President May Have Double Standard When it Comes to Torture and Terror

In 2004, when the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent,” the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.^[1] However, unbeknownst to the general public and soon after Alberto Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general, the Justice Department issued another opinion.^[2] This new secret document was a very different, very expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.^[3]

The new opinion for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and freezing temperatures.^[4]

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after clashes with the White House.^[5] Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning; Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.^[6]

Last week when the New York Times reported on the Bush approved a secret memo authorizing harsh interrogation techniques despite signing a torture ban, many Democrats reacted with outrage.^[7] Much of the outrage was focused overt hypocrisy of Bush's signing a law against torture while asserting secret powers to approve it.^[8]

Since the propostition’s main opponent James Comey is gone, it seems as though there will be little change, “on national security matters generally, there was a sense that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,” said one Justice Department official.^[9]

In his defense Comey asserted that “[the public] are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die, [but government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.]…It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most, It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country,” Mr. Comey said.^[10]

President Bush volunteered an unapologetic defense Friday of his apparent double standard, saying they are lawful, helpful and won't stop.^[11] Bush said: "The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack. And that's exactly what this government is doing. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do."^[12] The White House regards it as one of its most successful tools in the war on terror. They say it has been consistent with U.S. and international law all along.^[13]

For decades, the United States had two paths for questioning suspects: the U.S. justice system and the military's Army Field Manual.^[14] But after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Washington quietly created the CIA's terror interrogation program, and it has become one of the administration's most sensitive and debated activities.^[15]

---

^[1] Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen, Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations, New York Times, October 4, 2007, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?hp (last visited October 9, 2007).
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] Id.
^[7] Peter S. Canellos, Terrorism, torture, and shared hypocrisy, Boston Globe, October 9, 2007, available at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/09/terrorism_torture_and_shared_hypocrisy/ (last visited October 9, 2007).
^[8] Id.
^[9] Shane et al, supra note 1.
^[10] Id.
^[11] Jennifer Loven, Bush unapologetic about harsh interrogations, Associated Press Newswire, October 6, 2007, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
^[12] Id.
^[13] Id,
^[14] Id.
^[15] Id.