![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Torture Memos. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
There seems to be material in Jay Bybee that should be merged here. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this the memo here?
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
Or is that a different memo?
Is this memo in the public domain?
If it is public, can a summary be included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.90.227 ( talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to do a detailed summary when I can bring myself to slog through the actual memo. But if someone wants to beat me to that particular task, hey, go for it! Samantha1961 ( talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that findlaw.com link is the Bybee memo, and under US Copyright Law, it is
"a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties," and thus in the public domain or "noncopyright." There is a better link that I put into the references section of the main article that gives you a .PDF as opposed to the scanned copy.
Vargob (
talk)
15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please consider the new format to eliminate the redundancy and break up the response section. Also, comments on the addition to the OLC investigation. Vargob ( talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
IMNSHO, this is NOT a "legal organization" - it's a political organization for (ultra-)conservative lawyers. Grndrush ( talk) 07:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The findlaw copy of the Bybee memo is different than the ACLU copy (see their press release). Which is the correct memo? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The findlaw.com Bybee memo was the first one to be leaked (several years ago) in a series of memos that were authored at the OLC and have just been released by the DoJ from the ACLU FOIA. It is that one (findlaw) that was first referred to as the "Bybee memo" for several years now. See the citations. I would be inclined to see how much more comes to light from the DoJ before deciding how to handle this page. For now, I think that the people interested in finding more information on the Bybee Memo and his role at the OLC will be well served by this page. Vargob ( talk) 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I get around to it and finish reading materials related to this article, I will summarize the Bybee memos and remove irrelevant materials. The memo drafted by Yoo discussed in this article is here. As you can see it does not mention torture at all. Generally speaking, when people refer to the torture memo(s), they only refer to the two documents, both of which were dated August 1, 2002. They are the memo to Gonzales (AG) and the memo to Rizzo (CIA). References to and summaries of other memos will be removed. The summary of the Bybee memos will include a detailed section for the legal reasoning defining torture. Is that ok? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've begun my proposed draft of this article. I have finished summarizing one of the memos, and have two more to go (including the main one, which is 50 pages). Please see User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos and provide your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
HELLO! Please comment on my proposed revisions of this article @ User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos, 'because I don't want to hear it AFTER I've already replaced the extant article in near entirety. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the BLP tag as this isn't a BLP. The other two tags require justification or they will probably simply be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being set up here: if I use large tags, you accuse me of overtagging; if I comply with your request to add multiple {{ syn}} tags, Hipocrite accuses me of overtagging and refusal to cooperate with other editors. 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was redirected here to the Bybee Memo page from "Torture Memo." I think that a mistake. We should retitle this page Torture Memos (with or without quotes, so-called "Torture Memos" would do as well to satisfy editors from the right side of the political spectrum) and redirect from "Bybee memo" to that. These were NOT Bybee memos. They were OLC memos that the mainstream media now universally calls "Torture Memos." All Judge Bybee really contributed was his signature. Jack Goldmsith's book and the OLC Professional Responsiblity reports make it clear that Bybee had no expertise in this area and relied exclusively on John Yoo, who wrote the memos with the assistance of a young attorney one year out of law school. The OLC memos do not name her, and though she was "outed" in the news media I think Wiki should honor the OLC effort to preserve her privacy. My point is there should be no person's name on the Memo. Not hers, not Mr. Yoos, not Mr. Bybee's. Removing the name avoids the much discussed BLP problem. I am in the process of updating and cleaning up this page; meantime I post this proposed retitling for discussion first, before taking it up with more senior editors who would know how to accomplish the appropriate redirect. ElijahBosley ( talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Those editors from this discussion page I have contacted on their talk pages about updating and revisions--wanted to let you know the reason the revisions are stalled, leaving a very bumpy article, is a notice posted on one particularly thorny patch by an editor saying essentially "do not remove this notice until you've talked to me." His talk page indicates he is away from Wikipedia. Mindful of the strict prohibition of altering another editor's work without permission I am left with twiddling my thumbs for a while. Please be patient, and meanwhile any suggestions for improvements would be welcome. ElijahBosley ( talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As was proposed back in September of last year, major revisions to this article will be effected in the very near future. There is no lock on article editing, and article probation only means that behavior contrary to wiki policies is strictly punished. Furthermore, there have been no objections to the September proposal, meaning that consensus is to be assumed. Here is what the article will soon look like: User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos Zoticogrillo ( talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was moved to Torture memos per cut and paste. That's not how we do this, because the editing history is lost in the process. I have restored the original situation so that an admin can take care of it and doesn't have to do an actual cut and paste move repair (which I think is cumbersome).
