conspiracy

Posted on Monday 14 September 2009

It seems like whenever I get away from my obsession with the absurd torture program of the Bush Administration after 9/11, something I haven’t seen comes along to get me all fired up again – usually from emptywheel, keeper of the flame. Today, she mentions a letter from John Yoo to John Rizzo , CIA General Counsel, on July 13, 2002 [before the two OLC Torture Memos on August 1, 2002 known as Bybee 1 and Bybee 2].

Here’s the Statute:

§ 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended 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;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
There’s no way the author of this Statute intended it to be interpreted as Yoo reads it. intended, intentional here means "on purpose" and refers to the inflicting, not the long term outcome. Neither does prolonged mental harm refer to some lifelong outcome. Had the author had such an intent, it would’ve read:
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict long-lasting physical or mental pain or suffering…
So, the entire premise for Yoo’s advice on is patently false. This Statute simply says "don’t hurt people in custody on purpose."

The Memos that followed amplified this forced misreading. What makes this letter stand out is Yoo’s obvious coaching on how to avoid prosecution – get an expert opinion. Then two weeks later, Yoo himself provided the very expert opinion they needed.

emptywheel believes that John Bybee, Yoo’s boss, never saw this letter [Bybee: No Written Advice Provided to Any Agency Prior to August 1, 2002]. One would likewise presume that Ashcroft didn’t either. David Addington has been vague on his input into the writing of these letters and Memos. In fact, everyone is vague about being in communication with Yoo during his period as God of Interpretation of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Statutes. They would have us believe that they sent the questions to Yoo. Yoo wrote answers and sent them back. Essentially no one else was in the loop – at the DoJ or at the White House. That is, of course, not true. In the infamous Yoo/Addington appearance in front of a Congressional Committee, Yoo was deliberately evasive and Addington delighted in being combative.

So we will never learn about what really happened unless there is a Special Prosecutor, a Grand Jury, and a Trial – under oath. And what would the charge be? What do you call it when a government lawyer subverts a law like this, in cahoots with the White House yet? It seems to me increasingly clear why Holder’s investigation starts with the perpetrators of the torture. That exposes the Memos and other authorizations, and may lead to questioning their validity. It seems to me that the correct charge is Conspiracy, but everything has to be on the table to level such a charge. Put simply, since torture is a crime, these government lawyers conspired to aid and abet the commission of that crime.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.