Critics Contend 2003 DOJ Memo Created a Culture of Abuse
Updated: Some Democratic lawmakers contend a recently declassified 2003 Justice Department memo may have led to harsh treatment of military prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
The New York Times points out that the memo applied to enemy combatants held in military custody rather than the largely civilian Iraqi population held at Abu Ghraib. But the newspaper quotes critics who say the memo may have sent signals that abuses would be tolerated.
The memo, which was later withdrawn, authorized harsh interrogation techniques by the military. It “is the most fully developed legal justification that has yet come to light for inflicting physical and mental pressure on suspects,” the Times says. The document argued that the president had authority as commander-in-chief to override treaties and laws against torture.
One of the critics is Scott Silliman, head of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University. “The memo helped to build a culture that, in the absence of leadership from the highest ranks of the Pentagon, allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere,” he told the Times.
The memo’s author, John Yoo, rejects that theory, saying there is “no reliable evidence to support it.”
“While each case of abuse is regrettable,” he wrote to the Times, “it is not possible for a large organization charged with protecting the national security, under extraordinary pressure, to perform its mission error-free.”
In his CourtWatch column, CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen criticizes the memo but gives a nod to Yoo’s “Wonderland” writing prowess. Yoo was able to disassemble the definition of torture and reassemble it so that “the laws against torture didn’t outlaw torture,” Cohen wrote.
Updated at 10:10 a.m. to add information about the CourtWatch column.
