Share

Gonzales's Advice to Bush on How to Avoid War Crimes

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
President George W. Bush with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (Photo: Christopher Morris / TIME)

    On January 25, 2002, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised George W. Bush in a memo to deny al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners protections under the Geneva Conventions because doing so would "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" and "provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

    Two weeks later, Bush signed an action memorandum dated February 7, 2002, addressed to Vice President Dick Cheney, which denied baseline protections to al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners under the Third Geneva Convention. That memo, according to a recently released bipartisan report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee, opened the door to "considering aggressive techniques," which were then developed with the complicity of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and other senior Bush officials.

    "The President's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees," says the committee's December 11 report.

    "While the President's order stated that, as 'a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions,' the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in US custody."

    The Supreme Court held in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the prisoners were entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.

    Many of the classified policy directives, such as Gonzales's memo to Bush, are now part of the public record thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Bush administration, which has so far resulted in the release of more than 100,000 pages of documents that shows how Bush officials twisted the law in order to build a legal framework for torture.

    These documents have been posted on the ACLU's web site. But several hundred of the most explosive records were republished in the book "Administration of Torture" along with hard-hitting commentary by the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer, who heads the group's National Security Project, and Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the organization.

    Rumsfeld Wanted a "Product"

    On February 14, 2002, just one week after Bush signed the action memo, Maj. Gen. Mike Dunlavey was contacted by Rumsfeld, who asked him to attend a Defense Department meeting with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others on February 21 or 22. At the meeting, Rumsfeld told Dunlavey he wanted him to oversee interrogations at the Guantanamo Bay naval facility in Cuba. Prisoners captured by US military personnel had first arrived at Guantanamo a month earlier. Dunlavey was a family court judge in Erie County, Pennsylvania, when he got the call from Rumsfeld and was placed in charge of interrogations at Guantanamo.

    Rumsfeld told Dunlavey, according to a witness statement he made on March 17, 2005, to US Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt, who was investigating FBI complaints about abuse at Guantanamo, that the Department of Defense had rounded up "a number of bad guys" and the secretary of defense "wanted a product and wanted intelligence now."

    Rumsfeld "wanted to set up interrogation operations and to identify the senior Taliban and senior operatives and to obtain information on what they were going to do regarding their operations and structure," Dunlavey said, according to a copy of his witness statement. "Initially, I was told that I would answer to SECDEF (Secretary of Defense) and [US Southern Command]. The directions changed and I got my marching orders from the President of the United States. I was told by the SECDEF that he wanted me back in Washington, DC every week to brief him.... The mission was to get intelligence to prevent another 9/11."

    Dunlavey did not explain what he meant by "I got my marching orders from the president." But his comments suggest that Bush may have played a much larger role in the interrogation of prisoners than he has let on. Moreover, Dunlavey's witness statement indicates that harsh interrogations, such as waterboarding, may have taken place earlier than previously known and may have preceded an August 1, 2002, legal opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel authorizing specific interrogation techniques to use against prisoners.

    As early as December 2001, according to the documents obtained by the ACLU, high-ranking military officials began to implement an Army and Air Force survival-training program called Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which were meant to prepare US soldiers for abuse they might suffer if captured by an outlaw regime.

    In June 2004, Gen. James Hill of Southern Command, the Defense Department's command unit responsible for military operations in Central and South America and the Caribbean, held a press briefing and confirmed that interrogation techniques specifically authorized by Rumsfeld for use at Guantanamo were derived from the SERE school. In October 2002, Dunlavey wrote to Hill to seek authorization that interrogators be granted the authority to use methods that strayed from the Army Field Manual in order to extract information from prisoners.

    Dunlavey, in making his case to Hill for authority to use more aggressive techniques, attached a copy of Bush's then classified February 7, 2002, action memo along with an analysis that said, "since the detainees are not [Enemy Prisoners of War] the Geneva Conventions limitations that ordinarily would govern captured enemy personnel interrogations are not binding on US personnel."

    Hill sent Dunlavey's request to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Myers discussed it with William Haynes II, the Defense Department's general counsel, who briefed Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith. The request ultimately ended up on Rumsfeld's desk and he approved it, according to the documents.