There was only a redirect of at Torture memos, and that was the only edit to that page. Therefore (almost) everybody could simply have moved the article there. Now it's no longer possible and we need an admin. Hans Adler 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Hans Adler 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I realized my mistake afterwards and researched how to repair it, but an administrator fixed it for us. Another learning experience! Zoticogrillo ( talk) 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this a vast improvement over the predecessor misnamed "Bybee Memo" article (full disclosure: I helped on an early draft, but Zotocogrillo deserves the credit for his diligent, patient and hard work on this article). It is especially important that Wikipedia define what the Torture Memos are, as this article now does. One shortcoming: I would like to see more on the genesis of the policy, in the CIA's problem of how to deal with newly captured prisoners, and their requests for permission delivered to the National Security Council. I will parse George Tenet's autobiography for the explanation he offers; also I believe Tenet says something about the effectiveness of the techniques that ought to be included. ElijahBosley ( talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says Bybee resigned from the DOJ for a federal judgeship in Fall 2003, but the Bybee article says he was sworn in as a 9th Circuit Judge in March 2003. Also, perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in this article about what date the memos went public, which I think would be a useful piece of information. Naseem19 ( talk) 15:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
When and how were the memos first released (or leaked) to the public? Can't find the answer anywhere in the article... 99.38.251.212 ( talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Made an addition to Lead for a 2003 memo by Yoo, which justified torture in "overseas loations". This is important because the issue of whether Guantanamo Bay was within US jurisdiction (and the reach of the federal courts) was explicitly settled by later US Supreme Court decisions ruling that constitutional authority and the rule of law (including the right of habeas corpus) extended to operations at the detention camp - requiring detainees be given access to attorneys, allowing detainees access to federal courts to challenge detention, etc. This should probably be dealt with at greater length in the article, but maybe you guys already discussed this. Parkwells ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors were thorough but in some cases, I think there is unnecessary duplication of content, and too many opinions quoted on what people thought. Particularly two paragraphs about the Jose Padilla lawsuit repeat information and should be combined, or the second one edited for repetition. Wanted to announce it here first, and may take it on. Parkwells ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Igottheconch ( talk) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Both the NY Times and ACLU are among RS to have published material on other internal administration memos related to torture, e.g., 12/2/2002 signed by Rumsfeld at DOD on specific interrogation plan and 17 techniques authorized for use with Mohammed al-Qahtani. These should be included and referenced/discussed here, as they apply to treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, as well as contributing to the Abu Ghraib scandal (as was the 2008 finding of chairs of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees with their joint investigation of use of enhanced interrogation techniques.) I haven't come across any other article in which these are the main topic. Perhaps it is time to shorten the lengthy discussion of the first three Torture Memos, or construct the article somewhat differently to cover the wide range of administration documentation of its policies. Parkwells ( talk) 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Without a single sentence on this talk page an editor moved the page to change the title. Every major publication in the world calls these memos--and it is more than one memo--the "Torture Memos." Nobody knows what a 8/01 opinion is. That name has never been used to refer to these memos. I will wait to hear what other editors have to say and if there is suport request arbitration on the unexplained, and unsupported, page move. