheney and his thugs as the primary force behind memos like the above.  The Office of the Vice President's overbearing nature and the weakness of Alberto Gonzales caused the perfect storm that eliminated opposition to a practice that America has been opposed to since before these states were united.  The author of Washington's Crossing notes that during the Revolutionary War:
 
American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war.
They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society
and the principles of their cause
. One of their greatest achievements …
was to manage the war in a manner that was true
to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution.
 
Instead of men like that, we are cursed with men like Dick "fairly robust interrogation" Cheney, David Addington (Author of a White House memo condoning torture), John Yoo (Who believes the President may have the authority to crush the testicles of children), and Steven Bradbury (Who testified before Congress last year that "The President is always right.")
 
The President also said that "Freedom from torture is an inalienable right."  Bradbury's defense of torture and Bush's stated opposition to it seem to be a odds, not to mention Gonzo's torture memos.
 
newyork4kucinichDEMANDS Cheney be prosecuted now
Al Rogers

 
Posted by newyork4kucinichDEMANDS Cheney be prosecuted now on November 4, 2007 - Sunday - 9:14 AM
[Reply to this
_Jasno_

 
While I understand where you're coming from, I disagree. I believe that "barking dogs, sleep deprivation, temperature swing, and loud annoying pop-rock music" all would classify as 'torture' under American law...

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

And I think your stipulation that it cause "irreversible physical harm" is a dangerous qualifer. We have the ability to reattach limbs and replace damaged organs. I don't think that our definition of torture should be dependent on our ability to cover up our actions.
 
Posted by _Jasno_ on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 3:05 AM
[Reply to this
Brian

 
Didn't we use the music approach on Noriega? Seems pretty humane to me, especially considering all of the other means we had at our disposal to get him out of the compound.
 
Posted by Brian on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 12:02 AM
[Reply to this
_Jasno_

 
I don't think a comparison to Noriega is at all relevant here...He wasn't a prisoner in a cell. I think there is a huge difference between apprehdning a criminal through means that don't endanger his life and coercion of a confession. I'm all for the use of tasers in apprehending criminals, but I'm not for using tasers on prisoners in a cell in order to make him say what I want. I lend no trust to a confession that comes from a torture victim. It's simply not a reliable way to do business. And after you take into consideration that these people are simply presumed guilty, I think all Americans should be offended by the practice.
 
Posted by _Jasno_ on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 2:44 AM
[Reply to this
Amy

 
But those psychological techniques,right?Why should america do any of these things?And Im sure that you're not supporting John Yoos opinion that the president can smash the testicles of kids,right?Forcing people to say what we want can get us a confession but I dont think its necessarily a true confession.If they wouldnt let me sleep or any of that other stuff I would probably confess to anything after long enough.
 
Posted by Amy on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 7:17 PM
[Reply to this
Brian

 
Any form of contact with a prisoner/detainee could be described as a "psychological technique" if you use use the term broadly enough. By your terms providing cookies and milk could be a form of torture.
 
Posted by Brian on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 12:12 AM
[Reply to this
Pyrite
Pyrite Firebane

 
The term reasonable comes into play. If you take action with the *intent* of causing trauma then it's more likely torture. And no one is claiming they were subjected to hours of milk and cookies. A reasonable person knows the difference.
 
Posted by Pyrite on October 7, 2007 - Sunday - 3:09 PM
[Reply to this
Brian

 
A reasonable person could then be expected to understand that the use of dogs for the purpose of searching for contraband and establishing control would not be unreasonable even (or especially) if the detainee has culturally founded beliefs that such tactics are tantamount to torture. You killed your own statement with, well, your own statement...
 
Posted by Brian on October 11, 2007 - Thursday - 7:42 AM
[Reply to this


 
If crunching baby testicles would stop another 911 I would be for it and so would everyother american.
 
Posted by on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 8:35 PM
[Reply to this
Pyrite
Pyrite Firebane

 
I'm an american I wouldn't be for it. I'm not prepared to sacrifice my humanity to protect my life.
 
Posted by Pyrite on October 7, 2007 - Sunday - 3:10 PM
[Reply to this
Jay
Jason Hallen

 
I second that.
 
