Login Here
Fourteenth in a series
The other day the New York Times reported that the President is asserting that he has the unilateral right to decide on a case by case basis whether or not a particular interrogation method constitutes torture.
While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
Let me be clear, the President is not saying "judging each technique on a case by case basis" (which would make some sense), but judging the application of a technique to an individual on a case by case basis.
So, if I waterboard one person it might not be torture, but if I waterboard another person the President might decide that I have gone too far? And how would I--or anybody else--know who it is OK to waterboard and who it is not OK to waterboard?
The letters [pdf] from the Justice Department to Congress [pdf] were provided by the staff of Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee and had sought more information from the department.
Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.
--snip--
Mr. Wyden said he was concerned that, under the new rules, the Bush administration had put Geneva Convention restrictions on a “sliding scale.”
If the United States used subjective standards in applying its interrogation rules, he said, then potential enemies might adopt different standards of treatment for American detainees based on an officer’s rank or other factors.
Get that folks? It's not the torture technique that counts, it's who you use it on.
I swear, you just can't make this shit up.
[Editor's note: The photo atop the post, by takomabibelot, features a banner created and designed by Firedoglake reader BonnieT of Austin, Texas, where she operates OpposeTorture.org.]
Share This 
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Sliding scale it is
God bless LHP!
Amen,
thanks lhp
Interesting. Actually, it kind of throws W under the bus. It is laying it at his feet. He decided who and how to torture.
I wouldn’t put it past these fools to do that to save their complicit skins..
Seems like somebody’s leaving W holding the torture bag all by his lonesome.
These people are trying to rationalize the unforgivable and it isn’t cutting the mustard. They seem to think nobody has a grasp on what has been cut and dried for a generation. Sorry, gray areas and black shirts are out of fashion boys.
Outsmart Bushie? I wonder when he’ll figure it out?
I’m using a new line at cocktail parties, “Throw ‘em in a gunny sack and FedEx ‘em to The Hague”
He’ll never figure that out. They just flatter him and he does what they want.
Did McCain suggest that the Iraq War (II) was all about oil.
He’s a little slow on the uptake.
He said it, right?
Actually, you *can* just make this shit up. In fact, that’s about the only way you can get to a place like this. You certainly can’t use logic or the law to get there.
They knew that his record was one of recklessness, failure of all of his businesses, and someone with the stomach to kill people (consider his death penalty record as a governor), before they “chose” him.
That is why they will leave him stuck with all the blame. Think about it. All of the “memos”, etc….all of them make him solely responsible.
A pardon by Cheenee is his only hope right now of getting away with this..at least in this country…or a complete takeover and no elections.
I’m guessing the first one, while Prezdinenet for a day, Cheeenee, skates off with all the money..saying “you can’t touch me”…na, na, na, na, na….
Sorry to be crude, but every time I read one of these posts about how they sat around deciding who to torture how, I imagine they’re doing it in a circle jerk. Or, W doing it alone, if he’s the “decider.” I can’t imagine any other reason for getting so “intimately” involved.
Digg this
Sell gee whiz- it’s not just who is getting tortured that matters- it also depends on who is torturing. I mean a five iron in the nuts by Tiger Woods has gotta hurt more than the same club by- say- Dick Cheney.
this post merits a sly ‘ding’ scale.
Perhaps THAT is why Cheney and all those guys were so enthusiastic to ‘help’ GW to get elected and be his helpers in the White House. They were going to stick him with “the check”.
Yeah, just make him the BBQ torturer warmongerer guy. What a doofus.
Ecahn — didn’t some of these a**holes actually go down to (Guantanamo or was it Abu Graibe?) and witness this horror? It’s one thing to think about this is an intellectual way, but to actually witness it…
The culprits are all pointing their elbows at W…it’s all his fault.
But the trick I learned when I used to do trade shows and ended up with the check several times is…no drinking before dinner, and be there at the end…if you hit the bathroom, you’ll get stuck with the check for sure.
I don’t remember that, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
Addington will say…W made Cheenee make me and Fielding write stuff.
Yoo will say…Addington made me write stuff that Cheenee made him make me, because W told him to.
