Don't miss

Replay


LATEST SHOWS

EYE ON AFRICA

Seven African countries' economies at risk over Brexit decision

Read more

THE DEBATE

Britain votes out: What next?

Read more

#TECH 24

The 'fintech' revolution

Read more

FRANCE IN FOCUS

A certified 'palace': How hotels strive for excellence

Read more

#THE 51%

In her own image: Women in Art

Read more

REPORTERS

World War I: When northern France was on German time

Read more

REVISITED

Video: Ugandan city still scarred by Lord's Resistance Army atrocities

Read more

MEDIAWATCH

#Brexit sparks a storm on social media

Read more

BUSINESS DAILY

Markets, pound plunge on Brexit vote

Read more

White House: terror threat justifies bending laws

Latest update : 2008-04-28

The White House made the case to the US Congress that the task of preventing a terror attack could justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be outlawed by the Geneva Convention, according to letters obtained by US media.

The administration of President George W. Bush has told Congress that US intelligence agents trying to prevent terrorist attacks can use interrogation methods that in other circumstances might be prohibited under international law, The New York Times reported on its website Saturday.
   
Citing unnamed officials, the newspaper said this legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was outlined recently in letters sent to lawmakers by the Justice Department.
   
Last year, President Bush issued an executive order which the White House said would make the Central Intelligence Agency comply with international conventions banning harsh treatment of detainees.
   
But the new letters, the paper said, show that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude.
   
For example, a letter sent on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments, the report said.
   
"The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act," The Times quoted Brian Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, saying in that letter.
   
The letters from the Justice Department to Congress were provided by the staff of Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who sought more information from the department, the report said.
   
Legal experts critical of the administration, noted the paper, indicated that the Justice Department seemed to be arguing that the task of preventing a terror attack could justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.
   
"What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense," Scott Silliman, a professor of national security from Duke University, was quoted by The Times as saying.
  
 

Date created : 2008-04-28

COMMENT(S)