Posted by Jay on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 1:56 PM
[Reply to this
alec
alec miller

 
i'm not trying to help the adminstration or anything, but damn, why do they write memos about everything! if i was trying to get away with something sneaky, i think i wouldn't write it down!!!

great blog, i'm really glad you are starting to list so many sources for your info!
 
Posted by alec on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 5:18 PM
[Reply to this
Amy

 
Wow This is a shocking blog. Great work. America has always been able to get by without torture. We beat the nazis the imperialist japanese the british and countless others without doing it. I dont think our new enemy is any stronger than them.
 
Posted by Amy on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 7:18 PM
[Reply to this
Brian

 
"America has always been able to get by without torture."

You could only come to that conclusion if your sources for American history were the literary equivalents of Norman Rockwell paintings...Not that I'm trying to condone the use of torture.
 
Posted by Brian on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 12:21 AM
[Reply to this
_Jasno_

 
I certainly don't contest that torture has been used by Americans at certain times in history (School of Americas is I think a great example), but I certainly believe that this administration has taken it to a new level. Previously, our government actually tried to keep it a secret. I think, and previously believed most people thought, that torture by its very nature is antithetical to the nature of America. That's why the government would do its best to keep it a secret: Americans wouldn't approve.

This administration, however, seems to disagree. Not only do they condone torture, they believe it to be entirely constitutional and in no way contrary to the principles of our nation. Torture has been codified at the highest levels and asserted as a government's inherent right. That, I believe, is foolish.

It's like the difference between a guy robbing your home when you're out, and a dude just walking in and asserting that your stuff belongs to him. Both are bad, but the second guy apparently has no concept that what he's doing is wrong.
 
Posted by _Jasno_ on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 2:30 AM
[Reply to this


 
liberals eating there own!i love it! good luck in 08!
 
Posted by on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 6:54 AM
[Reply to this


 
You define torture to broadly.Torture is cutting somebodys head off not making them listen to bad music or making them chilly.Of course an article like that came from the new york times.The only place so biased as to print it.
 
Posted by on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 8:34 PM
[Reply to this
newyork4kucinichDEMANDS Cheney be prosecuted now
Al Rogers

 
Lady all you can do is repeat republican talking points.
Bimbo watch the video
click on the european prison video link


Click on the next link to watch video!
Kucinich makes
Announcement Congress to vote on impeachment!


European governments object to
operation of Secret Torture Prison


Rebuilding Iraq Will
America Stand up for Peace?





 
Posted by newyork4kucinichDEMANDS Cheney be prosecuted now on November 4, 2007 - Sunday - 9:17 AM
[Reply to this
Tim

 
If torture includes constant noise, stench and fear, it can be argued that inmates in several of California's prisons are subjected to more cruel, inhumane and degrading torture than are those at Guantanamo.

We need to get our own house in order before we presume to tell others how to run theirs.
 
Posted by Tim on October 4, 2007 - Thursday - 10:40 PM
[Reply to this


 
Finally your coming down on the right side of an issue tim. Youve grown
 
Posted by on October 5, 2007 - Friday - 6:57 AM
[Reply to this
AL
al rogers

 
When will Congress be allowed to review Attorney Stephen Bradbury’s Legal opinion on Torture?
By Al Rogers
More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.
When he stepped down as attorney general in September after widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was “a place of inspiration” that had balanced the necessary flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to uphold the law.
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.
Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics. which Presidential
Candidate has the best plan for Iraq?
</p>
Florida 4 Kucinich Blog<p>
California 4 Kucinich Blog</p>
<p>Ohio 4 Kucinich Blog</p>
<p>New York 4 Kucinich Blog</p>
Military Commissions Act We
have drawn a Blank Check to a President who has no respect for the Constitution
</p>

European governments object to
operation of Secret Torture Prison
</p>
Rebuilding Iraq Will
America Stand up for Peace?
</p>



 
Posted by AL on October 6, 2007 - Saturday - 5:30 AM
[Reply to this
Progressive America Times



Last Updated: 7/31/2007

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Who Gives Kudos: