MyDD :: U.S. Military: President Does Not Have the Right to Authorize Prisoner Abuse

U.S. Military: President Does Not Have the Right to Authorize Prisoner Abuse

by Scott Shields, Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:46:36 AM EST

In 2003, as the White House sought legal cover to use questionable interrogation tactics on prisoners at Gitmo, the military was asked for their input. The New York Times has a rundown of their recently declassified memos.

Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.

Despite the military lawyers' warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.

In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.

That last warning, that mistreatment of enemy combatants "could endanger American service members," is something we've heard time and time again from leading Democrats like Joe Biden. It's a point I can't recall ever hearing the administration even try to refute. However, when it came time to listen to the military on the question of prisoner treatment, the White House turned a deaf ear.

Here are some of the details of the content of the military lawyers' dissents, emphasis mine:

The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.
...
Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

As I wrote earlier, legislation is being taken up in the Senate that seeks codify rules against torture and mistreatment of prisoners through amendments to the Defense Appropriations Bill. Already, there is broad support for the proposals, with the Democrats firmly behind them and about a dozen of Republicans as well -- enough for passage. (In fact, though the Democrats heavily support the amendments, it's Republicans like McCain and Graham who have introduced them. Though they may be making plans for related amendements of their own, I'd like to see more Senate Democrats -- Carl Levin has co-sponsored one amendment -- out in front on this issue.)

Meanwhile, the White House is fighting hard to stop this move. If the amendments are passed, the White House will have no choice but to accept them or veto the whole package. I can't wait for that debate to hit the mainstream press. The contrast cannot be any more stark between a bipartisan push to stop torture and a White House that apparently wants to keep its options open.

Update: So this is what I get for not reading the Washington Times. Via Hunter at dKos, we learn that the White House has already killed the amendments to the appropriations bill, by having their proxy Bill Frist withdraw the bill and push it back until after the summer recess.

Even scarier, this story was somehow lost on most of the media, who went instead with the narrative that Frist was pulling the appropriations bill as a sop to the NRA, who support the gun liability bill Frist pushed to the fore in its place. Check out the Orwellian attack Orrin Hatch levelled on Senate Democrats.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was Democrats who were holding up Senate business because they withheld support for bringing the massive Defense Department spending bill to a vote, forcing Frist to take it down.

"It's mind boggling that they can make an argument that we're preventing going ahead with the DOD bill when they are the ones that stopped it," Hatch said.

Uh... no. What really happened is that Frist introduced a motion for cloture on the appropriations bill, which would have stripped the bill of any amendments not already passed. When the Senate -- Democrats and Republicans -- rejected cloture to continue work on the bill, Frist yanked it. This is a really disgusting lie on Hatch's part.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 3 Comments :: Post a Comment

Obstructionists (none / 0)

When it comes to torture, the White House is being obstructionist.

This is going to be good.

by cscs on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:16:32 AM EST

I hope you're right (none / 0)

But having watched the double-barreled assault on the House to get CAFTA to where the White House wants it, I'm not sanguine about outlawing torture. This WH has power and it uses it. Some of that power comes from the belief (unfortunately justified) that more than a few Americans think the use of torture on "others" is just fine. The rest of the power comes from their willingness to bully and bullying will do the trick every time until someone stands up to it. When.

by Bean on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:54:33 AM EST

These amendments represent something very very big (none / 0)

Over and over and OVER again, the Bush Administration has postured itself as 'strong' or 'tough,' all the while doing things that undermine our strengths.

This is all aold news, I know... but these amendments are really gonna cast a stark light on this aspect of Bush's GWOT.

He doesn't really care about what goes down for the vast majority of Americans. He gives lip service to the military, but doesn;t really care about their individual welfare or collective readiness and morale.

Time and again he has put (his) perception above (our) reality. HE thinks torture is tough, and the fact that it undermines our moral strength matters not a bit. HE had to invade Iraq to banish his demons-with-dad, and the fact that it has stretched our military to near-exhaustion is totally beside the point. HE thinks that taxes have to be cut to starve the beast, and the fact that his beast is the rest our social, military, and physical infrastructure is totally irrelevant.

Bush 41 had a rep for not relating to the average American... Bush 43, ironically, has a rep as a 'regala guy.' In reality, while Bush 41 was certainly no populist... he did at least have some genuine concern about the effects his policy would have on the rest of us. Bush 43 clearly sees that as the source of his downfall, and that 'mistake' is something he'll avoid just like he does the rest of Daddy's 'mistakes.'

I cannot believe that our country is getting soooooo fucked because Bush has to play 'opposite day' with his Dad's term.

I'm sick of this naval-gazing asshole of a president.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:55:02 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.