Full torture memo available online!

[geek tragedy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5166951/site/newsweek/

The people most horrified should be the law professors who taught these cretins.

[comradebillyboy]

1. i bet the JAG corps folks leaked this baby

the uniforms at the pentagon are gonna get revenge on the neo-con suits. between pissed off service people and bitter spooks at cia, we should see a torrent of leaks from the disgruntled establishment types.

some good summer reading, eh sport

[stepnw1f]

2. I Think They Made A Trap For Themselves

Let's see how this plays out.

[rocktivity]

15. I think it's going to be raining leaks from here on in

I just hope there are enough of them to last until November!

:headbang:
rocknation

[struggle4progress]

26. I hope so! There must be many unhappy campers in DC!

[MsMagnificent]

61. Yep, & watch the "Liberal Media"...

...ignore it all, as usual!

So this IS a "leak" indeed? Any comment from the Att.Gen.'s office yet?

Does anyone have a link to the report outside of MSNBC?
It'll wreak havoc with my printer :(

[Walt Starr]

3. I think Ashcroft perjured himself today

not to mention committed Contempt of Congress.

Frog MArch his evil ass.

[David Zephyr]

8. Walt, You Are Not Alone In This Thought.

It certainly seems as if his last comments to Biden might be perjury.

[doni_georgia]

9. Asscrock + perjury = Leavenworth?

I'd piss my pants laughing at an Ashcroft perp walk!!

Send him to federal Pound Him In The Ass prison!!

Mac in Ga

[union_maid]

18. If any of them do go to Leavenworth

I'd have to reconsider my non-churchgoing policy. Oh, that would be a happy, happy day. I only saw a little of the Ashcroft thing today. Did it seem to anyone else that he was reeking of desperation? I thought he had a cornered rat look about him.

[Auntie Bush]

23. And strip him NAKED! Then post photos on the Internet.

What a disgusting thought. :puke:

[proud patriot]

17. If I were ashcroft's lawyer I would of told him to plead the 5th today

but he did not :shrug:

[RememberTheCoup]

4. What's NOFORN?

"No fornication"? I wouldn't be surprised if Ashcroft put that on all his papers. :)

[SpiritsDad]

5. NOFORN?

I like the thing about no fornication but NOFORN means No Foreign Dissemination".

[wiggs]

31. NOFORN

We heard about this term in connection with the Iraq war plan being shown to Prince Bandar by the administration.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. When I was in MI (IIRC)

. . . they spelled it out. That was a quarter century back.

[Stephanie]

43. There's a charge that's disappeared already

What about that? ANOTHER crime.

[haele]

34. NOFORN is military/government speak for "No Foriegn applicants"

It refers to both sources and destinations, such as contractors for communications services or for directive documents such as technical manuals or message traffic dissimination.

Haele

[happynewyear]

6. RESIGN RUMMY! HURRY!

<< June 8 - A memo classified by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 explores ways of conducting interrogations in the war on terror that would allow guards to evade future prosecutions for torture. In a series of minutely argued points that appear designed to evade restrictions on abusive interrogation techniques, the memo concludes that “excessive force” is illegal only when it is “malicious and sadistic.” It also argues that treatment of prisoners should be defined as torture only when "the infliction of pain" is an interrogator's "precise objective." >>

RESIGN BEFORE YOU GET FIRED RUMSFELD!!!!

[Beetwasher]

7. These Memos Are Pretty Fucking Damning!

Now back to our regularly scheduled Reagan Beatification and Ultimate Whorefest!

ON EDIT: CHANGE THE TITLE BEFORE THIS VERY IMPORTANT THREAD IS LOCKED! IT MUST BE "NEW TORTURE FUROR" You can probably get away w/ keeping your original title in parentheses.

[Pachamama]

10. Did they take it off? I can't seem to get to the link.. can someone post

the memo? I have tried 5 times now, and I get a blank page from the newsweek link where it says "read memo here"

[pinto]

11. 40 page pdf, takes a while to load...n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. I'm getting a blank page too.

n/t

[Gold Metal Flake]

19. It's a 3.3 meg PDF.

You may have your Acrobat configured so that it opens the pdf in your browser. If it is set so that it asks if you want to download or open, you can choose download and monitor the progress. Open Acrobat and go to Edit/Preferences and then the Web or Options tab (depending on version). UNCHECK the box that sez Display PDF In Browser. That should do it.

[Beetwasher]

13. You Gotta Let It Load For A Bit

Same thing happened to me...

[union_maid]

16. It's a pdf file

Do you have Acrobat Reader?

[rocktivity]

14. Does this mean that the Bush regime's "bad apple" defense

has just gone, so to speak, sour?

