Are there any circumstances under which you believe the President of the United States could legally authorize torture? Alberto Gonzales approved a
now-infamous memo which contended the president "wasn't bound by laws
prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture
prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice
Department." Despite the fact that the United States ratified the
United Nations Convention Against Torture - which states "no
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" - the memo
stated the president had the authority "to approve almost any physical
or psychological action during interrogation, up to and including
torture." Once the memo was made public, Gonzales backtracked, saying
the memo contained "unnecessary, over-broad discussions" about
"abstract legal theories." He also said the policy was "under review,
and may be replaced, if appropriate, with more concrete guidance
addressing only those issues necessary for the legal analysis of actual
practices." The Justice Department recently released a new memo
redefining the U.S. stance on torture. The new policy, however, does
not address the question of whether the president is entitled to
disregard laws and treaties. Sources:Torture memo | UN Convention Against Torture | Abstract legal theory | New policy silent on presidential powers
Has
your position on the Geneva Conventions changed since evidence of
widespread detainee abuse at U.S. prisons was uncovered? If not, which
provisions of the Geneva Conventions do you still consider "quaint" or
"obsolete"? The Geneva Conventions of 1949,
signed and ratified by the United States, are the primary instruments
of humanitarian law used to protect those involved in international
armed conflicts. A January 25, 2002 memorandum issued by Alberto
Gonzales claims the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict
limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some
of its provisions." The memo pushes to make al Qaeda and Taliban
detainees exempt from the Geneva Conventions' provisions on the proper,
legal treatment of prisoners. The memo also expresses concern, however,
that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions "could undermine U.S.
military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of
conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the
status of adversaries." The evidence of detainee abuse in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere have borne these concerns out. Sources: Text of January 25, 2002 memorandum | Newsweek piece on the significance of the memo | FBI
agent justified relied on high-level administration documents to
justify interrogation methods 'beyond the bounds of standard FBI
practice.'
In your view, what limits did
the September 14 joint resolution passed by Congress place on which
countries the president could invade? On September 14, Congress
passed a joint resolution authorizing President Bush to respond to the
9/11 terrorist attacks, but narrowing the scope of the authority to
only countries specifically connected to the attacks. On September 25,
just 11 days later, the Justice Department sent a memo to Alberto
Gonzales which "essentially argued that what Congress authorized didn't
matter." The memo argued there were "no limits" on Bush's powers to
respond to the attacks and, in the first known statement of Bush's
pre-emptive doctrine, the memo "startlingly" argued Bush could deploy
military force preemptively against any country he suspected of
harboring terrorists "whether or not they can be linked to the specific
terror incidents of Sept. 11." It also said his decisions were "for him
alone and are unreviewable." Gonzales's response to the memo is unknown. Source:Secret memo justifying the invasion of Iraq
Do you still believe that the
president can order the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, without
judicial scrutiny, now that the Supreme Court has rejected that
position? The Supreme Court ruled last June
that citizens and non-citizens detained by the government -- even those
deemed "enemy combatants" by the Bush administration -- have the right
to challenge their detention in front of a neutral arbiter. The court
sharply rejected President Bush's position that, as commander-in-chief
during a time of war, he has the unilateral power to detain individuals
indefinitely without due process of law. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner
wrote: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president." The
Supreme Court's decisions were a rejection of the Bush administration's
legal justifications for the harsh treatment of prisoners. In an 8/1/02
memo written for Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration argued that
the president had the authority, pursuant to his commander-in-chief
power, to authorize torture and other harsh interrogation tactics for
the purpose of extracting information from detainees. Justice John Paul
Stevens traced the rationale for his decision in the Guantanamo case
all the way back to King John's promise in the Magna Carta of 1215
that, "no free man should be imprisoned...save by the judgment of his
peers or by the law of the land." The analysis "traced the limits on
executive power through English common law, on through the Federalist
Papers and down a long line of precedents forged in some of the darkest
hours of the nation, including the Civil War and World War II." Sources:SC decision | 8/1/02 Memo | Washington Post analysis
[more] Questions from the Center for American Progress. Isn't there someone else besides a torture apologist available to lead the Justice Department? - BW
