Ashcroft testifies on 'torture' memos

"It was not a hard decision for me."

That was the way former U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft today described his decision to back off controversial Justice Department legal opinions produced by then-Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. John Yoo. The memoranda, written in 2002 and 2003, you may remember, spelled out the use of interrogation techniques that described torture as "extreme acts" that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure.

The memos said, in effect, that anything short of that was OK. They have been among the most controversial documents to come to light in the Bush administration in its campaign against terrorism.

The former attorney general, who ran the Justice Department from 2001 to 2005, was the man who originally approved the memos.

But testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today, he said: “It became apparent in the further examination of those opinions, when made in another time frame, that there were matters of concerns that were brought to my opinion."

Democrats challenged Ashcroft, according to the Associated Press account of the hearing, with questions about the frequency of waterboarding -- and he said he did not think that the procedure, as the CIA then described it, was torture.

--James Gerstenzang

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Comments

[pinbalwyz]

So Congress couldn't even muster the moral fortitude to override the Bush veto of banning torture? What was the point of beating the Nazis in WWII to become just like them?

Bush has outdone Hitler in scope if not in scale. Even Hitler didn't publicly cozy up to torture and try to defend it. And now the U.S. expects to lecture other nations (China, for example) about human rights? Any American who isn't deeply ashamed has abandoned any and all pride in this country.

[Human rights]

He has the angle of his arm wrong.

[Chuck Terzella]

Man, how bad is it when even John Ashcroft thinks it's bad? Yeesh.

[schleprock]

well, if it's not turtore, then let's apply some waterboarding to ashcroft. since it's not torture, he should enjoy it.

by authorizing torture (and yes, waterboarding is torture) you put all of our military personnel in danger. if any of our military is captured, then that government can subject our US military personnel to the same techniques that we use. do we really want that??? as a veteran of the first iraq war, i took some amount of comfort in the knowledge that if i was captured, i could argue that i could not be tortured because the US did not torture it's prisoners. that option is not longer valid under the cheney/bush regime. now roque governments can point back to the US and say, hey we're only doing what the US would do.

i am truly ashamed of what has become of the US under the cheney/bush regime (and yes, cheney runs it, bush is toooooo stupid to do anything on his own).

schleprock

[Foo]

Will any of the Bush criminals serve time? How much more explicit does it need to be that torture was systemic and authorized at the top. This is a crime. Most countries punish criminals; why do we only punish those without a 6 figure income and political pull? Is that not the definition of corruption?

[Paul Stewart]

Maybe first we should subject Ashcroft to several hours of water boarding. After that, we could ask him if his opinion that it it not torture still stands. If he answered the way it is stated here, there are weasel words in saying "..as the CIA described it to him..." What exactly did the CIA describe - a surf board on a wave?

[John Harris]

Any American Soldiers that have been unfortuate to be captured have all been tortured and then Murdred. These are worst than animals that we are fighting.
We need to do whatever it takes.

[Shawn Ruden]

What people don't understand is that the Bush administration authorized the use of methods and resources that the terrorists would certainly employ against any United States Citizen if he/she were caught and detaineed by them. Terrorists don't play by the rules of civilized warfare. These people are dedicated to the abolition of this country as we know it. and will not hesitate to hurt any American if they get the opportunity. Those people howling about human rights should watch footage of the Taliban stoning a woman for showing her face, or read a first-hand account of a terrorism survivor. Make no mistake, the liberals of this country need to wake up and realize that we are at war, whether we want to admit it or not.

[jeff]

In my opinion, Ashcroft is a revengeful , devious and deceptive political animal exemplified in numerous ways over his career, including his blockage of a well-respected fellow Missouri attorney (Democrat) for Federal judgeship--a horrible choice for AG made possible only due to Ashcroft's loss to a deceased candidate (Mel Carnahan) in his last Senatorial campagin.

[Mary]

to Shawn Ruden: then doesn't resorting to the same method used by our enemies make us no better than them? I understand during times of war difficult decisions need to be made, but what makes this country great is that we can rise above the mentality of "well they did it to us, so it's ok for us to compromise our values to do it right back to them". Well, at least i used to think we could.

[Paul Stewart]

My comment to Shawn Ruden's post. Look, what the terrorists are attacking is our way of life. They would love to have the free world come down to their idiotic system and validate it. That is foolish. We must vanquish them with a superior approach and intelligence. That will take courage - not weak and fearful complaints like what you are spilling out onto the page here. It will take a co-ordinated effort by the free world and all religious worlds including Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists etc. etc. Terrorists must be surgically removed from the landscape and put in prison with nothing but a bare bones survival until they die a natural death. The death penalty is what they seek and is too good for them. They should not die a martyr to their cause. If Bush and his "dim"istration had grasped this at the outset, Bin Laden would have been captured and the Iraqi disaster could have been avoided.

