Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

FBI Weren't the Only Ones Objecting to Torture ... So Did the Army, Marines & Air Force

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 7:47 AM on April 23, 2009.


Donald Rumsfeld defied the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, and the Marines when he approved torture.
gitmotorture

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

As Digby notes, there were already serious objections to the use of torture in 2002 -- the FBI chief Muller had already refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of 2002 (per Marcy's timeline, the Bybee memo didn't make them legal until August 1).

But it's not like the FBI was the only one who had a problem. On October 1, Major General Michael Dunlavey sent a memo to General James Hill, Commander of US Southern Command, requesting the authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" like those use in SERE training. The memo reached Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited views of the military services. Here's what came back in November 2002 (PDF):

Air Force: "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Steven Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred. On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:

Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.

They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

Digg!

Tagged as: torture, army, donald rumsfeld, guantanamo bay, navy, marines, criminal investigation ta

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Why Dems Need Tom Tancredo to Receive the GOP Nod in Colorado
Democrats need a man that can inspire Latinos and other independents to come to the polls and vote for Democrats – Tancredo is that man!
Post by Mario Solis-Marich. November 11, 2009.
Dogs Going Crazy as Their Soldiers Return Home
Priceless.
Post by Joshua Holland. November 11, 2009.
Laura Flanders Live on GritTV: The Powerful Forces Keeping Status Quo in Place
Americans voted for change and are getting frustrated with the lack of it, but our guests have both written about the powerful forces holding the status quo in place.
Post by Laura Flanders. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Are Repugs Claiming the US was Wrong to prosecute Nazi's??
Posted by: Purple Girl on Apr 23, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either Americans were right to prosecute the Nazi for their War crimes (which also included 'waterboarding' type techniques) Or we were Wrong and the Nazi's were within their right to committ such atrocities because they were in a War. Pick One.
Were then the Nazi's were within their rights to protect themselves by all means possible against those 'insideous' Jews?
Why was it so easy to determine their action constutited Torture- that's right because the Precedence had been set and condemned previously- The Spanish Inquistion, The witch Trials Centuries before. So were the Inquistors justified since they were sure they were under attack by minions of the Devil?
Are they saying that the Greatest Generation acting Unjustly towards the Nazis, who were just trying to 'protect' themselves?
Don't try to tell me these Scholars and experts in Military history had No idea these techniques constituted Torture.Besides Ignorance is not a viable legal Defense.But the Threat of being thrown in the Brig, may be.There are military laws regarding insubordination and mutiny- thus equal to coercion under the threat of prosecution and imprisonment.Give them the false sense of legality by providing legal cover, through the Commander in Chiefs office and being a conscientious objector has no validity.
These top official not only knowingly committed War crimes, they betrayed the Trust of our dedicated military personnel.'Support the Troops' not when you are willing to throw them under the bus, to save your own asses.
The Repugs have disgraced our Country, Our Revered Greatest Generation and our Brave soldiers in uniform who have laid their lives on the line, with this unwarranted Defense of the Bush admin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wonder how many torture apologists we will see posting here today?
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 23, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt this torture was WRONG. ILLEGAL. And all those who had a hand in drafting the policy and ordering it should be prosecuted.

There are no excuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Snitches Needed.
Posted by: melpol on Apr 23, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no innocent person that would not confess to murder or rape. The interrogator understands this as the victim is tortured. But when evidence of a crime is difficult to obtain even false evidence will do. Real information about criminal activity comes from snitches. A good intelligence agency has a network of snitches and does not rely on torture to get information. Skillful agents know how to employ snitches. It is done by either bribery or giving snitches the freedom to continue in their criminal activities. America would be safer if we hired millions of more snitches as the eyes and ears of the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Snitches Needed. Posted by: Endrael
I wonder...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 23, 2009 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if the folks who are saying that torture is acceptable and actually works realize that what they are inherently saying is that it is okay for other countries to capture and torture our soldiers and citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I wonder... Posted by: Quannah
» Well said. Thanks. Posted by: godsbreath64
Christian Conservatives and Torture
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 23, 2009 10:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All right-thinking people oppose and are disgusted by torture. The strongest support comes from conservative Christians; many of those who devised, supported, justified and carried out war crimes are devout Christians, and the conservative Christian public largely supports warmongering, slaughter of innocent civilians abroad, torture, summary execution, assassination, the death penalty, denial of due process and ready availability of military-style weapons in the community.

This speaks volumes about their religion, their values and the consequences of their involvement in politics, the judiciary, law enforcement, the military and intelligence agencies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why doesn't the story read " Cheney told everyone to scew themself"
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Apr 24, 2009 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really missed how they were NOT at all times on an island with everyone ON EVERYTHING but the facist party.

That is what facisms do. They got their git off because no one could or would stand up to the plankton.

Now they must pay for their lawlessness, already !!!!

WTF

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]