    "The documents establish that senior officials in Washington, including White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, constructed a legal framework that would permit the abuse and torture of prisoners," the ACLU's Jaffer and Singh wrote in "Administration of Torture." "They establish that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, relying on this legal framework, expressly authorized the use of interrogation methods - including SERE methods - that went far beyond those endorsed by the Army Field Manual. They establish that Rumsfeld and Gen. Geoffrey Miller oversaw the implementation of the newly authorized interrogation methods and closely supervised the interrogation of prisoners thought to be especially valuable."

    FBI Objects

    In early December 2002, FBI officials who had participated in some interrogations at Guantanamo complained to Miller that the methods used against prisoners at Guantanamo were unlawful. But Miller was not receptive. That led FBI officials to conclude that senior Bush administration officials and Rumsfeld were making decisions about interrogations in particular.

    A December 16, 2002, email written by an FBI official expressed frustration that the Defense Department refused to budge from its controversial interrogation methods.

    "Looks like we are stuck in the mud with the interview approach of the military vs. law enforcement," the email said.

    In May 2004, Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he briefed Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Stephen Cambone about his plan to "Gitmo-ize" the Abu Ghraib prison.

    That month, an email written by a senior FBI agent in Iraq in 2004 specifically stated that President George W. Bush had signed an executive order approving the use of military dogs, sleep deprivation, and other tactics to intimidate Iraqi detainees.

    The FBI email, dated May 22, 2004, followed disclosures about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and sought guidance on whether FBI agents in Iraq were obligated to report the US military's harsh interrogation of inmates when that treatment violated FBI standards, but fit within the guidelines of a presidential executive order.

    According to the email, Bush's executive order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, "stress positions," sleep "management," loud music and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." to extract information from detainees in Iraq.

    The May 2004, FBI email stated that the FBI interrogation team in Iraq understood that despite revisions in the executive order that occurred after the furor over the Abu Ghraib abuses, the presidential sanctioning of harsh interrogation tactics had not been rescinded.

    "I have been told that all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive Order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted," the author of the FBI email said.

    "We have also instructed our personnel not to participate in interrogations by military personnel which might include techniques authorized by Executive Order but beyond the bounds of FBI practices."

    The White House had emphatically denied that any such presidential executive order existed, calling the unnamed FBI official who wrote the email "mistaken." Prior to the May 22, 2004, email several others written by FBI agents that month were sent to Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, about detainees being tortured before the unnamed agent sent Caproni the email citing Bush's alleged executive order.

    On July 9, 2004, the FBI's Office of Inspections distributed an email asking its agents who were stationed at Guantanamo whether they had witnessed, "Aggressive treatment, interrogations or interview techniques ... which were not consistent with FBI interview policy/guidelines."

    More than two-dozen agents responded that they observed numerous instances of detainee abuse. One FBI agent wrote that, despite Rumsfeld's public statements to the contrary, the interrogation methods "were approved at high levels w/in DoD." In addition to Rumsfeld, the FBI emails said Paul Wolfowitz, one Bush administration official who has largely escaped scrutiny in the torture debate, approved the methods at Guantanamo.

    In 2006, Miller received a Distinguished Service Medal for "exceptionally meritorious service." Dunlavey is an Erie County judge.

  

»


Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

It is high time to call a

It is high time to call a spade a spade and bring criminal charges against Bush & Co. What is the benefit? No other president will dare to become dictator and usurp our constitutional rights. WE, THE PEOPLE, should not let this opportunity go away for our descendants.

I am confused. The U.S.

I am confused. The U.S. signed the treaty, right? That means Geneva conventions are our law. The President doesn't have the power to just choose not to obey it, right? Am I missing something critical here? This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Anyway, as always thanks for the solid reporting. I will make sure everyone I know has access to this story.

America knows what happened.