[schleprock]

by employing the same methods as the terrorists, then we ourselves become terrorists. it's idiots like Shawn that need to wake up. prior to the cheney/bush regime, the US has never had to resort, publically anyway, to deplorable methods of torture. we are, and must be, better then that. we MUST lead the world by setting the example, no torture anytime anywhere. or else we become what we are supposedly fighting.

schleprock

[Joshua Fenio]

As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it absolutely astounding that people will still use this same old "we're fighting animals!" argument. This is ridiculous. Certainly, terrorists are horrible. But we're Americans. We can't pledge allegiance to the Constitution and Bill of Rights on one side of our mouth - then go and commit acts that are unpalatable to said documents.

As for torture actually working -- even McCain, in his autobiography, admitted that he fed false information after being physically and psychologically tortured. This leads to false intel that puts troops on the ground in more danger. Can't anyone understand that? Torture isn't a good tactical decision -- it just makes you feel better in a primitive and unjustifiable way.

Whether or not you want to see Osama bin Laden burn in Hell - and I think both conservatives and liberals agree on THAT, despite arguments of the contrary from both sides - look past your anger and think, if not morally, tactically. It's NOT a good decision to force, with torture as a tool, confessions and intelligence from an enemy.

Let's try to at least think here, people.

[Bitter Nation]

The administration says the stakes are too high, and these enemy combatants represent a clear and present danger, that justifies the means.

The administration says that those who oppose this view are giving comfort to the enemy.

It is only a small leap from there to say that those who provide comfort to the enemy by disagreeing with the administration, also represent a clear and present danger. Whatever it takes. We are in a war.

This is how we dismantle the constitution piece by piece. You don't go directly from A to Z, but get there by smaller justifications of B and then C. First enemy combatants overseas can be tortured. Then domestic phone calls can be tapped without warrants. Then those who disagree coincidentally end up on the terror watch lists and no fly bans, or are outed as undercover CIA operatives. By little steps, cumulative, we get to X, Y and Z, and don't even know we have arrived at dictatorship.

Please do not let them tear up our constitution. I would rather have a 9-11 every year than obliterate our constitution.

[Arnie Battaglene]

I have one question to all those who think it is OK to waterboard, if North Korea did it to American soldiers would that be torture? Are you really saying that its not the act that makes it torture but who does it and why it is done?

Be very careful I have a feeling God isn't into semantics and hell is full of those who thought they were a special case.

[Weston Jossey]

With regards to the comments made that our use of waterboarding puts us in danger of having opposing nations use the same technique on our soldiers:

I believe a simple analysis of the current status of warfare around the world would demonstrate to you that those who would torture American soldiers would go far further than just the use of waterboarding. You are under the assumption that pieces of paper like the Geneva convention even hold relevance to individuals in terrorist cells unless they are in one of our prisons.

Did the Geneva convention prevent Americans from being tortured by the FARC down in Columbia?

Does the Geneva convention prevent the beheading of soldiers and reporters in Iraq?

When compliance is non-existent by the opposition forces in the most major global military operation currently underway by the United States, I am less inclined to acknowledge your argument as valid.

I am first and foremost concerned with the well being and benefit of our armed forces around the world. I trust the judgment of commanders, soldiers, and CIA officials who are faced with these tough decisions on a daily basis. If they feel that it is a necessary tool, then I will divert to their judgment.

[Bob]

Impeachment is one of the few remedies to help rebuild our great county's reputation after these said episodes.

[Robert]

Torture has long been prohibited by international law, including the Geneva Conventions and their common article 3. This total ban was reinforced in 1984 with the adoption of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which criminalized torture and complicity in torture. . . .The 1984 Convention, which is binding on 145 countries, including the United States, defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person."

An open letter and call to action to my fellow citizens,

As a citizen of the U.S.A. and a member of humanity, I urge you to beseech your elected representatives and officials to fully investigate the American governments use of torture, the destruction of related evidence and the cover-up of said activities regardless of where they lead and to bring such individuals to justice by holding open hearings and preparing full and complete documentation. Our Republic is meant to be transparent and its officials answerable to the people.

