NationStates Jolt Archive

then why was the Pentagon worried about the legality of interrogation techniques used there in 2003, especially as concerns liability under US anti-torture statutes?

Good question (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312).
June 15, 2005 — The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.

Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 — obtained by ABC News — show that Alberto Mora, general counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.

During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques … has military, legal, and political implication … has international implication … and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."

Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.

In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded — according to the memo — "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."

No such letter was issued.
There's more--unlike some others around here, I respect the fair use statute as regards printed material.

So why would top Pentagon lawyers want a "cover your ass" letter from the President if the tactics being used weren't covered by anti-torture statutes? Hmmm?

I await the withering retorts from the usual suspects on the right over this.

P.S. I started this thread specifically to discuss this aspect of the Guantanamo argument, and I didn't want it to get lost or ignored in the larger thread.

It's almost as if the US government is evil... how shocking :rolleyes:

then why was the Pentagon worried about the legality of interrogation techniques used there in 2003, especially as concerns liability under US anti-torture statutes?

Good question (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312).

There's more--unlike some others around here, I respect the fair use statute as regards printed material.

So why would top Pentagon lawyers want a "cover your ass" letter from the President if the tactics being used weren't covered by anti-torture statutes? Hmmm?

I await the withering retorts from the usual suspects on the right over this.


It's my opinion that the line (the grey area or whatever) was crossed. I believe they were tortured.

Remember, according the Bush Administration and their loyal lackeys, it's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies.

It's my opinion that the line (the grey area or whatever) was crossed. I believe they were tortured.
That's my opinion as well, and Pentagon lawyers were at least worried enough that they were looking for cover. So where are all the righties on this one? Guess Rush or Hannity didn't cover this today.

Remember, according the Bush Administration and their loyal lackeys, it's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies.
And maybe not even then.

Remember, according the Bush Administration and their loyal lackeys, it's only torture if the prisoner bleeds and dies.

and when that actually does happen (as it has. multiple times. that we know about), some excuse will be cooked up.

I could have just let this die without shoving it in the right-wingers' faces again, but nah--they've either got no answer or they're too chickenshit to trot out their pathetic excuses, and I plan to call them on it as often as I can.

Because, as we've seem from all the debate, people have different ideas of what torture is. We have some congressmen calling sleep deprivation and hoods torture. I'm pretty sure these lawyers were savy enough to realize even the slightest interrogation techniques would be blown out of proportion, and they wanted to cover their asses.

Because, as we've seem from all the debate, people have different ideas of what torture is. We have some congressmen calling sleep deprivation and hoods torture. I'm pretty sure these lawyers were savy enough to realize even the slightest interrogation techniques would be blown out of proportion, and they wanted to cover their asses.
If Congressmen were doing the prosecuting, then you might have a point, but they aren't. Military courts would be doing the prosecuting, and the top lawyers for the military were worried that their people could be facing jail time because the techniques they were using were, at the very least, questionable, and I doubt that they'd be asking the President for a "cover my ass" letter if there weren't some real cause.

Compared to Canada we are pikers when using torture!

Just listen to Celin Dion!

:D :p

I'm suprised no one's mentioned a particulat aspect of contemporary society, namely the fact that people these days are sue-happy, which means organisations have to be worried about the legality of everything they do, they have to ascertain what is legal and what is not, preferably before a hostile attorney does.

Guantanamo Bay is pussy crap compared to the Seagrove prison system. We purge all unholiness out of the Holy Empire with the sword of justice!

Different court system again, Disraeliland--lawsuits are civil matters. This deals with criminal cases, and would, I imagine, be handled by military courts, not evne the regular justice system.

Look at what's quoted from the memo. These lawyers weren't just concerned with legality. They were also concerned with the military, political, and international implications.

When that soldier shot a wounded insurgent in a Fallujah mosque who moved suddenly that soldier received a lot of flak. He did the right thing during a combat operation. I came to that conclusion, and so did the military tribunal that looked into it. The soldier did nothing wrong, but the US military still received criticism from home and abroad.

When that Italian intel operator was killed trying to cross a roadblock the US was hurt a hit militarily and politically. Even though that squad was cleared of wrongdoing by a military tribunal, American/Italian relations went down a peg.

Even totally legal actions can have a negative impact. Perfectly legal interrogation techniques are being criticized as too harsh by Bush's opponents.

That's why the Pentagon was worried about approved interrogation techniques even though they were legal. Even proper methods can be misconstrued as Nazi-like or Stalinist or torture.

It really dosent matter. The prisen itself is on Cuban land. We could beat the living hell out of them and nothing would happen. They dont follow American Prisen Laws ;) :mp5:

I could have just let this die without shoving it in the right-wingers' faces again, but nah--they've either got no answer or they're too chickenshit to trot out their pathetic excuses, and I plan to call them on it as often as I can.
You should look specifically at someone like Corneliu....

It really dosent matter. The prisen itself is on Cuban land. We could beat the living hell out of them and nothing would happen. They dont follow American Prisen Laws ;) :mp5:
No, it's not on Cuban land

Its on an American base.

And even if it was on Cuban land, does that mean its OK to entirely disregard human rights?

No, I didnt think so either.

It really dosent matter. The prisen itself is on Cuban land. We could beat the living hell out of them and nothing would happen. They dont follow American Prisen Laws ;) :mp5:
That's not what the Supreme Court said, although you're certainly correct in the notion that that's what the Bush administration was hoping for.

You should look specifically at someone like Corneliu....
Well, I was talking at him (he wasn't listening) in another thread on this very topic, so he might have been a bit of inspiration. ;)