Shocka: 2003 Memo Approved Of Harsh Interrogation Methods For Jihadis

And the liberal blogosphere, those folks who are always looking to the future (sic), are all up in arms about just how darned mean we were to the people who behead people with knives, set roadside bombs, oh, and fly planes into our buildings, killing 3,000 our our citizens

(NY Times) The Justice Department in 2003 gave military interrogators broad authority to use extreme methods in questioning detainees and argued that wartime powers largely exempted interrogators from laws banning harsh treatment, according to a memorandum publicly disclosed on Tuesday.

In a sweeping legal brief written in March 2003, when the Pentagon was struggling to determine the appropriate limits for its interrogators, the Justice Department gave the Pentagon much of the same authority it had provided to the Central Intelligence Agency in a memorandum months earlier. Both memorandums were later rescinded by the Justice Department.

The disclosure of the 2003 document, a detailed 81-page opinion written by John C. Yoo, who at the time was the second-ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, is likely to fuel the already intense debate about legal boundaries in the face of a continuing terrorist threat.

Mr. Yoo’s memorandum is the latest document to illuminate the legal foundation that Bush administration lawyers used after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to give the White House broad powers to capture, detain and interrogate suspects around the globe.

The NY Times inadvertently tells the truth, and exposes the reality. We are in a fight against animals. They do not believe in the same civilized behavior (I use the term loosely for those on the Left) as the Western world. For those one the left who scoff, why not search around and find some of the video’s of Islamists beheading people.

They are not citizens of the USA, and this is war, no matter what liberals/progressives think feel. Why not take a look at the Al Qaeda torture manual? Because I still missing the part where any of our detainees were actually harmed, beyond being scared and disoriented enough to tell us what we need.

To close it out, I’ll ask yet again the question I always ask of liberals: how exactly are we to get intelligence from these terrorists quickly? I’m assuming tickle torture is also out.

Gribbit is covering this at Stop The ACLU and his own site, with the ACLU in his gun sights.

Captain Ed gives it the thrice over, and finds the story wanting.

Macsmind: The left is foaming out of the mouth about this (funny they don’t feel that way about partial-birth abortions – or any abortions for that matter – I digress) but the fact is that serious times called for serious measures. One would have to ask the question, “Is one terrorist’s comfort greater than the deaths of innocents?”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Shocka: 2003 Memo Approved Of Harsh Interrogation Methods For Jihadis”

  1. Kevin Hayden says:

    Thank you. You’re the first conservative blogger – per Memeorandum – to even say a word about Yoo’s memo.

    However, to answer your question, please note that the memo was written on March 14th, 2003, which was less than a week before the Iraq War was started. So the answer to your question is there had been no beheadings and roadside bombs at that time. And ultimately, in regards to Iraq, they flew no planes into buildings. The 2-3 US troop or contractor beheadings that came later began after the Abu Ghraib tapes went public so they were apparently reacting to our torture, not the other way around.

    In Afghanistan, the memo was written months after the fighting had pretty much ceased and the Taliban was in hiding. Using the memo against those already held from that conflict grants your argument some consideration. Yet as we’ve subsequently seen, several hundred of those folks would ultimately be released as non-terrorists or no threat to our country. So while they were in years of detention, did they earn torture?

    Again, the Taliban sheltered Al Qaida, but the training occurred in Pakistan, the funding and 9-11 hijackers camemostly from Saudi Arabia (where the government beheads) or the Middle East.

    Talibanis weren’t in on 9-11, hadn’t been roadside bombing us and weren’t beheading us. Nor were Afghanis.

    Finally, countless interrogation efforts have spoken about the ineffectiveness of torture in gaining info. And to this day, we haven’t heard how much actionable intelligence was obtained through normal interrogation methods.

    So besides being cruel, unecessary and ineffective, the sole motive for torture is revenge. Except we were detaining many who had no part in the conflict, nor the atrocities you mention.

    For use against Al Qaida’s leadership is all that really merits consideration. But there, no official approval was necessary. Just let the Special Forces necessary to capture or kill them do their job. And if any acted vengefully against that group, I doubt they’d ever face trial or be convicted.

    The legal cover provide was unnecessary, ineffective and stupid, as it exposed the White House staff to legal action, and for what?

    The revelation of torture at Abu Ghraib didn’t protect troops from prosecution and it provoked terror recruitment and brutality and an escalation of the Iraq insurgency. That’s a pretty high cost for the minimal, fleeting moments of revenge. And since it occurred in Iraq, revenge for what? For them fighting back after we attacked?

  2. John Ryan says:

    Torture is only effective at producing confessions.
    Probably the best srgument that could be made for torture was when it was used to suppress the Satanic witchcraft that was sweeping across Europe. Through torture witches would not only confess they would also identify their fellow witches including the most difficult to find “sleeper witches”
    Torture is never “OK”
    If some agent feels that torture is in fact the only method that will work and save 1000s of lives than let him do it, and then be prosecuted for it. The 5 or 10 nyears he spends in jail will be well worth the lives saved and of course it will cut down on the amount od “unnecessary” torture.

  3. I will agree that actual torture is wrong, and does not work, but, what was done was not really bad, and was not torture. No one was actually harmed, except a bit mentally.

    What was done at AG was disgusting, unnecessary, and against military law.

    There were actual beheadings and roadside bombs in Afghanistan, as well as even prior to 9/11.

  4. […] conservatives are slim. Credit goes to Pirate’s Cove for being the first to cover it, and the coverage was fully pro-torture. Michael Goldfarb of The Weakly Standard gave it an ‘afterthought’ tone, like it was an […]

  5. Silke says:

    Teach said: To close it out, I’ll ask yet again the question I always ask of liberals: how exactly are we to get intelligence from these terrorists quickly?

    I’m not a liberal but I’ll give it a shot…

    This is what the Army uses: FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Chapter 8 describes the different approach techniques. Having served with professional interrogators in the U.S. Army I can tell you these soldiers are incredibly good at their job and the different approaches they use are very effective. The most useful information (especially with respect to force protection and enemy plans) is usually gathered within hours of the detainee’s capture, so the military is very skilled at gathering time-sensitive information.

  6. Steve J. says:

    The use of torture is against U.S. law, period.

    in 2340A, the law applies to ANY American:

    (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

  7. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    Comrade Ryan, just waterboard islamofascist butchers and then go to confession and say, “Bless me father for I have waterboarded again…” Padre will reply, ” You are forgiven AGAIN my son and go back and do it some more. I don’t want my Vatican to become a mosque!”
    That’s right, when we were flying in the unfriendly skies Comrade Ryan was in Afghanistan… I had forgotten.

  8. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    It’s PC to kill US Navy SEALS on Ruby Ridge in Afghanistan in 2002 and castrate them and stuff their gonads into their throat, eh? Back to waterboarding mateys…
    That’s right, the US Pentagon didn’t want you to know about these gruesome combat deaths…It would infuriate public opinion and retaliation against Muslims? So much for our First Amendment Blackbeard!

Pirate's Cove