America knows what happened. The problem is - President Obama will not let his USDOJ prosecute. There are a number of issues whistle-blowers have been pursuing after being blocked by the Bush USDOJ for eight years. The Holder USDOJ opened an investigation into the suspected murder of a FL IG Investigator named Ray Lemme and then suddenly, without any explanation, closed the investigation. Public record requests, telephone calls and emails have gone unanswered. President Obama has put the Bush admin "above the law." We can't get all this evidence to a grand jury because the USDOJ refuses to initiate a criminal investigation. The issue isn't whether America tortured - we all know the truth. The issue is - why has President Obama put the Bush admin above the law. In 2006, 81% of Americans polled wanted Bush/Cheney impeached. The 2006 elections resulted in millions of Republicans and Independents voting Democrats into office. Pelosi and Reed then refused to talk about impeachment. Our votes meant ... nothing. Americans need to wake up and hold their elected officials accountable. If you find that they are not representing the majority will of their constituents, then impeachment is the answer.

Those top-level low-life's

Those top-level low-life's tried to pin it all on a few "rogue enlistees". Whatever punishment was meted out to the scapegoats applies in exponential spades to the Bush administration. They even tried to make it look as if the whole idea of enhanced interrogation came from the rank and file instead of the other way around. What vile people. God and man must demand justice.

As it turns out, the advice

As it turns out, the advice Gonzales gave to Bush was unnecessary. We now have a President who is a constitutional scholar, who said clearly that he would follow the evidence. v Since it is now clear that both the Geneva convention and our own Constitution were violated by the Bush administration, Obama's refusal to pursue these matters is a violation of his promises and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution. This is impeachable.

Obama will not bring

Obama will not bring charges. He's reserved the right to torture. He continues rendition so that others can torture for us. He CAN'T bring charges against Bush or he'll be liable for the same charges himself.

Yes, Roxanne, you are

Yes, Roxanne, you are missing something critical here. What is that? A President who is willing to abide by law even if he doesn't agree with it. Too often a president is misled by advisors into promoting activities which should be illegal under our law. Our modern problems stem in part from the well-meaning but naive Harry Truman creating our national security state apparatus, since released to wreak havoc all over the world. One has to ask what predations upon our legal honor Obama will be discovered to have done. We already know what Republican presidents have done, for they have been covered fairly accurately and openly. Anonymous just above me has the right conclusion and for the right reasons. Bush established a precedent which must be countered. Obama is demonstrating that he is not the man to do so. It will take We, the People. Are you ready? It's only your country, after all. The freedoms you lose won't be just yours.

The whole lot of the Bush

The whole lot of the Bush "Administration" sure seems guilty of all sorts of illegal actions and this sure seems consistent -- WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT IN JAIL??? Why does Obama say one thing and do another? Is this not a country of LAWS? Where are the Special Prosecutor? Why is no one being held accountable for these actions when the paper trail is so obvious. They ALL conspired to break US and International Laws. Or, did I miss something? Does absolute power corrupt absolutely and that is okay?

US Army Field Manual 27-10,

US Army Field Manual 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, para 501 says in effect, A commander civilian or military, can be charged with war crimes if 1] He [It's always a he.] orders the commission of a war crime, 2] He knows or should have known a war crime will be committed and fails to stop it, 3] He knows or should have known a war crime has happened and fails to prosecute. Unquestionably, Bush/Cheney is guilty of all three and Obama is guilty of 3, arguably 1 & 2.

20:17 are you kidding?

20:17 are you kidding? Impeachable? After Bush? It looks like the whole of America is impeachable, and well on it's way. Thank you Truman and all of the republicans who jumped the band wagon. And of course the corporations who they sold us out to. Corporate Democrats are a new phenomenon. Lobbyism has to go!

TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME.

TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME. ANYONE DOING IT, AUTHORIZING IT OR REFUSING TO PROSECUTE IT IS A WAR CRIMINAL.

Where is the Israeli Lobby

Where is the Israeli Lobby when we really need it? Remember all the calls that led to the Nurenberg trials and the sense of righteous indignation and outrage when the world learned of the atrocities in the concentration camps. Where is that same indignation and outrage now? To the trials with Gonzales, Rice, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the lot of them. AQnd get some spine, Mr.Obama! Do it now!!!

Our democracy offers us only

Our democracy offers us only candidates that will not change the Status Quo in any significant manner. The candidates who would have actually changed things were completely discredited by the MSM. Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Ron Paul would have changed things. Either one would have been better than the "change" we got given to us. And we wonder if Iran will be free.