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an opportunity to propose adding all the memos related to torture, e.g., Rumsfeld's various ones for "Special Interrogation Plans" (SIP) for specific prisoners, etc. to this article, or at least as a linked list. (There is no existing article on Special Interrogation Plans.) I have already added to the article the March 14, 2003 by Yoo to DOD, and am inclined to think these others should be as well, since they authorized enhanced interrogation techniques for certain detainees at Guantanamo. It's a central place to have them, or to have a link to a list for all of them. They were significant for many reasons: for instance, evidence gained from Mohammed al-Qahtani under torture authorized by SIPs, in which he named 30 detainees as bodyguards of bin Laden, was used by their CSRTs as evidence to classify the 30 as enemy combatants and keep them in detention; al-Qahtani later recanted all this testimony. Also Defense in 2009 dropped its charges against him for a military commission, deciding that, since his evidence had been obtained under torture, it was inadmissible in court. Parkwells ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a cruel joke that there are people who actually claim to defend the concept of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The deliberate use of physical or psychological pain on someone who is detained, for any reason, is, by definition, torture, and there is no debate; it doesn't matter what your "point of view" is. Every single person who defends such behavior is wrong, and that is a fact, as established by every source in existence that references the topic except those biased towards the Bush administration. Here's a tip: It doesn't matter what your justification for torture is, it is still torture. So even if it is justifiable, it is not enhanced interrogation techniques, it is torture, plain and simple. 174.73.5.74 ( talk) 09:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
a google search for "lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a" shows that the text of some of these memos is online. We could upload that text to wikisource and link to it. Likewise, all the memos, not just the one memo currently shown as an image within the article would be appropriate images to accompany the article. Clearly the works are covered by {{ PD-USGov}}, and that includes a transcribed copy of the text therein, as derivative works. We already link to the memos in the references section, at least. -- Elvey( t• c) 14:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain."
While I can't say anything about the CIA manual, the Army's interrogation manual does not permit torture. This seems an out of place comment in an encyclopedia article. Also, it seems to suggest only the US employs torture. It just seems out of place. CuriousLayman ( talk) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I see now that it's specifically referring to the School of the America's torture memos. CuriousLayman ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Torture Memos. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
There seems to be material in Jay Bybee that should be merged here. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this the memo here?
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
Or is that a different memo?
Is this memo in the public domain?
If it is public, can a summary be included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.90.227 ( talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to do a detailed summary when I can bring myself to slog through the actual memo. But if someone wants to beat me to that particular task, hey, go for it! Samantha1961 ( talk) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that findlaw.com link is the Bybee memo, and under US Copyright Law, it is
"a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties," and thus in the public domain or "noncopyright." There is a better link that I put into the references section of the main article that gives you a .PDF as opposed to the scanned copy.
Vargob (
talk)
15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please consider the new format to eliminate the redundancy and break up the response section. Also, comments on the addition to the OLC investigation. Vargob ( talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
IMNSHO, this is NOT a "legal organization" - it's a political organization for (ultra-)conservative lawyers. Grndrush ( talk) 07:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The findlaw copy of the Bybee memo is different than the ACLU copy (see their press release). Which is the correct memo? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The findlaw.com Bybee memo was the first one to be leaked (several years ago) in a series of memos that were authored at the OLC and have just been released by the DoJ from the ACLU FOIA. It is that one (findlaw) that was first referred to as the "Bybee memo" for several years now. See the citations. I would be inclined to see how much more comes to light from the DoJ before deciding how to handle this page. For now, I think that the people interested in finding more information on the Bybee Memo and his role at the OLC will be well served by this page. Vargob ( talk) 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I get around to it and finish reading materials related to this article, I will summarize the Bybee memos and remove irrelevant materials. The memo drafted by Yoo discussed in this article is here. As you can see it does not mention torture at all. Generally speaking, when people refer to the torture memo(s), they only refer to the two documents, both of which were dated August 1, 2002. They are the memo to Gonzales (AG) and the memo to Rizzo (CIA). References to and summaries of other memos will be removed. The summary of the Bybee memos will include a detailed section for the legal reasoning defining torture. Is that ok? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've begun my proposed draft of this article. I have finished summarizing one of the memos, and have two more to go (including the main one, which is 50 pages). Please see User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos and provide your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
