The development of Bush Administration policies on the treatment of suspected terrorist detainees was probed yesterday at a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing, which also led to the release of two primary source documents reflecting internal Bush Administration deliberations.
Former State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow described his efforts in 2005-6 to advance a standard that would effectively prohibit “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” treatment of detainees, a standard to which, in theory, the United States was already committed. But the practice was something different, he said.
“The U.S. government adopted an unprecedented program of cooly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information,” Mr. Zelikow testified (pdf). “This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure, in which a number of officials and members of Congress (and staffers), of both parties played a part, endorsing a CIA program of physical coercion even after the McCain amendment was passed and after the Hamdan decision. Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it, and learn from it.”
A June 2005 memorandum (pdf) prepared by Mr. Zelikow and Gordon R. England, the acting deputy secretary of defense, proposed a comprehensive approach to detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, that the authors said would be compatible with existing legal standards. But their approach was rejected by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Zelikow recalled in his testimony. The memorandum was reported in the New York Times (Tim Golden, “Detainee Memo Created Divide in White House,” October 1, 2006) and elsewhere was quoted at length in Angler by Barton Gellman (at pp. 347-349), but the document itself has not been made publicly available until now. See “Elements of Possible Initiative,” June 12, 2005, marked Sensitive But Unclassified.
A second memorandum, authored by Mr. Zelikow and John Bellinger, offered an alternative legal framework predicated on acceptance of the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” treatment. See “Detainees – The Need for a Stronger Legal Framework” (pdf), July 2005.
By 2006, the terms of the dispute had shifted. The Administration affirmed the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” treatment, but then embraced an Office of Legal Counsel argument that said the CIA interrogation program, including water boarding and the rest, did not violate the prohibition. Zelikow’s February 2006 critique of the OLC interpretation is said to be undergoing declassification review. Since the classification status of that critique is entirely derivative of the now-declassified OLC memos, its full and prompt declassification is to be expected.
To empower new voices to start their career in nuclear weapons studies, the Federation of American Scientists launched the New Voices on Nuclear Weapons Fellowship. Here’s what our inaugural cohort accomplished.
Common frameworks for evaluating proposals leave this utility function implicit, often evaluating aspects of risk, uncertainty, and potential value independently and qualitatively.
The FAS Nuclear Notebook is one of the most widely sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons and has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1987. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: Director Hans […]
According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ August 2023 pulse panel, 60% of public schools were utilizing a “community school” or “wraparound services model” at the start of this school year—up from 45% last year.