06-09-2004, 09:22 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
Quote:
Washington - The US attorney general on Tuesday refused to give lawmakers copies of a Justice Department memo that allegedly advised the White House that torture during 'war on terror' interrogations could be justified.
The Washington Post said an August 2002 memo sent by the justice department in response to a Central Intelligence Agency request for legal guidance said international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism.
But Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to provide the memo to lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough and accurate at all times," Ashcroft said.
Ashcroft told lawmakers that while "this administration rejects torture," he said he could not provide specific details of communications between his office and the White House.
"There are certain things that in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively that I think it's inappropriate for the Attorney General to say."
Democrats expressed outrage at Ashcroft's refusal to provide the document.
Contempt of Congress
"You may be in contempt of Congress," warned Demcratic Senator Joseph Biden.
The memo, addressed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, reportedly said torturing a suspect in captivity "may be justified" if the US government employee involved "would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network."
Arguments of "necessity and self-defence could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later, said the 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Baybee that was obtained by The Washington Post.
Not getting enough
The memo served as basis for a report for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after commanders at the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained that they were not getting enough information from prisoners.
The August 2002 memo, The Washington Post wrote, argued that inflicting moderate or fleeting pain did not necessarily constitute torture, which "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death".
The daily said US Army manuals on interrogations were more restrictive, banning such practices as pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation.
A Human Rights Watch official expressed dismay at the 2002 memo.
"It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski.
"It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations," he added.
|
|
|
|