High-Ranking Abuse

Campus Report ^ | June 20, 2008 | Ben Giles

[bs9021]

High-Ranking Abuse

by Ben Giles June 20, 2008

High ranking officials at the Department of Defense undertook the process of authorizing illegal interrogation tactics in the year following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in his opening statement. “In the process, they damaged our ability to collect intelligence that could save lives.”

Assisted by questionable legal council from military and CIA lawyers, techniques that would qualify as torture were eventually authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to documents released by the Senate Armed Services Committee at a June 17 hearing.

In the most glaring evidence presented by the committee, CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman pointed out weaknesses in the definition of torture in international laws.

His statements were taken at a private meeting of military lawyers held at Guantanamo Bay on Oct. 2, 2002.

“Torture has been prohibited by international law, but the language of the statutes is written vaguely,” said CIA counterterrorism lawyer Fredman. “…It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you’re doing it wrong.”

Officials, nonetheless, offer the caveat that the transcript for the meeting, provided by the Criminal Intelligence Task Force (CITF) of the DOD, was not taken verbatim. Shortly following the Guantanamo meeting, the legal opinion of one official in attendance, Lt. Col. Dianne Beaver, was used in an Oct. 11 memo requesting authorization of the abusive interrogation techniques discussed in the meeting by the U.S. Southern Command...(snip)..

In her analysis, Beaver found no legal issue with the tactics recommended by DOD...

[Libertarianize the GOP]

What Levin is saying that by going to extraordinary lengths to interpret the law in the least favorable light to the Bush Administration he can accuse Bush misinterpreting the law.