Priest, Dana, and R. Jeffrey Smith. “Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture: Justice Department Gave Advice in 2002.” The Washington Post 7 June 2004. 24 Mar. 2008 <http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/>.
***Try to get the actual memo here to use as a primary source rather than a secondary source.
If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, “he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,” said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on “necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” later.
This gets at the real reason why the Justice Department feels the United States can legally torture an Al Qaeda suspect. It shows how the CIA was hesitant to torture until they had clearance from the government, which they certainly got. It is considered a case of self-defense even though we are going into their territory and their homeland. Is the lack of attacks since 9/11 a testament to the effectiveness of these approved torture tactics or is it an indication that further attacks were not planned or intended, therefore the US is in the wrong with its torture conduct.
In the Justice Department’s view — contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post — inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
Redefinition of torture, making it more severe so the US could get away with doing everything except cause organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death and it would not be considered torture.
“While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture,” the memo advised, “. . . we believe that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law.”
Tip-toeing here around the issue of weather or not the US is violating international law. They are simply saying this could be the case, they are not saying they will commit this kind of torture.
These documents clarify a lot about governments’ perspectives on torture, don’t they?? Seems they will be crucial for establishing strong ethical and logical appeals.