George will say…the dog made me do it.
I think it was that woman who was a lawyer down in Guantanemo, who wrote the original stuff…she talked about Addington, I think, being there, and others…and how scared she was of Addington…and that they pushed her to write this stuff up and she did not have time to do a proper legal research and analysis job. But I’m sure at least that Addington was there and watched the procedures…
Good evening, everyone…
Something tells me that they’ve already worked this scenario out–they will make it sooo difficult to pinpoint the actual data of who did what that it would be bogged down in court for years.
I can’t get that *smirk* on Douglas Feith’s face (60 Minutes interview) while he blatantly lied about his memos and the Bush Admin. stating there were WMD’s.
Hideous fuckery*, that’s what it is.
Bob in HI
*A term I learned last year on FDL
Gonzales, Haynes, Addington,and Diane Beaver (?) witnessed torture at Guantanamo
…er, that should have read “I can’t get that smirk on Douglas Feith’s face out of my mind…
Torture is clearly about power, and power is tied to sex in so many ways. It’s not a stretch to think that they got off on it.
smirker jerk
“If the United States used subjective standards in applying its interrogation rules, he said, then potential enemies might adopt different standards of treatment for American detainees based on an officer’s rank or other factors.”
Isn’t that the McBush story…that they treated him differently because his father was a Navy Admiral?
Ding, ding, ding. That’s it. Diane Beaver -
It does look that way. Of course, from the viewpoint of the Unitary Executive, it’s all par for the course and perfectly natural. They’re not even trying for plausible deniability.
Our Prez did say, “I’m the Decider,” didn’t he?
Bob in HI
makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
Case by Case judgments means that there is no objective standard that applies to everyone. I believe this applies to both what can get you tortured, what is torture, and even more important a standard for *ugh* torture that applies fairly to everyone.
We are not a nation of laws if we do not apply the same law fairly to everyone.
And, somebody told him…go out there and say, “I’m the war Prezdinent” “I’m the Decider”…”no worries W”…
Yeah what ever happened to protecting the President and plausible denibilty?
It is difficult to imagine any other reason for their torture fetishes.
Sorry I’m late to the thread. My laptop froze at the office (it’s been fighting with the server there for a couple o’ weeks) so I had to rush home to reboot on a network my laptop likes.
He also thinks that he can determine who to detain…what their status is, i.e., terrorist or not…whether to torture them…and how to torture them….
Ummm…I don’t think that dog’s gonna hunt in the long run W.
Delusionability.
Hey, whassup over at EW’s place? EW went off on vacation, and there hasn’t been anything new from bmaz since Friday. Somebody go wake him up, please.
Bob in HI
Um, a tad more tawdry than a blow job in the Oval Office, n’est pas?
Case by case basis: how the ICC should deal with these warpervs.
When you have a VP who answers “So?” I think the answer to the issue of plausible deniability is, “We don’t need no *** deniability.”
Sorry, remember(everyone all together now) - it’s ok if you’re a Republican…
“Yeah what ever happened to protecting the President and plausible denibilty?”
They have a new approach:
“Clinton did it. Everyone does it, so what’s the big deal?”
Bob in HI
I agree with you Peterr. I meant the “you can’t make this up” line more in the sense of truth is stranger than fiction.
If I had sat down in August 2001 and written a prophecy of what would transpire over the next 7 1/2 years, you all would have laughed at me and there would have been many cries of “get the net” b/c you would all think I was loony.
An attempt to sell it as fiction would have been laughed off as TOO farfetched, yet here we are.
O/T, but what is Laura Bush doing on the radio criticizing the Burma Gov’t? Doesn’t she know her place? She’s supposed to be attending ribbon cuttings and smoking in bed.
Either they are stupid or they are never planning on letting us vote in November then. Scratch that they can be both.
Damm I so wanted to read the live blogging from the Hague!
Torturing is okay to do as long as a tree doesn’t fall in the woods and no one is around to hear it. Get it now? George Bush & his Knuckle Draggers thank you.
The whole war powers and inherent powers situation the country is in right now with the SCOTUS situation…makes for a hellava game of chess….no one knows what is constitutional or not..
