How To Write An Effective Torture Memo
Andrew Cohen: After Years Of Legal Wrangling, An Infamous Document Is Finally Made Public
-
Photo
An U.S. soldier walks between cells containing Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, in this May 17, 2004 photo. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Protesting 5 Years Of War
Demonstrations mark the fifth anniversary of U.S. invasion of Iraq.
-
Interactive
Abuse At Abu Ghraib
Investigation timeline, the chain of command, POW rules, global mistreatment of prisoners and video reports.
One of the arts of fine lawyering is the art of making the ugly beautiful, the lame fleet, and the guilty determined innocent. By this measure, and perhaps this measure alone, John Yoo, the now-disgraced former architect of the Bush Administration’s terror law policies, is a masterful attorney.
Yoo’s March 14, 2003 “torture” memo-more formally known as In Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States-was made public late Tuesday after years of wrangling. The 81-page document was one of the legal bedrocks upon which the United States justified the torture of terror suspects. In effect for nearly nine crucial months at the start of the War in Iraq, Yoo’s work helped begat one of the great public relations disasters in American diplomatic history-the intensely chronicled prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
The brilliance of the document-and of Yoo’s authorship of it-is that it enabled the Administration to hold a duck in its hand and sell it to the rest of the government (at least temporarily) as a swan. The old saw goes: when an attorney has bad facts, he argues the law; when he has bad law, he argues the facts. Yoo had bad law but two really “good” facts to offer: 1) the United States had been attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001; 2) the attack had made the nation’s legal and political establishment willing (as it always is in times of war) to bend over backward in deference to a sitting president.
Yoo’s patrons demanded a legal justification for using “aggressive” or “enhanced” interrogation techniques (as they are even now euphemistically described) on terror suspects. The White House, and no doubt Yoo himself, knew that few pointed questions would be asked about his analysis and conclusions. Still, for the sake of history, something had to be put down on paper; something that would satisfy, at least temporarily, a straight-face credibility test. First, in 2002, Jay Bybee wrote a torture memo. Then, less than one year later, Yoo wrote his. The man and the moment and the dirty job had met.
The settled law-and not just the nooks and crannies of it-- was very much against allowing the sorts of “enhanced” interrogation practices that Yoo was proposing. He knew that. And he knew ultimately that other bright lawyers and judges would know that, too. So Yoo, methodically and with a great sense of the power of legalese, disassembled the definition of torture and then reassembled it to suit his goals. The memo is a legal Wonderland; analytical brick by brick Yoo created a rationale for expanding U.S. policy beyond where it had been before until black was white, up was down, and the laws against torture didn’t outlaw torture.
[John] Yoo, methodically and with a great sense of the power of legalese, disassembled the definition of torture and then reassembled it to suit his goals.
Yoo’s starts us all on this ill-fated journey with a series of vital-but cleverly hedged-conclusions on Page 4 of the memo. “Because of the asymmetric nature of terrorist operations,” he wrote, information is perhaps the most critical weapon for defeating al Qaeda….. obtaining advance information about the identity of al Qaeda operatives and their plans may prove to be the only way to prevent direct attacks on the United States… Interrogation of captured al Qaeda operatives could provide that information… it is reasonable to believe that information gained from al Qaeda personnel could prevent attacks….” (Note: Author's emphasis).
This speculation morphed, on page 18 of the memo, into the following declaration: “… the conduct at issue here- interrogations- is a core element of the military’s ability to prosecute a war.” Then, having declared that the President possessed “complete authority over the conduct of war,” Yoo’s succeeded in vitiating Congress’ role in the affair. “… In the absence of a clear statement from Congress otherwise,” Yoo wrote, “we will not read a criminal statute as infringing on the President’s ultimate authority in these areas.”
Through this passage, Yoo was conveniently concluding that the federal law banning torture did not apply to the White House unless the White House decided that it would. Nice work if you can get it, right? To be able to unilaterally determine which laws apply to you and which don’t? This is a theme throughout the memo. So is Yoo’s penchant for citing prior internal executive branch memos to help him support his own arguments. This may be standard practice within the corridors of power but it is akin to a lawyer citing his own brief as controlling precedent in a case that is before the court.
But it was on the substance of the torture statute that Yoo really shone. First, he made the case for why only the most extreme forms of torture were banned-a conclusion which probably would have shocked most of the legislators who decades ago voted for the law. Then he offered his client a virtual “how to” guide to torture, and to the administration of “mind-altering substances,” explaining in detail how a potential “defendant” (i.e. the person committing the interrogation) could avoid prosecution by establishing “good faith” in advance of the torture session.
Only rarely did Yoo show any measure of doubt about the great legal leap he knew he was taking in justifying extreme interrogation methods. These people, remember, will not be known to history for their penchant for self-criticism or reflection.
And in the end, of course, the policy behind Yoo’s masterwork was as flawed as his implementation of it was deft. The mechanics were there. The soul and the conscience were not.
For these reasons, and others, Yoo should never again play any role in government. But his memo has otherwise convinced me of his skills of persuasion. He can be my attorney any day and I promise to call him if I ever want to challenge a parking ticket in court.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



From 1933 to 1945, an entire nation believed this trash, and there are still some in Germany who still believe it!!!
Now we have the same sort of trash being "shoveled" HERE, in a supposed DEMOCRACY, by a party that claims Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt as its heroes! If alive today, I would think both Lincoln and Roosevelt would spit on the neocon GOP and become Democrats!!!!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, (more of the same) McCain???
From 1933 to 1945, an entire nation believed this trash, and there are still some in Germany who still believe it!!!
