http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-03/bushs-lawyers-strike-back/full/In a brutally frank and at times contentious interview, former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales sat down with Dan Abrams to talk...<snip>
Let me follow this. The U.S. military prosecuted our own troops for using waterboarding in the Philippines, tried the Japanese for war crimes for using it against the Allies and the U.S. troops in WWII. And yet, we’re suggesting that it’s not torture. (Applause)JA: First of all, the word waterboarding can be defined in a lot of ways.
Let’s talk about the definition that was used in these memos—this is a legal document—of the definition of waterboarding. “Lying on a gurney that is inclined with an angle of 10-15 degrees from horizontal, with the detainee on his back. . . head toward the head end of the gurney, cloth pasted over the detainees’ face, and cold water poured on the cloth approximately 16-18 inches—this is the definition. The question is—AG: Dan, the opinions have been withdrawn. There are no longer binding position of the department…
I understand that, but that doesn’t mean, as lawyers, we can’t sit and discuss whether this was a correct legal assessment. Because it seems to me, in my opinion, that it is impossible to explain how this particular procedure would not be considered torture. (Applause)JA: Members of the department went and underwent the procedure.
Once or twice, not 266 times.JA: Many members of our military in training undergo the procedure—
Once or twice.JA: Were you there?
No, the memos explain it. It’s once or twice. JA: OK. I don’t know how many times they underwent it. Let me just put it this way. We relied—I relied—on the best judgments of the lawyers in the department. There are 110,000 employees in the department, the lawyers are expert, and they came up with an opinion that became part of a memo. Later, some lawyers came to me and said "We’re not confident that that memo best expresses the law here." And I said to myself, "Well, I’m the attorney general, and if we have stuff out there that’s not the best expression, we ought to amend it. We ought to get the best information we can." You know we’re in a war, you give it to the president, you give information to the other individuals, but you say, you know, they deserve the best judgment. They reworked the memo, and they came a second time, these professionals did, and according to the definition of torture, they came to the conclusion that the procedure as provided along with the advice to our personnel did not amount to legal torture.
Did they get it wrong?JA: I don’t think they got it wrong. It’s different now.
It’s different in what sense?JA: Because the law has been changed.
(John Ashcroft called me after the event to correct a mistake he made. He wanted to let me know that, in retrospect and after conducting more research on the matter, he realized that no such change in the law was ever enacted._The definition of torture?JA: Yes! The definition of torture.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
