# Torture revisited: Pentagon implies it's authorized by the President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148 "2004-06-07T18:49:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/21 "2004-06-09T02:21:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I understand. The point I was trying to make is that we are not looking at memos authorizing such tactics. Or at least not at ones which made it farther than the what about this sort of thing. Problem is: We have claims that torture happened We have the U.S. denying them as laughable: that we would never even consider it. That’s not America. Then we have evidence that some torture happened but it’s unclear on whose authority. It does all bear a disturbing regularity: not just random acts, and not things your average soldier would think up, but stuff familiar to experts on the subject. Then we find all these memos that show we’d considered it in detail, increasingly focusing on how to avoid detection and prosecution rather than just whether we can do it all. We find memos about some officials suggesting we export the Gitmo techniques, whatever those are, to Iraq, and then not long after those memos, the infamous abuse happens. No, there’s no solid evidence yet. But if all that doesn’t stink like Hamlet’s Denmark, I don’t know what does. > [@](#): > > Well, let’s not go too far. The plural of anecdote is not data as someone once said. Problem is, this is consistent with the claims of ex-detainees: that there was a squad that basically went around brutalizing prisoners that wouldn’t cooperate. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/22 "2004-06-09T02:28:28Z")
The political appointeed of this administration seem to be intent on expanding the unchallangeable powers of the president in every direction. And whenever that is questioned their answer is along the lines of; We are at war and the president as Commander in Chief should have no obstacles in his path as to how that war is conducted. Dangerous people, in my view. And they seem to be supported by a whole bunch of voters who don’t give a damn what atrocities are committed against people as long as they aren’t against 200%, red, white, and blue Americans. And even then an occasional fingerprint mistake is not serious, merely “unfortunate.” The 911 attacks did a lot more than destroy the WTC. The attack revealed to me the fact that millions of US citizens don’t seem to give a damn about civil liberties, except their own of course, and don’s understand the danger inherent in giving unexaminable power to the executive in any area of government. I thought the[response of Ashcroft to Senate](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/jan-june04/torture_6-8.html) committee questions showed disdain for any opinion other than that of the Executive Department leaders. His main point was that the president is entitled to confidential advice and he wasn’t going to answer anything. This indicates that the Justice Department memos he refused to release were in fact advice to the president. And I’m not sure that confidentiallity allows an attorney to advise his client on how to break the law. Of course, an attorney is allowed to tell his client just how far he can go without breaking the law and Ashcroft’s whole Sentate testimony was carefuly hedged in its wording to avoid direct answers, other than something on the line of ‘I won’t answer that.’ to any questions. A very lawyerly performance. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/23 "2004-06-09T02:40:56Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Really? You mean you’d much rather the army and the administration do thing without thinking about the legal ramifications? Any administration that does not possess the moral compass to instictively know that torture is not acceptable, without running it by the lawyers, should not be entrusted with the power to govern. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/24 "2004-06-09T02:50:40Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Any administration that does not possess the moral compass to instictively know that torture is not acceptable, without running it by the lawyers, should not be entrusted with the power to govern. Wow. Do you mind if I have this tattooed on my person? Well said. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/25 "2004-06-09T02:53:33Z")
Oh, come on! He is simply restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/26 "2004-06-09T02:56:15Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Any administration that does not possess the moral compass to instictively know that torture is not acceptable, without running it by the lawyers, should not be entrusted with the power to govern. No kidding. Talk about a character issue… I hope anybody who votes on “character” keeps this incident in mind. I’m having trouble thinking of a worse character trait than being OK with the torture. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/27 "2004-06-09T02:59:38Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Any administration that does not possess the moral compass to instictively know that torture is not acceptable, without running it by the lawyers, should not be entrusted with the power to govern. Brilliant ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/28 "2004-06-09T03:01:08Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Any administration that does not possess the moral compass to instictively know that torture is not acceptable, without running it by the lawyers, should not be entrusted with the power to govern. Well after all, when God is on your side … Maybe they just want to check to see whether or not the unGodly can make things hot for them. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/29 "2004-06-09T03:11:31Z")
The sad thing is that sooner or later the guy whose conscience, or political scruples, or animosity for his boss, lead him to leak this stuff is going to catch it in the neck. One of the unfortunate things about government during my brief experience with it is that governments, national, state and local, do and think about doing all sorts of things that they (the governments and the people who actually make the decisions) would just as soon the public not know about – thus the adage that you don’t want to see how sausage and laws are made. For a great many things our governments have done, from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Iran-Contra to Monica in the hallway to torture of political prisoners, we are dependent on stool pigeons for the bad stuff to see the light of day. There has got to be a better way to run a rail road than this. I suspect that every White House has had its Plumbers. Fortunately there has always been somebody possessed of a sufficient sense of outrage to make the information public. It’s a shame to think that the integrity of the republic depends on snitches… ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/30 "2004-06-09T03:24:48Z")
> [@](#): > > I have trouble drawing inferences for patially quoted memos. Your wish has been granted: > **[military\_0604.pdf](https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf)** > > 2043.09 KB ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/31 "2004-06-09T03:33:09Z")
Actually, no it’s not. Why do you think the First Amendment came first? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/32 "2004-06-09T03:34:38Z")
