II. Limitations of Section 1002 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

Although Sections 1002 and 1003 do clarify some of the legal issues and questions involved in the debate on detainee abuse and torture, they still leave many avenues open for the limits on detainee abuse and torture to be circumvented.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/suleman.shtml#Heading24


A. No Limit on the CIA

Section 1002 suffers from being too specific. The Interrogation Manual is only the standard for those detainees being interrogated in DOD facilities, or while in the custody or under the effective control of the DOD. Thus, if the Administration wants to use harsher interrogation methods on a detainee, it simply has to transfer that detainee to a non-DOD facility and into the custody or control of another department, such as the CIA. Furthermore, in cases where the facility is not a DOD facility but the DOD is exercising joint control of the facility with the CIA, it is not clear whether the amendment would apply to restrict the interrogation methods available.

Although I characterize this focus on the DOD as a limitation, some might view it as a positive attribute. Since the CIA should theoretically be more experienced at interrogating detainees than the DOD, lawmakers may have narrowed their focus on the DOD to avoid placing restrictions on the CIA’s intelligence gathering capabilities. They may consider the CIA less likely to engage in the same abuses that DOD soldiers committed at Abu Ghraib.[20]

--------------------------------------------------------------

so it appears that dod is not to do said torture practices

but the cia is permitted per the vote that was listed earlier in this thread

The authorization to torture being at issue here was authorized behind closed doors by a small group of individuals within the Bush Administration.
It was not debated in congress until the facts came to light!

This is not the bill!

It is an opinion, an interpretation of the bill!

Go look at the bill and interpret it for yourself!

you find the bill and i will look at it

but seeing as havard law is one of the most pristine law colleges in the world

and many from harvard have argued their opinions in front of nearly (if not) every court on the federal level

and the opinion of harvard is usually respected

so prove their opinion wrong

is that not how it would work in the court system

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/HR-6166-Bill.pdf

The authorization to torture being at issue here was authorized behind closed doors by a small group of individuals within the Bush Administration.
It was not debated in congress until the facts came to light!

It was such a controversial authorization that even the CIA questioned it repeatedly and the FBI refused to participate!

SEC. 1005. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS REVIEW OF DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report setting forth--

(A) the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Administrative Review Boards established by direction of the Secretary of Defense that are in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or to provide an annual review to determine the need to continue to detain an alien who is a detainee; and

(B) the procedures in operation in Afghanistan and Iraq for a determination of the status of aliens detained in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of Defense in those countries.

(2) DESIGNATED CIVILIAN OFFICIAL- The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall ensure that the official of the Department of Defense who is designated by the President or Secretary of Defense to be the final review authority within the Department of Defense with respect to decisions of any such tribunal or board (referred to as the 'Designated Civilian Official') shall be a civilian officer of the Department of Defense holding an office to which appointments are required by law to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(3) CONSIDERATION OF NEW EVIDENCE- The procedures submitted under paragraph (1)(A) shall provide for periodic review of any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.


http://www.pegc.us/detainee_act_2005.html
----------------------------------------

looks to me that harvard got it right

after all prez is in charge of military and needs only to submit a report to congress

There you go assuming again.

The President of the US is not above the law.

I'm not even referring to the contradiction that the President has complete control over the military. (he does not)

I'm talking about his right to disobey the law in the execution of those duties! (He has no right! No one is above the law.)

Robert Muller.
A Bush appointee to Director of the FBI, refused to participate in the torture, and even withdrew his agents when torture was being used.

If the torture was so legal. Why wasn't he disciplined for disobeying an order?
Why?
Because when your breaking the law and know it,
you lose the ability to make a lot of noise about someone in a public position (FBI) refusing to break the law with you.

Now I ask,
Why wasn't Muller arresting or at least investigating someone?
After-all he was the top cop in the nation, and actually knew the crime was being perpretated?



Well it just so happens that someone else wanted to know the same thing.



Wexler Confronts Mueller on CIA Torture and Lack Of Investigation By FBI
By Nicole Belle
Tuesday Apr 22, 2008 7:15pm

This morning, during a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, I questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller on his agency's response to claims - made by his own FBI agents - that the CIA was torturing prisoners. I wanted to find out why, if the FBI's own agents had alleged illegal actions were taking place, there was no investigation into the CIA's illegal and immoral practices.



Full transcript below:


Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.

RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…

RW: Two. Has the NSA's wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?

Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.

RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote "the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved" end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote "pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy" end quote.

RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn't you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?

RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.

RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?

RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.

RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?

RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.

RW: So you can't tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don't you get involved; you can't tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?

RM: I'll tell you we followed our own protocols.

RW: And what was the result?

RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.

RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?

RM: I can't comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.

RW: Why can't you comment on the actions of another agency?

RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.

RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?

RM: I am the Director of the FBI.

RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you're saying?

RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.

RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?

RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.

RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

RM: I'm not certain what you mean.

RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.

RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….
(talking over each other)

RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that's it.

RM: I've told you what our protocol was, and I've indicated that we've adhered to our protocol throughout.

RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.


http://crooksandliars.com/2008/04/23/wexler-confronts-mueller-on-cia-torture-and-lack-of-investigation-by-fbi