So you doubted the White House bonehead, Rummy boy, chief crony Cheney and the rest of
the gang had dirty hands? You believed the use of torture on Iraqi prisoners was the
low-level notion of “a few bad apples” and not the systematic plan of higher-ups? You didn’t (or
couldn’t) believe the rule of law as we’ve known it is being corrupted by authoritarian zealots?
Well, The Wall Street Journal had a frontpage exclusive Monday that demolishes those pretty
little myths. It began: “Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn’t
bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his
direction couldn’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department.”
WSJ reporter Jess Bravin uncovered a classified report — drafted just two weeks
before the Iraq invasion commenced — arguing that “the president, despite domestic and
international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to
approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including
torture,”
It’s too bad the WSJ is not available online except by subscription. In the
second graf, the story revealed that “[t]he advice was part of a classified report on interrogation
methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren’t getting enough
information from prisoners.”
The third graf continued:
The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and
why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal
technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,
passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether
Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The
complete draft document was classified “secret” by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for
declassification in 2013.
I see this morning’s Washington Post (burying its acknowledgment of the Journal) has
a frontpage
follow that advances the story. It reveals that an even earlier
memo from the Justice Department “offered justification for [the] use of torture” and was the
basis for the March 2003 report. The Post’s story begins:
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that
torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified,” and that international laws
against torture “may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in President
Bush’s war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
This morning’s New York Times also has a frontpage follow acknowledging the Journal. It
begins:
A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal
memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting
torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to
approve any technique needed to protect the nation’s security.
The Post notes: “The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban
detainees, were not written to apply to detainees held in Iraq.” But read the
reports and tell me if you still believe the pretty little myths.
