Misleading of course...the US never tortured...but it is good to hear that
the enemy has suddenly become civilized and will no longer barbarously
murder prisoners and behead helpless civilians.
 
They must have given up Islam then...
 
But then neither the UN, world press, hypocritcal journalists, or two-year
old leftists mind what war crimes Islam commits.
 
-B 

The End of Torture

Obama banishes Bush's interrogation tactics

http://www.newsweek.com/id/181007/output/print

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Web Exclusive 

In the first sign of friction within his new administration, President Obama
overruled the pleas of senior U.S. intelligence officials and signed a new
executive order that bars the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods
beyond those permitted by the U.S. military.

The order was one of four sweeping directives Obama signed calling for the
closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay and revamping U.S.
counterterrorism policies.

The executive orders, while expected, represented a clean break with Bush
administration policies and won quick praise from human-rights groups.
Still, many of the difficult details—such as what to do with Guantánamo
detainees still deemed dangerous—will be left up to a special interagency
panel that won't report its recommendations to Obama for six months. The
panel is to be chaired by Obama's choice for attorney general, Eric Holder,
who is still awaiting confirmation.

In perhaps his most far-reaching and potentially controversial move, Obama
ordered that the CIA immediately cease using any interrogation techniques
that are not already authorized in the U.S. Army Field Manual. He also
ordered the CIA to close, "as expeditiously as possible," any secret
detention facilities overseas and begin immediate compliance with Common
Article 3 of the Geneva  <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm>
Conventions, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading" treatment of
prisoners.

The interrogation directive represents the sharpest departure from Bush-era
policies and was the subject of vigorous internal debate among Obama
advisers. Just last year, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have
restricted CIA interrogations, saying "this is no time for Congress to
abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe."

In recent days, senior U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director
Michael Hayden and outgoing Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell, told Obama's advisers and journalists that they still needed the
flexibility to use some interrogation methods not permitted by the military.
If nothing else, intel officials argued, inducing fear among detainees that
they might be subjected to harsh practices was useful in persuading them to
talk.

"They were permitted to state their case," said one senior Obama adviser,
who asked not be identified talking about internal deliberations.

But in the end, Obama's review team, headed by new White House Counsel
Gregory Craig, rejected their arguments and questioned the premise that such
methods were necessary. Obama is satisfied that the use of the military
field manual "will not compromise national security," said another senior
administration official, who also asked not to be identified talking about
the administration's review process.

In a now-notorious Aug. 1, 2002, legal memo written by conservative lawyers
at the Justice Department, the CIA was told it could use a wide variety of
unorthodox techniques, including waterboarding, against Al Qaeda suspects.
Although the agency insists it has not used waterboarding since 2003, the
CIA is believed to have continued to use some "enhanced" interrogation
methods, such as temperature manipulation and stress positions, although the
precise techniques remain classified. Counterterrorism officials close to
the issue say they wanted to maintain the option to trick prisoners into
believing they would face physical harm from foreign intelligence services
if they didn't cooperate. While the Army Field Manual does permit some
trickery, it expressly forbids physical threats to prisoners, as well as
coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding. However, Obama's order does call
for a special interagency task force to review interrogation methods and
recommend some techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual—effectively
permitting the intelligence agencies to remake their case for more leeway.

In a stinging, if not entirely surprising, rebuke to Bush administration
legal policies, Obama's order states that U.S. government officials involved
in interrogations may no longer rely on any Justice Department legal memos
written between September 11, 2001, and Jan. 20, 2009. Such memos—many of
them still secret and the subject of fierce controversy during the Bush
years—were, with one stroke of Obama's pen, made invalid.

But many of the hardest questions involving detainee treatment remain and
are certain to be the subject of further controversy. No sooner did Obama
issue his orders, for example, than Kansas GOP Sen. Pat Roberts fired off a
press release denouncing as "unacceptable" the idea that some of the
detainees there might be moved to a U.S. military prison in Fort
Leavenworth, Kans. "If President Obama and [Senate Intelligence Committee
chairwoman] Diane Feinstein want [Guantánamo] closed, why don't they move it
to Illinois or California?" Roberts said.

Another GOP lawmaker, Sen. Chris Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, raised the specter of notorious Gitmo
detainees even being released inside the country. "I can't think of any city
or town across this country that will be thrilled to have Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad or Abu Zubaydah living down the street," Bond said.

Obama's directive gives his administration up to one year to shut down
Guantánamo—a far longer time span than many human-rights groups would favor.
The order directs his newly created interagency panel to review the status
of all 240 prisoners there and seek to return as many as possible to third
countries that will agree to take them—a goal the Bush administration tried
to accomplish on its own with only limited success.

The order further directs that others be tried, either in criminal courts in
the United States or in U.S. military court under the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice. While the U.S. military commissions—which the Bush
administration had been using to seek to try Guantánamo detainees—have been
suspended, the Obama administration is leaving open the option of returning
to such tribunals under revamped procedures in the future.

The toughest question of all is what to do with a third group of detainees:
those deemed to be hard-core terrorists or still dangerous, but who can't be
tried either because the evidence against them is classified or was gleaned
from waterboarding or other methods that might be deemed to be torture. That
group may be as many as 50 or 60 detainees, the senior Obama advisor said.

It is possible that Obama may end up seeking legislation or creating a
process that would allow for indefinite detention of this group, with the
caveat that some yet-to-be-created tribunal would periodically review their
status. But that hasn't been decided. "All we've done for now," the adviser
said, "is set up a process."

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/181007
 
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to