Unfortunately to date, secrecy, cover-up, inaction, double-speak, destruction of evidence and now willfully disregarding the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution have been the only visible and measurable results. I do not approve of torture, period. It is an uncivilized, vile and despicable crime against humanity. I therefore will not stand idly by while my elected officials refuse to decide and act against an overreaching executive branch and the legislative and judicial branches that enable it. I refuse to be an accessory to crimes against humanity and I will not pay any taxes while the United States of America’s governmental institutions stand idly by and allow it to happen. Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Since my elected officials have to this point refused to decide and act on these crimes against humanity, they compel me, a sovereign individual, citizen of this great republic and member of humanity to make decisions and take actions. These actions include civil disobedience and a campaign of non-cooperation by not paying taxes of which in part are being used to fund torture and to speak out against my government and its officials. Additional activities include peaceful public demonstrations, speeches and email campaigns, all in the hope that they will make the moral decision to take action on these crimes against humanity.

I watched an amazing movie entitled, “The Great Debaters.” The themes and content of the movie are so timely and relevant to our Republics current ongoing struggle that I would like to share a portion of it here. Civil disobedience and violence can both be used morally in the fight for justice and may require the greatest sacrifice, one’s life. Gandhi believed we should act with love and respect toward one’s opponents and enemies and that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences of their actions. Henry David Thoreau believed that any man more right than his neighbor constitutes a majority of one. However, the majority does not decide what is right or wrong, instead it is one’s conscience. A citizen should never kneel down and surrender their conscience to a majority simple because they are the majority. Because nothing that erodes the rule of law can be moral, no matter what name you give it. St. Augustine said that an unjust law is no law at all. This means that the sovereign individuals and citizens of this great country have an individual responsibility to resist unjust laws and illegal activities of the majority with violence or civil disobedience; you should pray that they choose the latter.

My peace be with you,

Robert “Bruce” McAlpine
Burbank, CA 91501

[NeverAgain]

How many of the human beings that were subjected to Cheney/Bush's "interrogation techniques" turned out NOT to be TERRORISTS? Do we have any idea? Has this Administration ever released any information as to the number of human beings interrogated, and then released? After being subjected to these "interrogation techniques', how many of these human beings "confessed"? Were they valid confessions, or false confessions? Who was giving oversight to this process? Military brass? Did they have any pressures on them to produce 'numbers' (like a body count) so as to satisfy their superiors? I shudder to think what atrocities have been inflicted on innocent human beings in the name of America, and our assumed moral superiority to those whose country we invaded.

[Greg Gross]

Kinda hard to claim moral superiority over your enemies once you choose to become like them.

g.

[Boris]

US should rejoin the International Criminal Court - on Jan 21

[RolandsTune]

“Those who would give up a little of their liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security…” —Benjamin Franklin. “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” — Gandhi.
Looks like we’ve got all the answers we need from history, guess if we spent some of the war effort funds on education we may have learned this.

[Matthew]

Those attempting to justify the behavoir of this administration by pointing out how heinous the "terrorists" are seem to be missing an extremely important point. Simply put: IF YOU WISH TO CLAIM THE MORAL HIGH GROUND, YOU MUST HOLD THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.

We ceded that position, and lowered ourselves to the loathsome standards of our enemies.

The "liberals" are not blind to the sick behavior of the Jihadists and thier ilk. We simply do not believe bad behavoir on their part justifies bad behavior on our own.

We stand for something grand, and if we refuse to live up to our own standards...they we are no better than they are.

[Dusty]

You can debate the meaning of torture all you want, but claiming that dumping water on people and keeping them up for days on end "has outdone Hitler in scope if not in scale" is flat out ridiculous. I mean seriously, is it really worse to condone simulated drowning and sleep deprivation of terrorists than to privately gas people to death and shove them into incinerators by the thousands because you decided they were genetically inferior while rampaging across an entire continent and publicly claiming none of those people going to your "happy camps" are disappearing? I know it's popular to hate our country these days but get real, there's evil in the world thousands of times worse than anything any of our leaders have done in the last... well... ever. I for one am not deeply ashamed and don't you dare accuse me of having lost pride in my country while you compare the people making tough decisions to keep you from being hugged by your friendly neighborhood suicide bomber with genocidal ego-maniacs.

[HemiHead]

You have to remember one thing. This torture treatment was done to innocent people to. The Bush law says that he can lock up anyone he feels like without a reason and without a trial for as long as he wants. He has shredded the constitution and broken every law we have. The reason they won't impeach him is because their all in it over their heads. If McCain becomes president this country is finished.