:headbang:
rocknation

[qwertyMike]

21. Here's the pdf file embedded in the article

http://msnbc.com/modules/newsweek/pdf/040608_Hirsh_WorkingGroupReport.pdf

Patient, takes a while to load. Right-click to save for your kids.

[fearnobush]

28. This one is the 52 page PDF from Michael Ratner on Air America

just now, he said this one has four extra pages that are real damning.
<http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=0Shrzgi8q7&Content=385>

[UpInArms]

36. thanks for the link

MSNBC just wasn't working for me.

[Just Me]

55. Oh, yummy! Thanks for that linky!!! *eom*

[notadmblnd]

56. I wonder who's fax number that is at the top of the page

614-292-2035

[Shadder]

57. Ohio State University College of Law

Looks to be a general fax nunber that a number of people use

[Nancy Waterman]

25. This is incredible!!

Ashcroft refuses to give the memo to the Senate investigating committee and infuriates the Senators, who only know about it through the newspapers, and now it is online!!! I am rolling on the floor!!!!!

It mentions that bringing someone to the brink of suicide would be considered disruptive enough to be called torture and hence illegal. Didn't several prisoners at gitmo commit suicide?

[Pachamama]

42. The memos that Asscroft is refusing to turn over are different from this 1

....This is a DOD memo and the memo that Asscroft is refusing to turn over is a memo to the President....

What is obvious is that many of the DOJ findings in the memo to Shrub are clearly in this one for DOD/Rumsfeld. The memos in question from Asscroft are from 2002 and this memo is 2003....

[nolabels]

60. He would be implicating himself then?

Would be my guess, so why does he not arrest himself then :crazy:

[nolabels]

59. Them three monkeys at work again

&imgrefurl=http://www.turnonthenews.com/Speaknoevil.htm&h=441&w=750&sz=35&tbnid=i0ZHIiN2FRkJ:&tbnh=82&tbnw=139&start=4&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsee%2Bno%2Bevil%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

Originally Broadcast on October 29, 2003

CONSPIRACY OR COINCIDENCE?
Is it a conspiracy or a coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

[Just Me]

20. Forty-two pages to justify ignoring/reversing/making the law.

It'll take me some time to read through this memo of bullshit.

Should I bother?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

INTENTIONALLY CREATING MEANS TO BREAK THE LAW,...IS CRIMINAL!!!

:nuke:

A conspiracy to commit treason,...to intentionally seek means of violating the constitution and laws of this land,...is worse than unconscionable,...it is freakin' evil!!!

[Beetwasher]

22. Am I Wrong Or Does This Put Responsibility RIGHT IN CHIMPY'S LAP?!?

The argument in a nutshell is the President can ignore treaties, Geneva etc. at his leisure to protect national interests. IOW, the Pres. can bend the laws against torture at HIS discretion. Therefore, CHIMPY is TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE. It could not have happened without the President's (HIS) knowledge, approval and authorization...

[slinkerwink]

30. exactly!

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Absolutely

From Democratic Underground
Dated Tuesday May 11

Who is Responsible?
By Jack Rabbit

In light of the revelations of abuse of Iraqi detainees by American soldiers and civilians at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, many have called for the resignation or firing of Donald Rumsfeld and others. The outrage has been bi-partisan and should be. No matter how one felt about the wisdom and morality of invading Iraq, the barbarism that took place in Abu Ghraib cannot be defended. This is an affair that brings dishonor and disgrace to Americans.
To merely call for the resignation or firing of the Defense Secretary misses the point. He is responsible, but not simply because he failed to oversee the problem or inform either Congress or the President in a timely manner. The buck no more stops with Donald Rumsfeld than it stops with Lynndie England . . . .
What will the US do? Is it sufficient to court martial some enlisted personnel, reprimand some officers and fire some civilian contractors for the abuses of Abu Ghraib? Would it be sufficient to dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld from his post? No, the problem goes beyond that.
It is Mr. Bush himself who is responsible for the crimes at Abu Ghraib. The circumvention of international humanitarian law is Bush administration policy. He is responsible whether he directly ordered any particular case of abuse at that prison or even whether he knew about it in January, as Mr. Rumsfeld said, or while watching 60 Minutes, as Mr. Bush said, or knew all along, which no one suggests. The crimes at Abu Ghraib are the result of the peculiar detention system established by Mr. Bush and his subordinates in the wake of the war on terror.
The centerpiece of the detention system is the prison camp at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A feature of the detention system is that it is, in the words of separate statements by Human Rights Watch and the International Committee for the Red Cross, "a legal black hole." This administration claims that the detention center is beyond the reach of the jurisdiction of any court. The detainees at the facility are presumed to be terrorists; no review of their cases can occur except by the good graces of this administration itself. The administration further asserts that all detainees at Guantanamo are "unlawful combatants" with no rights as prisoners of war. Again, because the administration claims that no US or international court has any jurisdiction over inmates at Guantanamo, their status cannot be reviewed by anyone outside the Bush administration.
This arrangement contradicts the Third Geneva Convention, under which a detainee is to be treated as a prisoner of war until a competent tribunal rules otherwise (Article 5). Since the administration's rules preclude judicial review of any detainee's status, no detainee has ever been had a review by any competent tribunal and so could not be ruled anything but a prisoner of war.
Moreover, the catch-all phrase under international law for those who are not prisoners of war is not "unlawful combatants," a term which is not found in any recognized body of international law, but rather "protected persons." The rights of protected persons are spelled out in the Fourth Geneva Convention; the rights of protected persons under the authority of a hostile power are little different than those prisoners of war. Even assuming that the detainees at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war, their rights under international law are being violated systematically and willfully by Mr. Bush and his subordinates.
The Bush administration has instituted a system of military commissions to try the prisoners at Guantanamo. The trials are not public and their proceedings may be secret. The defendant may only be represented by an attorney who is approved by the government; in effect, the prosecution has veto power over the defense counsel. There shall be no jury; a two-thirds vote from commission members is sufficient for conviction or the imposition of a sentence, including death. The only appeal is to the President or the Secretary of Defense . . . .
The conditions under which prisoners are kept at Guantanamo are the subject of some international concern. Few outsiders have seen the camp and reported on it. Those who have, condemn it. Prisoners are housed in small cages with little protection from the elements. Human Rights Watch called the conditions "a scandal" long before Abu Ghraib made headlines. A British jurist looking into the situation at one of the Guantanamo camps called the conditions one of "utter lawlessness."
The detention camp at Guantanamo Bay was set up to circumvent international law. Mr. Bush cannot claim to know nothing about it or to not be responsible for it. He signed the executive orders authorizing this circumvention of international law.

