Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Bradley Manning Won't Be SF Pride Grand Marshal [View all]struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)35. THE TORTURE PAPERS: THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB
by Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel (eds)
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
1284pp. Cloth
£27.50/$50.00
... By collecting 28 memos, five reports, two bar association statements, and five appendices into one volume, the editors of THE TORTURE PAPERS have provided a valuable service. Chronologically arranged, one can trace the development of U.S. legal policy from September 25, 2001, through March 19, 2004 a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and shortly before the Abu Ghraib photographs were seen worldwide. As co-editor Joshua Dratel writes, the memos collected were the product of three pernicious purposes . . . : (1) the desire to place detainees beyond the reach of any court or law; (2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and (3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law ...
Detainees can be placed beyond the reach of law if no law applies to them. Pernicious Purpose 2, placing al Qaeda and the Taliban outside of the Geneva Convention, was accomplished through a series of memos that created new categories of unlawful combatants. The Military Order issued by George Bush on November 13, 2001 (memo #2) laid the groundwork, but the memoranda continue into February of 2002. From the Attorney Generals Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo (memo #4) and Jay Bybee (memo #6) argued in January of 2002 that U.S. treaties and laws, including part of the Geneva Convention, do not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This determination is forwarded by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the Joint Chiefs that same month (memo #5). In February Attorney General John Ashcroft (memo #9) and Assistant Attorney General Bybee (memo #12) further develop positions on excluding al Qaeda and the Taliban from the Geneva Convention ...
Most of the remaining 15 memos address interrogation methods and constraints, and it is in these memos that we find the link between Pernicious Purpose 2, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, and Pernicious Purpose 3, insulation from criminal liability the road map to Abu Ghraib. Central among these is memo #14, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybees August 1, 2002, memo to Presidential Counsel Alberto Gonzales on the standards of conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. This is the so-called torture memo, in which the Office of Legal Counsel defines torture forbidden under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A very narrowly. The narrow definition is achieved both by distinguishing torture from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and by establishing a high threshold to be accountable for committing torture: because (based on earlier definitions) one has to have acted with the specific intent to inflict severe pain, the infliction of such pain must be the defendants [*760] precise objective (p.174). The memo helpfully distinguishes severe pain and suffering from merely pain or suffering and also defines severe mental pain and suffering. In the absence of statutory definitions, the memo cites authorities such as a 1935 dictionary entry and congressional acts related to disability, before concluding that The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will result. If that pain or suffering is psychological, that suffering must result from one of the acts set forth in the statute. . . . In short, reading the definition of torture as a whole, it is plain that the term encompasses only extreme acts (p.183) ...
The trail of documents here suggests that the pictures we have seen are the tip of an iceberg. Indeed, in late July 2005 the military defied a Federal District Court order to release 87 more photographs and 4 videotapes of Abu Ghraib abuse; the governments position is that to do so would violate the Geneva Conventions by further humiliating detainees depicted in the photos (Zernike 2005). The power of photographs then is great, for the military has already released over 60,000 pages of documents about the abuse 50 times what is included here. Ironically, the very photographs that draw our attention to the treatment of detainees allow us to focus on the few military personnel depicted in them. Only by reading the reports do we get a sense of how widespread the abuse was, and only by reading the memos are we forced to confront why.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/greenberg-dratel805.htm
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
1284pp. Cloth
£27.50/$50.00
... By collecting 28 memos, five reports, two bar association statements, and five appendices into one volume, the editors of THE TORTURE PAPERS have provided a valuable service. Chronologically arranged, one can trace the development of U.S. legal policy from September 25, 2001, through March 19, 2004 a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and shortly before the Abu Ghraib photographs were seen worldwide. As co-editor Joshua Dratel writes, the memos collected were the product of three pernicious purposes . . . : (1) the desire to place detainees beyond the reach of any court or law; (2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and (3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law ...
Detainees can be placed beyond the reach of law if no law applies to them. Pernicious Purpose 2, placing al Qaeda and the Taliban outside of the Geneva Convention, was accomplished through a series of memos that created new categories of unlawful combatants. The Military Order issued by George Bush on November 13, 2001 (memo #2) laid the groundwork, but the memoranda continue into February of 2002. From the Attorney Generals Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo (memo #4) and Jay Bybee (memo #6) argued in January of 2002 that U.S. treaties and laws, including part of the Geneva Convention, do not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This determination is forwarded by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the Joint Chiefs that same month (memo #5). In February Attorney General John Ashcroft (memo #9) and Assistant Attorney General Bybee (memo #12) further develop positions on excluding al Qaeda and the Taliban from the Geneva Convention ...
