{"id":1053,"date":"2004-06-14T14:37:53","date_gmt":"2004-06-14T21:37:53","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-06-14T14:37:53","modified_gmt":"2004-06-14T21:37:53","slug":"froomkin-on-the-torture-memo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2004\/06\/14\/froomkin-on-the-torture-memo\/","title":{"rendered":"Froomkin on the torture memo"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael Froomkin parses the OLC’s Aug. 1, 2002 Torture Memo (“the Bybee Memo”.) <\/a> This is a very helpful post to read especially if you’re becoming confused by the sheer number of various torture memo leaks bombarding us daily.<\/p>\n

After explaining what the OLC is ( Justice Department\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel) and sketching the relationships between the various legal offices and lawyers in the FedGov, Froomkin sets up his argument:<\/p>\n

The memo is about what limits on the use of force (\u201cstandards of permissible conduct\u201d) for interrogations conducted \u201cabroad\u201d are found in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment<\/a> ( Torture Convention) \u201cas implemented\u201d by 18 USC \u00a7\u00a7 2340-2340A<\/a> (the Torture statute).<\/p>\n

The memo concludes that the restrictions are very limited \u2014 that only acts inflicting and \u201cspecifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering\u201d, whether mental or physical, are prohibited. Allowed are severe mental pain not intended to have lasting effects (pity if they do\u2026), and physical pain less than that which acompanies \u201cserious physical injury such as death or organ failure\u201d (p. 46). Having opined that some cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts are not forbidden, only those that are \u201cextreme acts\u201d (committed on purpose), the memo moves on to \u201cexamine defenses\u201d that could be asserted to \u201cnegate any claims that certain interrogation methods violate the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n