Read more.

[goforit]

41. Yep ........Totally responsible (for everything)Tell that to his Mom!

"Your son is the #1 World Terrorist"

[Lars39]

24. geek tragedy....change the title to " New Torture Furor"

before the thread gets locked!!!

[Shadder]

27. Well....

This should make for an interesting day tomorrow on top of everything else.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Very interesting reading

This confirms what I have suspected for a long time: that the junta wanted to get around the Geneva Conventions and other canons of international law and were looking for legal justifications to do so.

If the government does not have the will to throw these thugs out of office and put them on trial for war crimes, then an international tribunal should be convened for that purpose.

I don't want to hear about the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, also known as "The Hague Invasion Act." If Interpol comes to apprehend the war crimes suspects, I will not lift a finger to prevent them from doing their duty. If necessary, I will assist in their apprehension.

[davsand]

33. I'm not defending the decision, however, it might just be legal.

I'm not certain of this, and I'd sure like to know if I'm right (DU legal eagles where are you?) but I'm wondering if this IS actually legal under the EO privilege for the President. It isn't moral, it isn't acceptable, but it might actually be legal if I'm understanding the argument correctly.

Essentially, if I'm understanding this all correctly, the contention is that a President can act by Executive Order if it is in the defense of the nation (as the Commander in Chief.) The over-site lies in the Congressional ability to not fund the acts or in the voters' ability to not re-elect that President.

I'd like to learn more from the folks who know more about Con law before I all my excitement level to get too high when it comes to how much trouble they are in.


Laura

[Doctor Smith]

37. Legally, treaties have the same weight as the Constitution.

Surely, a president cannot overrule the constitution by executive order.

[Zhade]

46. In a way.

The caveat is that, once having broken the law for what he considered a good reason, he must submit himself for judgment of his actions by the public, through the courts.

In other words, the only privilege he would have like that would be to sacrifice himself for what he saw as the good of the nation.

This guy doesn't do self-sacrifice, just the sacrifice of others.

[robbedvoter]

54. Nope. 2 reasons of the top of my head:

- Lawyers cannot advice thr commission of a crime
- POTUS is bound to law wvwn in time of war (geneva, Congress, you name it) Saying you don't want them to apply don't work! :-)

[teryang]

63. It isn't legal, it is completely unlawful

...that is the point of this whole scandal. There is no aruguable legal theory in support of torture. The other thread which included Prof. Silliman's remarks was locked by the moderater. He is a former military lawyer and law professor at Duke Law School.

Two nights ago on CNN, Scott Silliman Duke Law blasted Ashcroft.

He stated on CNN that "most lawyers are opposed" to the legal regime created by civilian attorneys in the Pentagon and Justice Department to "skirt the Geneva Conventions and War Crimes Act." (Those that aren't are simply incompetent and not fit to be called lawyers)

He went on further to say that virtually all military lawyers are opposed to the legally unfounded policy attemting to justify torture which contravenes at least 50 years of US military policy AND HAS NO LEGAL FOUNDATION WHATEVER AND CONTRAVENES THE RULE OF LAW.

