Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Reagan's DOJ Prosecuted Texas Sheriff for Waterboarding Prisoners

By Jason Leopold, TruthOut.org. Posted April 27, 2009.


Ignoring the 1983 case is just one of the flagrant violations committed by Bush lawyers who crafted the newly released "torture memos."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case -- which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later -- was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

The failure to cite the earlier waterboarding case and a half-dozen other precedents that dealt with torture is reportedly one of the critical findings of a Justice Department watchdog report that legal sources say faults former Bush administration lawyers -- Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury -- for violating "professional standards."

Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury also shocked many who have read their memos in the last week by their use of clinical and legalistic jargon that sometimes took on an otherworldly or Orwellian quality. Bybee's August 1, 2002, legal memo -- drafted by Yoo -- argued that waterboarding could not be torture because it does not "inflict physical pain."

During the procedure, a subject is strapped down to a bench with his head lower than his feet and his face covered by a cloth that is then saturated with water, cutting off his breathing and inducing the panic reflex that a person feels while drowning.

"You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm," Bybee wrote. "Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. ... The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."

Bush administration officials approved CIA waterboarding for three "high-value" detainees, including Abu Zubaydah (believed to be an al-Qaeda logistics operative) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (known as KSM, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times and KSM at least 183 times, according to one Justice Department memo.

Bybee, whose memo gave legal cover for the initial use of waterboarding and nine other brutal interrogation methods, said his opinion -- as assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, which advises presidents on the limits of their legal powers -- represented "our best reading of the law." He cited scant history for the Convention Against Torture, which took effect in 1987.

"However, you should be aware that there are no cases construing this statute, just as there have been no prosecutions brought under it," Bybee wrote.

The Convention Against Torture makes it a crime for any "person acting under the color of law" to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

Texas Case

That law was not in existence when the Texas sheriff, James Parker, and his deputies were prosecuted and sentenced in the 1980s. But Bybee, Bradbury and Yoo had a duty to their legal profession to cite the case as it would have changed the substance of their legal opinions, said Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and constitutional expert.

"Any competent legal adviser would, among other things, have looked at the techniques themselves and checked to see how they have been treated in prior cases," Horton said in an email. "Obviously the Anti-Torture Statute itself is a very recent invention and it has no enforcement history, so saying that and then suggesting on this basis that the situation is tabula rasa is highly disingenuous."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: texas, torture, supreme court, george w. bush, department of justice, khalid sheikh mohammed, waterboarding, ronald reagan, steven bradbury, scott horton, john yoo, abu zubaydah, jay bybee, sheriff james parker, vernell harkless, youngstown sheet & tube c

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
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:
The Moral of the Story
Posted by: EinMD on Apr 27, 2009 4:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to get away with something, make it such a big something that people are afraid to deal with it for taking down some large organization or government and involve thousands of people.

Example: Prosecution of NSA wiretapping would take down the NSA, AT&T, Sprint, Nextel etc. Prosecution of torture would take down the CIA, the former Vice President, President, attorney Generals, hundreds of CIA agents, private torture contractors, several judges, several airlines that ferried people back and forth to be tortured, Fox News for acting as Bush's propaganda wing,

The Mafia wishes it had things as good as the Bush administration did.

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

» RE: The Moral of the Story Posted by: lively56
File a Complaint Against Judge Bybee.
Posted by: angry_liberal on Apr 27, 2009 6:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
United States Code TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 16 > § 351 Complaints; judge defined
(a) Filing of Complaint by Any Person.— Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, * * * may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.

In the United States, federal judges are required to take not just one, but two oaths. The first oath is this:

I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

The second oath that federal judges must take is this:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Having authored a legal opinion destructive to the Constitutional protections bestowed on American citizens (*any* expansion of Article II power infringes on all of our Constitutional liberties) ... shouldn't the Judge be permanently recused from any case implicating a Constitutional question?

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

Deadly Memos
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 27, 2009 11:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the Armed Services Committee report points out, the techniques endorsed by You, Bybee et al. were used by the Chinese to elicit false confessions from American military personnel. The purpose wasn't to elicit the truth, but to force the detainee to give statements useful to his torturers--such as links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Nobody got waterboarded about connections between the Bushes and bin Ladens.

Abusive treatment of detainees has led to at least 43 documented murders and is, in the opinion of many experts, responsible for a great deal of the violence against US troops and civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Accordingly, the Yoo-Bybee how-to torture manuals, which is what these briefs really were, have caused hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

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

women accused of witchcraft!
Posted by: lokicat on Apr 29, 2009 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Europe and earlier in this country's history, women accused of witchcraft were 'dunked' in a dunking pool, as a public spectacle, to find out guilt or innocence. If you drowned you were adjudged guilty. If you somehow survived your total immersion underwater for long periods of time, you were innocent. Humiliate, vicimize, torture, demoralize, or as someone said recently "psychological demolition." Often the victim's children would be watching.

Those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it.

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

» No-Burn Zone Posted by: Freticat
Divide and Conquer
Posted by: red godowar on Apr 29, 2009 11:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan is viewed as a saint by many Republicans. If Reagan's DOJ prosecuted American law enforcement who waterboarded, and since obviously Bush/Cheney oppose such "policy," then what a great wedge issue to destroy the whole corrupt group even more.

What a great way to turn the Republicans on themselves with their own little civil war on the issue. All should be done to exploit this.

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

  • 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