Most of the remaining 15 memos address interrogation methods and constraints, and it is in these memos that we find the link between Pernicious Purpose 2, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, and Pernicious Purpose 3, insulation from criminal liability the road map to Abu Ghraib. Central among these is memo #14, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybees August 1, 2002, memo to Presidential Counsel Alberto Gonzales on the standards of conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. This is the so-called torture memo, in which the Office of Legal Counsel defines torture forbidden under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A very narrowly. The narrow definition is achieved both by distinguishing torture from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and by establishing a high threshold to be accountable for committing torture: because (based on earlier definitions) one has to have acted with the specific intent to inflict severe pain, the infliction of such pain must be the defendants [*760] precise objective (p.174). The memo helpfully distinguishes severe pain and suffering from merely pain or suffering and also defines severe mental pain and suffering. In the absence of statutory definitions, the memo cites authorities such as a 1935 dictionary entry and congressional acts related to disability, before concluding that The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will result. If that pain or suffering is psychological, that suffering must result from one of the acts set forth in the statute. . . . In short, reading the definition of torture as a whole, it is plain that the term encompasses only extreme acts (p.183) ...
The trail of documents here suggests that the pictures we have seen are the tip of an iceberg. Indeed, in late July 2005 the military defied a Federal District Court order to release 87 more photographs and 4 videotapes of Abu Ghraib abuse; the governments position is that to do so would violate the Geneva Conventions by further humiliating detainees depicted in the photos (Zernike 2005). The power of photographs then is great, for the military has already released over 60,000 pages of documents about the abuse 50 times what is included here. Ironically, the very photographs that draw our attention to the treatment of detainees allow us to focus on the few military personnel depicted in them. Only by reading the reports do we get a sense of how widespread the abuse was, and only by reading the memos are we forced to confront why.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/greenberg-dratel805.htm
Only those, who have not being paying careful attention, think the credit for what we know belongs to Assange or Manning. The above book, for example, was published when Manning was a 16-year-old, living with his mother in Wales
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
San Francisco Pride committee backtracks on WikiLeaks suspect Manning as Grand Marshal
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#1
It seemed like a really dumb and divisive thing to do, so I'm glad they reversed it.
MH1
Apr 2013
#4
Then you read the second paragraph of their statement, and the topology of their opposition changes
Occulus
Apr 2013
#6
Manning is facing a General Court Martial, not a military tribunal. They are not the
24601
Apr 2013
#7
That's fine. Militarists hate him. Some of them are glbt too. But spare us the bullshit:
Smarmie Doofus
Apr 2013
#9
Translation: blah, blah, disturbed young man, blah, blah, poor SOS Clinton, blah, blah,
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#12
Manning has done nothing whatsoever helpful with regard to the issues of the secret prisons
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#13
Really? Not according to Guardian or BBC. Or did you manage to miss their exposé on secret
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#14
You might want to search the DU archives from 2004-2005 for discussion of the so-called
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#15
The Guardian/BBC Arabic investigation was sparked by the release of classified US military logs
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#17
So what? We've known for years that during the Bush II era, the neocons
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#19
Thanks to Bradley Manning its indisputable now. Not that you would ever admit it.
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#22
Thanks to Bradley Manning it is indisputable now. All there in those leaked papers for everyone to
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#24
I'm guessing it's just easier to claim to support Manning, than it is to actually pay attention
struggle4progress
Apr 2013
#30
It's very easy to support someone who provides an irrefutable proof that military was engaged
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#33
Classified papers released by Bradley Manning are the ultimate proof. Hard to deny it wasn't a
idwiyo
May 2013
#38
Patriot, you mean? Or do you approve of murdering innocent civilians and torture?
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#18
Why do I ask? It should be obvious. But do pray to tell what is it that Bradley Manning did wrong.
idwiyo
Apr 2013
#32
Thanks for admiting that you would just obey your orders, judging by what you wrote.
idwiyo
May 2013
#37
You stated yourself that an oath must be kept, regardless. Meaning you would follow your orders.
idwiyo
May 2013
#40
Report to your commanders? They would have ordered you to ignore it. As per the the orders they
idwiyo
May 2013
#44
Protesting what? What did Manning ever do for the LGBT community? Apparently nothing.
randome
Apr 2013
#21