In documents released the past few days, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush declared it was okay for guards to abuse prisoners, and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee said that abuse woulkd be condened up to circumstances close to "death or organ failure."

"Bush sanctioned Geneva exception", Sullivan, Laura and Geene, David L., Baltimore <i>Sun</i> 23 June 2004 page A1



WASHINGTON -- President Bush gave military interrogators in 2002 what Pentagon lawyers viewed as authority to exceed the limits of force set by the Geneva Conventions in their handling of Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners, according to declassified documents released yesterday.

In a memo signed by the president Feb. 7, 2002, Bush declared that those prisoners were "unlawful combatants" who were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

He directed the U.S. military to adhere to Geneva guidelines "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." It is the first indication that the president was prepared to allow exceptions to the White House's oft-stated policy of humane prisoner treatment.

Drawing on that authority, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers, according to the documents, determined that interrogation techniques barred by the Geneva Conventions protections were permissible in some cases.

The White House released hundreds of pages of documents yesterday in an effort to dispute any perception that Bush has condoned prisoner abuse.

"I have never ordered torture," Bush said yesterday. "I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Later in the day, the Justice Department distanced itself from one of the documents, a 50-page memo written by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, that appeared to justify some treatment that is commonly regarded by watchdog organizations as torture and maintained that the president had the right to override U.S. laws and treaties barring torture.

The memo, dated Aug. 1, 2002, concluded that "the ban on torture is limited to only the most extreme forms of physical and mental harm," which the document defined as akin to "death or organ failure."

Justice officials said the brief was "overly broad" and should be rewritten.

The Bybee memo that Justice officials now reject drew on an earlier memo by Attorney General John Ashcroft, written Feb. 1, 2002, a week before Bush's presidential directive. Ashcroft said Geneva protections could inhibit U.S. military officers and intelligence officials in their "field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees" and could subject them to criminal charges.

A senior department official said of the Bybee memo, which was widely circulated among officials in the administration, "We are reviewing it and going to replace it with more tailored and specific advice."

Justice Department officials said extreme forms of abuse were never approved or put into practice, but they did not explain why they plan to rewrite a memo that officials say was not adhered to in the first place.

Similarly, the White House disputed yesterday that it ever invoked "military necessity" to justify inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Defining torture very narrowly and echoing the Bybee memo, Pentagon lawyers also argued that torture must constitute an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," such as threatening death or using mind-altering substances.

In December 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved using "mild" physical contact and the removal of clothing, although White House officials said yesterday that such measures were never used on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In January last year, the Pentagon rescinded the December 2002 list after concerns were expressed by interrogators at Guantanamo.

The Pentagon then wrote a legal memo recommending, among many other techniques, isolation, forced grooming, prolonged interrogations and standing, sleep deprivation and "face or stomach slap." Rumsfeld approved a scaled-down version of that list.

Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, suggested yesterday that Bush was not actively involved in the discussions at the Pentagon and has not reviewed many of the documents. Gonzales refused to elaborate on what the president has told his advisers privately or whether his views have changed over the two years since he handed down his directive.

Although the Bybee memo is being revised, Gonzales said, "the analyses underpinning the president's decisions stand and are not being reviewed."

Administration attorneys acknowledged that in their vigorous effort yesterday to present their point of view, they might help terrorists learn how far U.S. military personnel can legally go when interrogating them.

"It hinders us," said Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes. "The enemy now knows what some of our limits are." But, he added: "The decision was made, and it was a tough decision."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont , the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that the White House released "a small subset" of documents related to the prison abuse scandal and engaged in "self-serving selection."

Implicit in the legal analysis is the acknowledgment that U.S. interrogators have had difficulty extracting much useful information from prisoners. Rumsfeld, the documents suggest, was determined to change that. Scratched across the bottom of one memo, he questioned whether four hours was too long to make a detainee stand.

"I stand for 8-10 hours a day," he wrote by hand. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Sun staff writer Mark Matthews contributed to this article.

Eh wot der fook?

I figured I'd post something more interesting.

I think it's pretty interesting some of the nation's top executives basically gave permission for a bunch of soldiers halfway around the world to shove a glowstick up someone's ass.

and I think its interesting that someone would actually try and load that much plywood on a shitty little import car...

Hey now! I drive a shitty little import car.

What was the original picture though, with the cartoon? I couldn't make it out.

some fat guy and then a skinny guy with the same pants.. and they didn't fit..

search "completely ridiculous" under google images.

Heh.