Ameristan’s Torture Memo Released

U.S. Justice Department interrogation memo: Constitution not in play

(ChicagoTribune) – The Justice Department released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government’s legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants outside the United States.

(Here are part one and part two of the memo – pdf files!)

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques.

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does “not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.”:

…
The memo was prepared by John Yoo for William Haynes, then the Pentagon’s general counsel and another key player in the administration’s legal strategy. It was declassified by Haynes’ acting successor, Daniel Dell’ Orto. Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to release the memo and others like it, had this to say:

“It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress.

The memo they have declassified today reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration. It is no wonder that this memo, like the now-infamous “Bybee memo”, could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn. Like the “Bybee memo”, this memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.”

John Yoo Argues Pres. George Bush Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Bybee Memo – A Roadmap for Torture

“For an act to constitute torture, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. 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.”  

“For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.”  

“Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith. Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control.  

“Under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Sections 2340A.”  

Newly Unredacted Documents Confirm Lack Of Oversight Of Military’s Domestic Surveillance Powers

NEW YORK – On the heels of an internal report criticizing the FBI for abusing its power to issue National Security Letters (NSLs), newly unredacted documents released today as a result of an American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union lawsuit reveal that the Department of Defense (DoD) is using the FBI to circumvent legal limits on its own NSL power and may have overstepped its authority to obtain private and sensitive records of people within the United States without court approval. The previously withheld records also reveal that the military is secretly accessing these private records without providing training, guidance, or any real recordkeeping.

“It looks like the Defense Department is evading the legal limits placed on the military’s surveillance powers by simply getting the FBI to do its bidding,” said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “If the Defense Department is asking the FBI to get information it is not allowed to access on its own, there is a serious problem within both agencies.