Now we have the same sort of trash being "shoveled" HERE, in a supposed DEMOCRACY, by a party that claims Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt as its heroes! If alive today, I would think both Lincoln and Roosevelt would spit on the neocon GOP and become Democrats!!!!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, (more of the same) McCain???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by walt1944 at 12:54 PM : Apr 02, 2008
Nicely put.....however the current administration is not worth the spit of Lincoln, Roosevelt or anyone else for that matter.
...and Bu$h argued that America was attacked by Saudis, rather than NeoCons.
Masterful liars are their own heros.
Yoo%u2019s work would have been brilliant in another war.
The United States would have been proud to have had him draft
a document outlining the reasons for detaining ******, and *** in camps during that war.
Yoo would have been a genius in encamping all slant eyes for decades,
helll he could have had them tortured to tell all
unfortunately he had this wimpy little war and only a few
men to encamp and torture at will.
Better luck in the future Yoo.
Keep him "Beuklee" (Yoo''s pronunciation of Berkeley).
hahahahah And Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards along with the rest of the Libs that voted helped to give him that authority.....hehehehehehehe
No wonder the Libs dont want an Impeachment Trial....... heheheheheheheh
Posted by hillaryin012 at 04:02 PM
And this is funny to you?
John Yoo is evil. Bush is evil. Cheney is evil.
For the Hell they have unleased on earth, their reward will be more of the same, and even worse.
The law is rife with sociopaths using the legal system to circumvent and screw our legal system. The mere fact that no one has stated openly that torture actually reveals real deep intelligence. We only hear that the tortured tell the torturer what they think we want to hear.
Nothing replaces good old hard police work. We have met the enemy and it is us.
There is no evidence that US torture saved a single American life, in fact, the object of torture is not to extract truthful information, it is to make the victim say whatever the torturer wants to hear.
That is the reason that "they", whomever "they" are in your assumption, simply cut off heads, being a bit smarter, they realize that torture is pointless.
A note to the author of the article;
"Yoo%u2019s work helped begat..." in your context, the word should be "beget", Yoo''s action either "begat" (a direct causal correlation in past tense), or helped to beget ("helped" being the past tense verb).
English is much more understandable when used correctly.
Contact your alumni association or director of planned giving and tell them you will not send UC a dime until John Yoo is removed from the UC Boalt Law School faculty.
There is no reason to support a university that gives money and credibility to a cockroach like Yoo.
And it cannot be an academic freedom issue because Yoo is ANTI-FREEDOM!
Amazing, this man can shred the laws of America,
but ask if he is Chineeze and the post gets deleted.
Wow!
Keep him Beuklee.
Still a big black eye for that univesiteee.
Posted by infe5 at 12:01 PM : Apr 03, 2008"
Your argument is sophomoric. You have never been waterboarded and trying to naively equate it with " a little water down the wrong pipe" is ignorant at the least.
Regardless of your inaccurate and juvenile understanding of waterboarding, torture is very specifically described in the Geneva Convention and any signatory, which the US is, who uses ANY form of torture under ANY circumstance is liable for punishment under international law.
You may stupidly think that waterboarding is just a "little water down the wrong pipe", but Bush and his entire staff for advocating and using it have committed war crimes. This is simply a fact.
Posted by infe5 at 12:01 PM : Apr 03, 2008"
I don''t recall when I was in service where we were told we could disregard the Geneva convention.
Stop twisting my words. I never said waterboarding was a little water down the wrong pipe. I said a little water down the wrong pipe while swimming produces the exact same involuntary response as waterboarding. This is absolute fact. My argument comparing CS gas expsosure as a requirement for military recruits (you served, so you no doubt experienced that same as me) is relevant as well. CS gas exposure results in a similar but much harsher involuntary response than waterboarding, yet we do not claim this is torture. I have reproduced the circumstances of waterboarding and experienced it for myself (albeit not for repeated occurances as happen under interrogation). It was exactly as I described. You should try it yourself. Hell, frat boys waterboard each other for ENTERTAINMENT! There are plenty of videos available that show this. Get off your partisan high-horse and use some common sense.
I should also add the following: I specifically said if a court rules that laws were broken by the US, those responsible should be punished. Plain and simple. All your counterpoints do not even address my post. Improve your reading comprehension.
That is a blatant lie. Why do you think this is even an issue? It is BECAUSE the Geneva Convention provides no specifics on what constitutes torture. You are ill-informed and allow partisan ideals to blind you to debate. A common problem on these boards.
WHEN THE CS GAS WAS USED IT WAS LITTLE AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT AND RINSE OFF OUR FACES PRIOR TO SEVER RESIDUE PAIN.
I am sorry Kansas 1946 we will never in your and my life time recover from the dismal history he has laid down for the young and innocent as well as the military women and men who he lied too and they supported his savage murder of them, the innocent Iraq men, women, and children I pray GOD HAS A SPECIAL SEAT IN HELL FOR HIM TO BURN IN where there will be no water to run his tougue through or over his bunring head.
As for the damage he and the attorney cover up for about 18 months is more than a disgrace and if there is a GOD in heaven he will pay and I believe in God.
Frank Bowers
-
by Rivera1001
April 22, 2009 9:20 AM PDT
- Moral arguments aside, the problem with enhanced interrogation techniques is that they produce unreliable information that wastes valuable time. Those subjected to these techniques often confess to whatever accusations are leveled against them and even fabricate information to end the pain. This bad info then has to be investigated. And, as we saw in Iraq, people accuse those who have done nothing in order to seek revenge for personal reasons, resulting in the abuse of people who have no information. This method of gathering intelligence is haphazard, inefficient, and requires subjective guessing on the part of interrogators. There are technologies available that require no pain be inflicted and that are much more reliable. EEGs used in conjunction with fMRI scans can reliably detect whether someone is lying. Adding safe drugs that inhibit the urge to deceive is a vastly more effective and humane tool for gathering timely intelligence.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 30 Comments