The sad thing is that not

The sad thing is that not only were clear war crimes committed but that they were done so incompetently. The techniques borrowed from the SERE program and used by North Koreans were designed to obtain false confessions for propaganda purposes. This is quite a different thing compared to the goal of preventing another 9/11. Cheney continues to claim that good information was obtained. I for one would like to know the details because I simply don't believe it.

HORRIFYING. The scale of

HORRIFYING. The scale of the crimes of the Bush Administration are difficult to conceive, but they are horrifying. Understanding War Crimes means being able to feature the worst of crimes. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution obligates us to enforce international law as a federal law. In other words, international law is federal law. According to the Convention against Torture, the death penalty is applicable when government policies result in the death of an inmate as a result of torture. It is even more shocking to understand that 60 members of the Senate voted to seat Gonzales knowing this full well. Citizenship means that individuals act to insure justice in Rule of Law from our "Representatives". Absent that, Authority will do anything they please with wealth and power being the only necessity for criminal license.

We need to take a lesson

We need to take a lesson from the Iranians, or maybe the Somalis. Bush, nor any other president, has the legal authority to unilaterally abrogate a treaty to which the US is party; thus, his "suspension" or "negation" of the Geneva Conventions, or any so-called legal opinion supporting it, are null and void per se. The nasty bastards, civilian and military alike, who participated in this travesty are war criminals, and deserve to be prosecuted as such. That includes any and all field grade officers of the military, along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Cambone, et al, right down to the lowliest grunt. It also includes Mueller, Director of the FBI, who was informed of what was going on and took no steps to stop it. Woe be unto anyone who comes before "Judge" Dunlavey, if she/he expects justice and/or equity. As another poster has mentioned, where are the public outcries and outrages of all the Jewish organizations that are so "devoted" to prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators and hangers-on, down to the last concentration camp janitor? Where's Saint Elie Weisel? Oh...I forgot. THESE victims are Muslims and Arabs, so for that contingent, these victims don't matter. What an absolute charade.

Obama's refusal to prosecute

Obama's refusal to prosecute the Bush regime's war crimes is not the only example of his disdain for the law. Obama's handling of the banks is another example. William K Black, in an interview with Bill Moyers says that Obama and Geithner (and Paulson before Geithner) had a legal responsibility to place insolvent banks in receivership under the Prompt Corrective Action law passed in the wake of the Savings and Loan catastrophe of the 1980s. Instead, they have been giving trillions of dollars to the very bankers who caused most of the current economic crisis, who have proven themselves unworthy of being trusted with anyone's money. The old saying is still true: "If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."

I have not seen a single

I have not seen a single defense of Bush and the last administration. It is obvious that the law of the land does not appear to cover scoundrels in high places. This has to change. Toture is not the only issue. Starting unnecessary wars is another. The list of criminal behavior of the Bush administration is long.

Priorities need to be taken

Priorities need to be taken into account. Obama must past health care reform or the whole economy goes into a tailspin. Obama must pass an energy bill with major reductions in carbon dioxide or the planet overheats and all kinds of unimaginably bad things happen. Given the consequences of not doing health care reform and energy reform immediately, criminal charges against the Bush team will have to wait.

no president or congress is

no president or congress is going to open the bucket of worms that the cheneybush admin opened because they ALL have their own little can of bile and blood under extreme pressure that can explode in their faces at any moment

It starts with tortured

It starts with tortured logic:"Dunlavey, in making his case to Hill for authority to use more aggressive techniques, attached a copy of Bush's then classified February 7, 2002, action memo along with an analysis that said, "since the detainees are not [Enemy Prisoners of War] the Geneva Conventions limitations that ordinarily would govern captured enemy personnel interrogations are not binding on US personnel." This same argument can be applied to U.S.troops in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, since in no case did Congress debate and formally declare war, they too lack Geneva protection. Thus, actions universally condemned as barbarities when inflicted on Americans (Chinese "water torture",use of cattle prods,sensory deprivation and the like) are now sanctioned at the highest level against others. In effect, there is no such thing as "Geneva Conventions"- truth in advertising should require the D.O.D., in its manifold TV advertising to state "If captured, expect to be tortured."