As a retired Colonel and Gulf War I military adviser, Silliman went on to say that military lawyers of the armed services (the working group) were opposed to this policy when it first came up. He also noted that conservative lawyers are opposed to this policy as well and that most lawyers feel that it jeopardizes the welfare of our own soldiers.

It is interesting from my point of view that former high ranking JAG officers from Army OTJAG were seen on television early in the invasion of Iraq and were quickly jerked on not heard from again. Now the opinions of military lawyers are getting mainstream coverage.

Also interesting that a view from an MIT poly sci prof was published in the press a few days ago that referred to bush as a meglomaniac.

[crossroads]

38. Is it not here, or is it my PC? Can't see it! n/t

:shrug:

[gottaB]

39. cuts off abruptly

seems to end at page 42 (56), right at the beginning of Presidential and Secretary of Defense Directives

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

40. the most interesting thing? at the top...

"unclassified when removed from attachment"

wonder what the attachment was? a routing slip? with *'s initals on it?

[Pachamama]

44. Wow! I finally finished reading this memo...few bad apples my a**....

..This document clearly shows that this administration at the highest levels, being directed clearly by the Exec. Branch with the advise/counsel of the Dept. of Justice and in conjunction with the Dept. of Defense planned and researched ahead of time "consequences" of any actions taken related to torture and interrogation of detainees.

[struggle4progress]

45. Related

Documents Build a Case for Working Outside the Laws in Interrogations
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09TTEX.html

NYT: one page overview of the 2002 memos

[Spazito]

53. Great rundown on the memos and timelines!

Thanks for the link!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

47. Hopefully . . .

. . . the prosecutors did listen to their law professors.

[The Stranger]

48. Kick.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. in the asscrack kick

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. classified by: Secretay Rumsfeld-Reason: 1.5(o)-Declassify On: 10 years

looks like rummy lied through his fucking teeth!

[CheshireCat]

51. Memo

on edit:

The memo does appear as an embedded pdf file. 42 pages!!!

[robbedvoter]

52. WaPo story on it:

Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03

[Tina H]

58. 1994 "reservations" as justification for aggressive prisoner interrogation

To me the memo says that the treaty that would be most applicable to the present situations (eg, Lindh, Iraqi civilian prisoners) is the 1994 Convention Against Torture.

The memo explains that 1994 U.S. "reservations" mean that much or most of the current "torture" was not considered to be "torture" by the US gov't when drafted its list of "reservations" in 1994.

Therefore, I would be careful with this memo. It is clearly a stealth "RW talking point" and should not be discussed here. It makes the "Big Dawg" look short-sighted (and the 1994 Congress) look short-sighted in its treaty-making. That is certainly not the kind of thing I come to DU to hear about!

[diatribe]

62. "Uncovering" the blacked out parts....

I've seen on other websites like www.cryptome.org where they've been able to take a pdf document and figure out what lies beneath the black out portions.

For example, the Aug 6 PDB had blacked out lines and through analysis it was determined that the likely words that were blacked out was "egyptian".

I've also seen this done with some documents that were "released" in connection with the DC sniper incidents.

Does anyone know any more about this or how its done? I really really wanna know whats blacked out.

diatribe

[kayell]

64. Clinton was not into torturing

His lawyers did not come up with a huge memo detailing ways to justify torture. There are not photos and testimony of people being tortured on the Clinton watch.

If Clintons admin made exeptions to the treaty like this (or was it a repuke congress?), they should be criticized, but it is quite clear where the real blame for this situation lies. And that is where the legitimate reporting time will be spent, not on some Clenis diversion.


What did you come to DU to hear about?

[Tina H]

65. I think DU posts should avoid

highlighting past Democratic mistakes. I believe Congress was Democratic in 1994. I know that the President was. The fact that they wrote special exceptions to make it easier to "legally" practice torture was a Democratic mistake.

I think we can talk about plenty of other aspects of the torture scandal without publicizing this memo that so effectively highlights a bad Democratic foreign policy mistake.

BTW, I didn't say that the Big Dawg approves of torture itself torture. All I am saying is that he tailored US treaties, for which he should be held responsible, to make torture more legal for the US than it is the rest of the world. Maybe you think that is a good thing, but I think it is bad (with a capital B).

The *progressive* position on torture that torture should be made illegal. All torture. The treaty that Clinton and his Congress wrote in 1994 was not faithful to this progressive political stance regarding torture.

If the original post had just never been made, I never would have been tempted to read that memo and find out about the 1994 treaty mistake (I didn't know about the 1994 treaty before encountering this thread and its linked RW talking point memo). Therefore, I wish the original post had never been made because it puts bad thoughts about my political party into my head. That is not what I come to DU for!