Justice Torture Memos Say ‘Good Faith’ Is Legal Defense

Email    Print    Share

Posted on Jul 24, 2008

AP

Ah, good intentions, with which that famous path was paved: According to Justice Department documents obtained and released by the ACLU on Thursday—albeit heavily redacted—CIA interrogators were authorized to use waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” that they believed “in good faith” would not “have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering.”

CNN:

The interrogator’s “good faith” and “honest belief” that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds.

“Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture,” Jay Bybee, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo.

The 18-page memo is heavily redacted, with 10 of its 18 pages completely blacked out and only a few paragraphs legible on the others.

Another memo released Thursday advises that “the waterboard,” or simulated drowning, does “not violate the Torture Statute.”

It also cites a number of warnings against torture, including statements by President Bush and a then-new Supreme Court ruling “which raises possible concerns about future U.S. judicial review of the [interrogation] Program.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: aclu bush administration cia documents justice department memos torture

Related Entries

• 

  A Call to Support Guantanamo Detainees

• 

  Eric Holder Should Resign Over Spying, Editor of The Progressive Says

• 

  DOJ Allegedly Spied on Fox News Correspondent, the FBI Investigates Bachmann, and More

• 

  Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Just Another Stump Speech, or Historic Moment?

Next item: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Don’t Work

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By purplewolf, July 25, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Wasn’t it exposed, not to long ago, that it was perfectly okay to torture to the point of crippling, blinding, insanity and up to the point of the human body started having system failures ? Yes, it was and it was done with the blessing of all the sadistic people running things in America. It was just fine to torture to the point the body shut down-in other words could die- to obtain very questionable information, as it is not reliable at all. It is and was a known fact long before this administration started to torture, than information obtained using these methods was almost totally worthless. So much for cruel and unusual punishment, and these victims were not actually charged with a crime, only heresy for the most part. A tortured person, when it is severe enough will say and sign anything, no matter how outrageous it might be, just to end the torture.

To try to claim that they did this in “good faith” is one of the biggest lies and is also a provable lie. Just go back and re-read the reports that came out when it was finally admitted that America(Bush administration) does torture and the who the people were who thought it was great, and the methods and guidelines that were used also.

One of the darkest days in the history of this country since it stole it from the indigenous peoples. Another Bush Legacy he is responsible for. “TORTURE”.

Report this

By Jim Yell, July 25, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This administration has made an art form of the lie.

“I shot him in the face, but my intention was for the bullet to take a detour around his head, not thru his face” “I never intended any real harm”

Torture is torture and this was not an accident or misunderstanding. It was a crime and a dishonor to our supposed humanity. Is it any surprise that it started with a scondrel wrapped in our flag and holding a large Bible?

Report this

By felicity, July 24, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

P.T. haven’t you noticed, I have, that the Bush bunch to a man or woman has never intended to do anything wrong.  They’ve always intended to do only what is right.  It’s just so happened, through no fault of theirs, that what they’ve done has, in the end, been terribly wrong.

In fact, in reviewing the testimonies of department heads or underlings, nobody has ever been in charge of anything let alone any decisions, they’ve just sort of happened.  It’s indeed a great mystery.

Report this

By P. T., July 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

I think it is kind of dumb that torture should be a specific intent crime as opposed to a general intent crime.  An “attempt to torture” would make sense as a specific intent crime.  However, if you actually are torturing somebody, how could you not be intending it?

Report this

By P. T., July 24, 2008 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

The administration was grasping at straws in order to be able to torture.  Ironically, in raising the issue of specific intent (as opposed to general intent), they gave away the fact that they knew what they were doing.

Report this

By jnkekoa, July 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

specific intent can be inferred, just like virtually every criminal prosecution in the federal, or any of the various state, criminal justice systems.

Kind of like telecom immunity—reliance on executive assurances is specifically NOT a defense to criminal prosecution, but was precisely the reason given by the Congressional leaders in support of immunity.

What are the odds that the DOJ will take such positions in future criminal cases?

Report this

By felicity, July 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

Interesting - so why did the CIA before they ever got directly involved in first-hand non-torture bother to get their lawyers to draw up documents protecting them from future prosecution if what they were going to do was perfectly legal.

Report this