{"id":1031,"date":"2004-06-09T15:49:17","date_gmt":"2004-06-09T22:49:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-06-09T15:49:17","modified_gmt":"2004-06-09T22:49:17","slug":"wsj-posts-dod-torture-memo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2004\/06\/09\/wsj-posts-dod-torture-memo\/","title":{"rendered":"WSJ posts DoD torture memo"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Wall Street Journal has just uploaded the 2003 torture memo.<\/a><\/p>\n

Beware, it’s a PDF file. <\/p>\n

April 2003 Defense Department memo
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Link via Phil Carter.<\/em><\/a> <\/p>\n

UPDATE: The WSJ posting of the DoD memo has of course been censored. A poster at Billmon’s Whiskey bar has counted up the missing pages. This post is in the comments of this thread,<\/a> by poster Jackmormon at June 9, 2004 11:43 AM<\/p>\n

Censored Torture [M]emo<\/b><\/p>\n

Missing pages 1-3, and of course, most importantly, the table of contents.<\/p>\n

Page 4 of document, blacking-out of footnotes 2 and 3, explaining points made in-text about how the Geneva and Hague conventions do not apply to Al Qaida and Taliban combatants.<\/p>\n

Page 25 of document, blank space in middle of argument about the defense strategy of pleading necessity. The context of the missing paragraph are exceptions and limitations to and special qualities of the necessity defense. The argument skips over the blank spot from weighing the relative harm of the threat and the defense to the exemption to the necessity defense represented by specific Congressional \u201cdetermination of values.\u201d<\/p>\n

Missing pages 29-30. Bottom of page 28 is wrapping up some arguments about the self-defense defense. The last paragraph of page 28 is addressing the idea of proportional response. The top of page 31 has a few stray paragraphs before a new section about the declaration of war (or rather \u201cauthorization of force against\u201d) Al Qaida, and introduces the idea that the nation\u2019s right to self-defense could be used as a defending argument for an individual agent of the government accused of \u201charming an enemy combatant during an interrogation.\u201d The missing pages presumably follow the steps of this argument, perhaps with information about executive directives.<\/p>\n

Missing page 34. Bottom of 33 has the argument still in the section of defense arguments dealing with the \u201csuperior orders\u201d defense. The last paragraph before the break closes with: \u201cIn sum, the defense of superior orders will generally be available for U.S. Armed Forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.\u201d Top of 35 has a cryptic partial paragraph before a major section break, concluding with: \u201cIt thus appears that the TVPA does not apply to the conduct of U.S. agents acting under the color of law.\u201d TVPA is probably the Torture Victims Protection Act, rather than the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Here the missing page would seem to address questions of financial reimbursement for torture victims.<\/p>\n

Missing page 41. Bottom of 40 starts with the applicability of constitutional law as regards the fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to GTMO prisoners, suggesting that \u201ceven if a Court were mistakenly to find that unlawful combatants at GTMO did have constitutional rights, it is unlikely that due process would impose any standards beyond those required by the eighth amendment.\u201d The top of 42 starts a new paragraph with: \u201cOn the other hand, some conduct is so egregious that there is no justification.\u201d<\/p>\n

Page 46 of document, blank space in section dealing with questions of jurisdiction, and the specific applicability of military law to crimes committed in a combat situation. Last paragraph before censorship began to address problem of \u201cwar crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Missing page 48. Bottom of 47 starts with the Military Code\u2019s definitions of assault, and the top of 49 starts with \u201cstatutes and treaties that have become the law of the land may create duties for the purposes of this article\u201d and continues to discuss the Military Code\u2019s definitions of maiming.<\/p>\n

Page 53 of document is almost entirely blank, with only the section heading \u201cLegal doctrines could render specific doctrine, otherwise criminal, not unlawful. See discussion of Commander-in-Chief Authority, supra.\u201d The section referred to is the one that made the headlines, the one with the passage that reads \u201cIn light of the President\u2019s complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not to be read as infringing on the President\u2019s ultimate authority in these areas.\u201d It sounds like this elided paragraph referred to Presidential directives either issued or recommended<\/p>\n

And of course the memo breaks off entirely at the beginning of the section on \u201cPresidential and Secretary of Defense Directives.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Wall Street Journal has just uploaded the 2003 torture memo. Beware, it’s a PDF file. April 2003 Defense Department memo Link via Phil Carter. UPDATE: The WSJ posting of the DoD memo has of course been censored. A poster at Billmon’s Whiskey bar has counted up the missing pages. This post is in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-1031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1031"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}