I’m waiting for the day, when someone just flat out says…no..they cannot do this, period, because…this, this, and this…and make it stick.
When is that gonna happen?
Punaise is back! Missed you
I believe they totally intend to allow us to vote.
Darth has been on a mission to restore the “rights” of the president that he felt were taken away during H2Ogate. So in his eyes, all those powers rightfully belong to the president, regardless of party.
I don’t have a degree in international law, but the text of the Geneva Conventions is online and mostly understandable despite its formal jargon. It seems that the Bush Gang would like to distract people with the status of the detainees - are they prisoners of war or civilian detainees? Both kinds of prisoners are addressed by the conventions, so that can’t be a show stopper. And of course the phony debate of what constitutes “real” torture. Both are duck’n'dodge tactics which are actually non-issues, as can be seen in the Conventions themselves.
A couple of excerpts:
Third GC Part II Article 12
Art 12. Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Third GC Part III Section 1 Article 17
Art 17. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c.....1e004a9e68
Fourth GC Part III Section 1 Articles 29 & 31
Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.
Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c.....1e004aa3c5
The Third GC deals with prisoners of war and the Fourth with civilian prisoners. Both have language holding the “Power” or the “Party to the conflict” ultimately responsible for the treatment of prisoners, regardless of any responsibility assigned to any individuals (little people, regular grunts, or contractors) actually onsite. And both contain language stating that any kind of coersion whatsoever is prohibited. So the pseudo-issue of what does or does not constitute “torture” is not BushCo’s escape clause, since the tactics employed were clearly coersive whether or not someone cares to debate about their status as true “torture”.
So our Chief Executive is ultimately guilty of violations if the detainees were subjected to coersion of any type.
well, we know she isn’t in New Orleans
this is, sadly, completely consistent with their larger vision - rules are for other people.
caught that one while walking by the box -
Mrs. Flyover and Look Out the window is criticizing the Myanmar officials for their slow response to a natural disaster -
ps - her husband has pledged $250,000 to disaster relief
I believe I heard that something like 3000 cases had been suggested/referred to the court in the Hague. They are starting with five (5) of them. The US is nowhere near the top of the list.
A lot of people did think these things would come to pass exactly the way they have transpired, and they were all called conspiracy theorists. That is one of the reasons they’ve gotten away with it all. I mean “all” of it. I think it is much worse than people even realize at this point in time.
It ain’t over till it’s over, and I don’t know…with Iran looming…I just don’t know. I would take a really hard look at everything that has come to pass since election 2000 ..without the tinfoil on…it is stunning.
Somehow I think Marcy flying fingers could be persuaded to do that. ;-)
I’ve been wondering the same thing. bmaz left a couple of comments on Saturday and said nothing about not being around. Anyone know how to get in touch with him?
Well moral equivalency is kind of a stretch from adultery to Torture. I’m not sure a judge at the Hague will buy it.
George will (and did) say, “I approved it.” He sees nothing wrong with what he did and will never apologize for his actions as the deciderer (sic).
Congress has more than an ethical and moral reason to bring torture to a stop. They have a legal requirement to bring this to a stop. Click on my name for an open letter to Congress written by ondelette reminding them of their duty to act. For more of ondelette’s insightful writing on torture, visit humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com.
True, but that is because he still thinks nothing will ever come out of it…
i have bmaz’s email - will let him know that he is missed and that a quick comment to let us know he is ok would be a welcome sight.
Aloha, ya’ll! Some serious fuckery is afoot again…
Yeah, I saw email from him yesterday. maybe he just got busy at work?
Yup, and they will blame Hillary.
I know Marcy would love to do it I’m just hoping we get Bush to the Hague.
Maybe we could lure Bush there to accept a (fake) Nobel Peace Prize cause unlike torture police can lie to perps.
looseheadprop -
have you read this Lederman post ? would love to hear your take on it
relevance-of-altstoetter
done.
Ahem, which Americans are growing angry at the Republican Guards special Ops?
Not this American. I could give a rat’s ass. Are you angry at the Rep. Guards from Iran?