Kumquats. That was addressed to the Castrated One. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/33 "2004-06-09T03:56:26Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Are any of you aware opf the actual specific actions which are and are not allowed under the various prohibition against torture laws? Here’s the text of the [Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/ihrindex.html). The US became a party to it in 1994. > [@](#): > > 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. The Administration’s lawyers appear to be concerned about articles two and three: > [@](#): > > Article 2 > > 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. > > 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. > > 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. > > Article 3 > > 1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/34 "2004-06-09T04:06:00Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Are any of you aware opf the actual specific actions which are and are not allowed under the various prohibition against torture laws? Here’s the text of the [Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/ihrindex.html). The US became a party to it in 1994. Iraq is NOT a party to it. The treaty’s definition of torture is pretty broad: > [@](#): > > 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. The Administration’s lawyers appear to be concerned about articles two and three: > [@](#): > > Article 2 > > 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. > > 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. > > 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. > > Article 3 > > 1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/35 "2004-06-09T04:18:46Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Here’s the text of the [Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/ihrindex.html). The US became a party to it in 1994. > The Administration’s lawyers appear to be concerned about articles two and three: Thank you very much for the link. Do you know how “severe pain or suffering” is defined? It seems to me that it is perhaps overly broad. Certainly there is room to ask the question “What sorts of acts constitute torture and what penalties are we liable for if we commit them?” I understand that this interpretation of the memos is not apperent. I understand that I have not provided any evidence that this interpretation is more correct than any others. I am simply pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for memos about torture and the legal definitions or ramifications of United States personel committing it begin circulated in the government. I can especially see this question in regards to the Al Quaeda members which many thought we would capture in Afghanistan. There is, if I recall correctly, a gap in the Geneva convention with regards to irregular troops. It seems completely correct for members of the administration to ask about their status. As a result of such a query, I can easily see how the subject of torture could come up. Again, thank you very much for the link. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/36 "2004-06-09T04:25:20Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Your wish has been granted: > > [http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military\_0604.pdf](http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf) I missed this. Thank you very much indeed. The memo is quite long. It will take a while to go through. Thanks again. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/37 "2004-06-09T04:43:03Z")
Thank you for the link. \*\*Apos]/b]. I truly appreciate it. After going over it (briefly, I did not read every word), it seems to me a memo describing the legal definitions of torture. That is, it seems to be a long list of the various applicable laws concerning torture. There does seem to be a consistent theme of probing the limits. That is there is usually a mention of the various allowed defenses against prosecution. But in context, they don’t seem too much more than a full examination of the law and what sorts of activities are actionable. Certainly, this is the sort of thing one might generate if one were intent of torturing prisoners and getting away with it. Conversely, it is also just the sort of thing one would generate if one were very anxious to get information from very bad people and wanted to avoid breaking the law. That is, if one wanted to increase the amoung of reliable information gleaned from prisoners, one might look to see exactly where the line was in order not to cross it. Adding to this, however, the fact that lines were crossed, is quite disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/38 "2004-06-09T05:16:33Z")
Let me just say that I don’t necessarily think that if someone does cross the line in dire circumstances in what is a special circumstance where there is potentially major future harm to be prevented, that we should take the stance that it is completely verboten. Rather, my position is this: 1. We have to have full and open dialogue about what we are doing, not just quietly running roughshod over the law whenever it’s convienient. Other nations look to us, and we have understandings with them about what is and is not acceptable (our moral cred is important in part because we want to be setting examples, especially if we want to claim to be the future of human civilization): we can’t just jump into something, violate a treaty, without telling people that we are doing so and only having them find out after the fact where we’re seen to be covering it up 2. It can’t just be a systematic policy because we suspect that anyone could have information and we just want to be safe 3. it has to be heavily observed and regulated with some sort of oversight at the very least after the fact Torture is well-known to produce false confessions, is extremely unreliable, and creates huge problems for the functioning of any future involvement of the justice system in prosecuting people. It seems to me that we’ve had many many bad leads and fake threats in the past few years, and I don’t doubt that we’ve gotten bad information from captives who just wanted to comply even if they had to lie to do it. This doesn’t demonstrate that we’ve used torture, but it certainly is a sign of the sorts of problems we would create by employing it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/39 "2004-06-09T16:07:41Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > This is a disturbingly “anti-accountability”: train of thought that has been apparent in Republican political philosophy at least since[a famous interview](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261639/combined) David Frost did with former president Nixon in 1977. > > In other words, today’s conservatives wish for the President to be treated as though he is above the law of the land. IMO, they want a king, not a President, and apparently have no real use for the American system of Government. What’s it called again when you take aspects of some and try to attribute them to the whole? No, no, no. The _polite_ name for it. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148/40 "2004-06-09T16:53:20Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > What’s it called again when you take aspects of some and try to attribute them to the whole? > No, no, no. > The _polite_ name for it. You are correct, **SX** , ol’ pal, I overstepped myself. Thanks for the correction. I erroneously conflated Nixon’s comments with the activities and comments of thousands of fans of the recently deceased Iran-Contra co-conspirator, former President Ronald Reagan, and continued support by folks like **pervert** for illegal and immoral acts of the current Administration. I took what appeared to me to be unending support, over the last thirty-five(+) years, of Republican presidents who knowingly flout the laws and spirit of the Republic they lead, to be indicative of a widespread, conscious blessing by the nation’s conservatives of the “monarchization” of the Executive Branch. A proper assessment of the situation should have included the possibility that any number of them could simply be stupid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-revisited-pentagon-implies-its-authorized-by-the-president/249148.md?page=3)