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

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
35. THE TORTURE PAPERS: THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:43 PM
Apr 2013
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 General’s 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 Bybee’s 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 defendant’s [*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 government’s 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

San Francisco Pride committee backtracks on WikiLeaks suspect Manning as Grand Marshal struggle4progress Apr 2013 #1
WikiLeaks suspect won't be SF Pride parade marshal struggle4progress Apr 2013 #2
Discord at SF Pride over parade marshal struggle4progress Apr 2013 #3
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
The Board of Directors has veto power and they used it. Big deal. randome Apr 2013 #11
WikiLeaks defendant not San Fran Pride marshal struggle4progress Apr 2013 #5
Manning is facing a General Court Martial, not a military tribunal. They are not the 24601 Apr 2013 #7
+ struggle4progress Apr 2013 #8
That's fine. Militarists hate him. Some of them are glbt too. But spare us the bullshit: Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #9
Not everyone who supports Manning is a progressive, nor is everyone struggle4progress Apr 2013 #10
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
It was indisputable eight years ago struggle4progress Apr 2013 #23
Thanks to Bradley Manning it is indisputable now. All there in those leaked papers for everyone to idwiyo Apr 2013 #24
Bravo railsback Apr 2013 #28
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
THE TORTURE PAPERS: THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB struggle4progress Apr 2013 #35
Classified papers released by Bradley Manning are the ultimate proof. Hard to deny it wasn't a idwiyo May 2013 #38
I agree. Thanks for the reply. nt okaawhatever Apr 2013 #36
Good move... Pelican Apr 2013 #16
Patriot, you mean? Or do you approve of murdering innocent civilians and torture? idwiyo Apr 2013 #18
No I definitely meant scum... Pelican Apr 2013 #31
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
Down the list... Pelican Apr 2013 #34
Thanks for admiting that you would just obey your orders, judging by what you wrote. idwiyo May 2013 #37
I think you missed the part... Pelican May 2013 #39
You stated yourself that an oath must be kept, regardless. Meaning you would follow your orders. idwiyo May 2013 #40
Order... Pelican May 2013 #41
Ignore torture as a example. idwiyo May 2013 #42
Finally... Pelican May 2013 #43
Report to your commanders? They would have ordered you to ignore it. As per the the orders they idwiyo May 2013 #44
I agree with Glenn Greenwald on this CrawlingChaos Apr 2013 #20
Protesting what? What did Manning ever do for the LGBT community? Apparently nothing. randome Apr 2013 #21
Apparently something: Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #26
Well, that IS something. But holding a sign may not be enough to qualify one for 'Grand Marshal'. randome Apr 2013 #27
Jeeezus, Geenwald's piece is fucking *brilliant*. Smarmie Doofus Apr 2013 #25
*Brilliant* in the sense that if defends Manning worship railsback Apr 2013 #29
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Bradley Manning Won't Be ...»Reply #35