Why he’s got Sunset Musings up right now
I missed me too. :~)
This is really the offshoot of the Supreme Court decision that required the administration to adhere to the GC and the subsequent legislation that delegated the interpretation of the GC to the President.
The current political environment inside the beltway I suspect continues to be premised on the suggestion that the President’s discretionary power is at its zenith in time of war. In other words in this matter as well as the FISA debate the hope is to convince democrats vulnerable to national security arguments that suspension of objective standards and the complicity of the telecoms is necessary in the post 9/11 environment. Its really Rumsfeld’s argument positing “a new paradigm. But its the same old story. As suggested, what is missing is any sense of fundamental objective moral, constitutional or legal restraint. It’s the very definition of tyranny. Its the ultimate politicization of law, the letting loose of law to the arbitrary winds of circumstance and absolute power, without any deference to the rights of the minority, the captured, the enemy or in the end the citizen. And by golly some democrats would just assume having this power condoned cause they think they might very well seize it some day. Remember the debate where Hillary stated this very same case by case standard with regard to torture?
Sliding scale maybe, slippery slope without a doubt.
lhp - thanks once again for your posts on this issue. i hope your series continues until we can say with confidence that our country has repudiated torture and the torturers.
Perhaps, but since he has surrounded himself with Nixon-era people who subscribe to the notion that “if the President does it, it’s legal”, I would bet that Chimpy may actually believe that he is the law.
Iran could take that as an act of war. I wonder how they would react? Maybe call for a UN peace keeping force? Shut off sales of their oil or even better shut off Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwaits oil with their rockets.
This is what thoroughly pissed me off, lhp…
I think he is being pragmatic verging on cynical. He is probably right about the likelihood that prosecutions will occur, but they will NEVER occur if we throw in the towel before we start.
When I looked at the Justice Case, it was with an eye toward what arguments are available in favor of prosecution.
He is discussing why the best argument in the world won’t do you any good if there is no will to prosecute.
And I agree with his point.
But, but, but the war ENDED 5 years ago! Remember? Mission Accomplished. Shrub said we won the war.
I remember, there was this aircraft carrier and this silly flyboy costume he was wearing. I remember it, I do, I do.
i just want to get my mitts on the rest of those memos. Whitehouse was on fire about something in them and I really want to see the one that Yoo refers to on page 10 that says that the 4th Amendment does not apply to the President’s military activites on American soil–what happend to Posse Comitatus?
I don’t remember the specifics but one of the Patriot Act iterations or the execrable Military Commissions Act or such loosened Posse Comitatus or did away with it significantly.
Of course, it was passed while the Rs were in charge so no one actually read the act before hand.
i want you to get your mitts on those memos too!
From Emptywheel’s 7 December post, Whitehouse Reveals Smoking Gun of White House Claiming Not to Be Bound by Any Law.
Pixie Dust as defined by OLC is used here to make the rule of law mean just one thing. ‘L’etat ces’t moi.’ “(I am the state).”
How do we explain what we’ve let be stolen from us, to the kids?
Yeah, I got that too. I am not sure folks inside the Beltway did though. They keep funding the Iraqi occupation.
I was still at the office and tired when I posted, even wrote “assume” instead of “as soon”, what I was saying is that the problem is systemic. Didn’t mean to sound glib, but Hillary is on record. Check it out. Its depressing. The ability of the media to influence the thoughts of the people, the methods of arbitrage capitalism, and the politics of fear must be contained. How I don’t know. Maybe they will burn themselves out, but this is not a pretty scenario.
The President has chosen a methodology that makes him or her personally responsible for the individual applications of specific torture techniques to each individual in his custody. A better way to self-inflict personal liability on the President I find hard to imagine.
Of course, this is the opposite of a “methodology” or the rule of law. It is making shit up to avoid disclosure, avoid oversight, and avoid legal liability no matter what they do. It is the SEC and banking lobbyists whet dream and they call it government. It’s not the tyranny of low expectations; it’s the tyranny of the class idiot grading papers and setting the curve. An idiot whose father can get the school superintendent fired, which has everyone playing ball until Junior gets bored and chooses somewhere else to play. That’s what a true elitist means when he says, “Pick yourselves up by your own bootstraps, make your own way.”