Justice Dept. Memo Redefines 'Torture' -WaPo

The Justice Department published a revised and expansive definition late yesterday of acts that constitute torture under domestic and international law, overtly repudiating one of the most criticized policy memorandums drafted during President Bush's first term.

In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declared that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms" and went on to reject a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said instead that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain, and thus may include acts that cause physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion has the explicit aim of eliminating any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

This second effort by the Bush administration to parse the legal meaning of the word "torture" was provoked by the damaging political fallout from the disclosure this summer of the first memo, drafted in August 2002 and criticized by human rights lawyers and experts around the globe........
...
"Clearly the release of this now is backfilling for Gonzales's confirmation hearing," said I. Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "These memos have been a tremendous source of embarrassment to both Gonzales and the administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html

Leave the Geneva convention rules alone!

But he is a yes man to Bush and to the International Courts and Supreme Court he is a NOBODY!!!

and this just proves he is one bad lawyer!!!

If he is such a great lawyer and judge how the hell was he so wrong about what was allowed under the law just a short time ago? Has there been new case law that he can cite? He is just trying to slither through his confirmation hearings, the little prick.

Imprison and interrogate Ashcroft under the Geneva rules. Imprison and interrogate Gonzales under Beyond Geneva rules.

See which one cracks first.

Case closed.

It required no further "clarification". They are still just looking for ways to "legalize" torture.

The corporate media has been mentioning the earlier definitions...but the word "Geneva" hasn't made the scene.

-snip-

"Clearly the release of this now is backfilling for Gonzales's confirmation hearing," said I. Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "These memos have been a tremendous source of embarrassment to both Gonzales and the administration."

-snip-

I don't see how it helps Gonzales. Maybe it renders his previous opinion moot but, in my view, it shames him for ever having written his opinion, in the first place. It also further exposes him for the craven little sycophant he is.

Isn't this just an admission that what happened in Ab Ghraib, et al, WAS torture? Sort of like closing the barn door after the horse is out.

From the WaPo article posted by Rose Siding:

"It could be that this is not just a cynical ploy but a real sign of change," Greenberger said.
(snip)

Want to bet?

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which has been critical of the Bush administration's legal opinions regarding treatment of detainees, said that in the new memo, "the definition of torture is not as tortured as it was."
(snip)

You just have to admire a man who takes the time to indulge in empty word games concerning an absolutely evil, unforgivable direction _Bush chose for U.S. formal policy concerning treatment of prisoners.

:(

has been caught, will be caught... they will all do time at Levenworth, because of plausible denibility.

that will win him lots of loyal following in the ranks.

sources mean nothing to these people...the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

Will it only took them a few years to generate a new 'policy' -- wink-wink/nudge-nudge.

Gonzalez clearly redefined terms in contradiction to US Code (18 USC). Since when does the GOP support judicial members who take it upon themselves to rewrite laws?

,...they should be adhering to the rule of law.

But,...we know how these guys operate. They have no respect for the rule of law and they have proven their disrespect by excusing/rationalizing their pattern of intentionally breaching existent law.

Sun Jan 2, 3:14 PM ET

 Top Stories - Reuters

By Jon Herskovitz

DALLAS (Reuters) - The suspected ringleader of abuse in Iraq (news - web sites)'s Abu Ghraib prison is among two U.S. Army soldiers scheduled for court-martial this week over wartime actions....

He also said at a pretrial hearing that Graner was following orders.

That aspect of the case could generate some extra heat for White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales, Bush's nominee to be U.S. attorney general, during his confirmation hearings in the Senate, said Cal Jillson, professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The court-martial is expected to delve into what role Gonzales played in legal opinions that outlined rules for the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq.

Civil liberties groups have said the opinions contributed to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a charge denied by the administration.

In a January 2002 memo, Gonzales argued the need to obtain information from would-be terrorists rendered obsolete the Geneva Conventions' strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners. It called some convention provisions "quaint."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/asia/03china.html?oref=login&8hpib

Former Military Leaders Oppose Gonzales Nomination (Update2)

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- A dozen former military officers, including retired Army General John Shalikashvili, are opposing the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to be U.S. attorney general because he endorsed detaining suspected terrorists without protections accorded prisoners of war.

The officers want lawmakers to question Gonzales about his 2002 legal opinion that the Geneva Conventions for war prisoners don't cover combatants captured in Afghanistan or al-Qaeda operatives seized around the world since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Besides Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the group includes retired Brigadier General James P. Cullen, who was chief judge of the U.S. Army's Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Jan. 6 on Gonzales's nomination by President George W. Bush to succeed Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. Democrats led by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy say they will ask Gonzales to explain his role in drafting policies that they say spawned the prisoner abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

``The kinds of things that Mr. Gonzales espouses are the very sort of things that are the first step on a slippery slope that compromises the rule of law in this country,'' retired Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, said in an interview.
(snip/...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aOrdZLguwGWg&refer=top_world_news

I just discovered RoseSiding has a newer thread on Alberto Gonzales from today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1118845#1118912

(I'll post this article there.)