This work is under a fair use Creative Commons License

Well, I read the nine documents released by the Pentagon, and Bush's Feb. 7, 2002 order on prisoner treatment. While there are parts that are illuminating, they raise a lot of questions for me. I will attempt to give a synopsis of the released material, and place it in a context with other information - primarily the Taguba Report.

It is important to note that Bush's 2/07/02 order on treatment of prisoners was based on (at least) the following documents:

Status of Taliban and Al Qaida message from Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff to Unified Commands and Services, Dated: 21 January 2002

However, the Bush order references both Department of Justice and Department of Defense input in determining the status of both detainees and "enemy non-combatants" as outside the protections of the Geneva Convention. Therefore the DoJ memo that was released (8/01/02 DoJ Memo to the President's Counsel on Standards of Conduct for Interrogation) came after the order above. This means that there was 1) requests before that time on torturing detainees, and 2) that for some reason (such as wanting to extend the policy or approve even more aggressive techniques) they requested even more counsel from the DoJ. But let's deal with the documents that have been released.

Of critical importance in Bush's order is item 5 which states:

"5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

"Due to the unique nature of the war on terrorism in which the enemy covertly attacks innocent civilian populations without warning, and further due to the critical nature of the information believed to be known by certain of the Al-Qaida and Taliban detainees regarding future terrorist attacks, it may be appropriate for the appropriate approval authority to authorize as military necessity the interrogation of such unlawful combatants in a manner beyond that which may be applied to a prisoner of war who is subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions"

Page 72 "As the Commander in Chief authority is vested in the President, we recommend that any exercise of authority by DOD personnel be confirmed in writing through Presidential directive or other document."

The report is essentially accepted by Rumsfeld as a policy basis in his memo of 4/16/03 (DoD Document 9 which is to the Commander of US Southern Command (which I believe is Guantanamo)). In summation of that directive, Rumsfeld states: If interrogators wish to go beyond these measures "... you should provide me, via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a written request describing the proposed technique, recommended safeguards, and the rationale for applying it with an identified detainee."

1) What was the Presidential directive and Pentagon policy prior to January of 2002?

2) According to the information in the memos, and the aggressive interrogations which have occurred, where are all of the written approvals, and what were the basis for those approvals? Since Rumsfeld made this "policy," he had to know what was going on.

3) What changes occurred to the policy after April 16 2003? It is clear that the policy moved beyond Guantanamo because (according to the Taguba Report) Mjr. General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib. It is also clear at this time from various reports, leaks, and human rights agencies reports, that "aggressive measures" were approved in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In fact, the according to Haynes' Working Group Report, he felt that the suggestions were legitimate in all areas outside US territory and sovereign holdings.

4) What was the Bush Directive after the Pentagon policy change. The only information we have is from before that (2/17/02). Haynes' working group report specifically requests a directive from the President in writing. The reasons for this are concerns regarding possible prosecution that might arise both domestically and internationally.

5) Bush is continuing to use the same language from item 5 of his order in press statements today. Given that it is clear how that is being interpreted, one can only assume that the President has indeed signed off on the use of torture. One must also assume that he has issued a later directive which expanded the use of torture beyond Guantanamo.

6) Haynes notes in his report:

Page 71 "Should the use of more aggressive interrogation techniques than have been traditionally used by U.S. forces become public, it is likely to be exaggerated or distorted in the U.S. and international media accounts, and may produce an adverse effect on support for the war on terrorism."

What the documents point to, is that 1) it is the policy to this administration to utilize interrogation ("counter resistance") techniques that are outside of the Geneva Convention and the Torture Conventions, outside US law, and strongly counter to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Unless, a number of units had "gone rogue," there should be documentation on every individual who was held and interrogated under Category II or beyond techniques (this was clearly requested by Rumsfeld). If there is not documentation, was there another policy change that changed who had to know and approve? In other words, we could assume that the policy became "anything goes."

Rumsfeld, and Myers were both "in the loop," and information was being presented to the President as well. This means that knowledge of what the actual policy was (and is), and approval of it, came from the highest levels. Denial of knowledge, or arguing that "we don't approve torture" are outright lies. Therefore, they have lied to the people of the U.S., to the Congress, and they have refused to provide documents Congressional oversight committees. I believe that the last two at least are illegal if not impeachable.