NP Rank:
Ethical Concerns Surround Crafting of U.S. Torture Policy
Investigation of the policy guidelines used to justify so called harsh interrogation tactics, such as 'waterboarding', are under scrutiny as to the origin of the flow for development of the policies implemented that supported the use of torture against prisoners taken during a time of war, usually called prisoners of war but termed 'enemy combatants', by the Bush administration.
From the article:
An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys." According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
But then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the sources. Filip wanted the report to include responses from all three principals, said one of the sources, a former top Bush administration lawyer. (Mukasey could not be reached; his former chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment. Filip also did not return a phone message.) OPR is now seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. "The matter is under review," said Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.
The heart of the issue is whether members of the Bush administration offered guidelines it wanted the Justice Department to consider as a means for allowing the Bush administration's use of torture, in effect, asking the Justice Department to aid in possibly providing a strategy for the Bush administration's crafting of the policy regarding torture.
Click here to read A Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble for Bush Lawyers.
Also at NowPublic:
Has Fascism Arrived in America?
Crowd Power
-
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Recommendations (15)
-
Fripouille
Lyon, France -
Pythiian1
New York, New York, United States -
duo
Stone Mountain, Georgia, United States 
Anonymous user



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 18:13 on February 17th, 2009
Good catch on this issue, Karen.
As a follow-up on this subject, Glenn Greenwald posted on Salon.com a piece entitled, "Do We still Pretend that we abide by Treaties?" as he discussed, "why immunizing political officials from the consequences for their lawbreaking is both destructive and unjust...."
at 19:16 on March 9th, 2009
Karen, thanks for this news. Like most people, I applaud President Obama for his executive order banning prison torture. We congratulate Attorney General Eric Holder for including waterboarding as an act of torture so that it is also banned. I recently wrote an article calling on the sense of justice shown by this administration to end torture of inmates who are imprisoned within U.S. borders. The article has a video showing American citizens being tortured and killed in prison: http://my.nowpublic.com/health/president-obama-please-stop-prison-torture-within-u-s-too
Thanks for publishing news about prison torture, Karen.
Mary
at 09:20 on March 10th, 2009
It must be me, but I thought I had recommended this piece the last time I commented on it, 2/17/09.
The subject remains relevant ...
at 10:40 on March 10th, 2009
As the article says itself, this is all about terminology and words.
"So called harsh" " "prisoners of war but termed 'enemy combatants" "Guidelines" (not rules) and others.
Fact is, and I am not a Bush supporter, far from it, that this (yip, still going on) war is extremely vicious, and all the legal stuff will not stop, rightly in my view, an attitude that takes into account that the enemy respects no conventions, no treaties, no rules concerning combat, and that efforts will continue to be made to get round the words.
That's an objective viewpoint, not a point of view.
I hear the "We can't reduce ourselves to their standards" argument, of course, and I understand it too, but no-one's gonna tell me that it's possible to obey all the rules scrupulously in this fight, on either side. They won't. That's it. Period.
That's how it is, and the legalists should get a little real here somewhere......
Thanks for a good post.