HELLO! Please comment on my proposed revisions of this article @ User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos, 'because I don't want to hear it AFTER I've already replaced the extant article in near entirety. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the BLP tag as this isn't a BLP. The other two tags require justification or they will probably simply be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being set up here: if I use large tags, you accuse me of overtagging; if I comply with your request to add multiple {{ syn}} tags, Hipocrite accuses me of overtagging and refusal to cooperate with other editors. 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was redirected here to the Bybee Memo page from "Torture Memo." I think that a mistake. We should retitle this page Torture Memos (with or without quotes, so-called "Torture Memos" would do as well to satisfy editors from the right side of the political spectrum) and redirect from "Bybee memo" to that. These were NOT Bybee memos. They were OLC memos that the mainstream media now universally calls "Torture Memos." All Judge Bybee really contributed was his signature. Jack Goldmsith's book and the OLC Professional Responsiblity reports make it clear that Bybee had no expertise in this area and relied exclusively on John Yoo, who wrote the memos with the assistance of a young attorney one year out of law school. The OLC memos do not name her, and though she was "outed" in the news media I think Wiki should honor the OLC effort to preserve her privacy. My point is there should be no person's name on the Memo. Not hers, not Mr. Yoos, not Mr. Bybee's. Removing the name avoids the much discussed BLP problem. I am in the process of updating and cleaning up this page; meantime I post this proposed retitling for discussion first, before taking it up with more senior editors who would know how to accomplish the appropriate redirect. ElijahBosley ( talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Those editors from this discussion page I have contacted on their talk pages about updating and revisions--wanted to let you know the reason the revisions are stalled, leaving a very bumpy article, is a notice posted on one particularly thorny patch by an editor saying essentially "do not remove this notice until you've talked to me." His talk page indicates he is away from Wikipedia. Mindful of the strict prohibition of altering another editor's work without permission I am left with twiddling my thumbs for a while. Please be patient, and meanwhile any suggestions for improvements would be welcome. ElijahBosley ( talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As was proposed back in September of last year, major revisions to this article will be effected in the very near future. There is no lock on article editing, and article probation only means that behavior contrary to wiki policies is strictly punished. Furthermore, there have been no objections to the September proposal, meaning that consensus is to be assumed. Here is what the article will soon look like: User:Zoticogrillo/torture_memos Zoticogrillo ( talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The article was moved to Torture memos per cut and paste. That's not how we do this, because the editing history is lost in the process. I have restored the original situation so that an admin can take care of it and doesn't have to do an actual cut and paste move repair (which I think is cumbersome).
There was only a redirect of at Torture memos, and that was the only edit to that page. Therefore (almost) everybody could simply have moved the article there. Now it's no longer possible and we need an admin. Hans Adler 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Hans Adler 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I realized my mistake afterwards and researched how to repair it, but an administrator fixed it for us. Another learning experience! Zoticogrillo ( talk) 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this a vast improvement over the predecessor misnamed "Bybee Memo" article (full disclosure: I helped on an early draft, but Zotocogrillo deserves the credit for his diligent, patient and hard work on this article). It is especially important that Wikipedia define what the Torture Memos are, as this article now does. One shortcoming: I would like to see more on the genesis of the policy, in the CIA's problem of how to deal with newly captured prisoners, and their requests for permission delivered to the National Security Council. I will parse George Tenet's autobiography for the explanation he offers; also I believe Tenet says something about the effectiveness of the techniques that ought to be included. ElijahBosley ( talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says Bybee resigned from the DOJ for a federal judgeship in Fall 2003, but the Bybee article says he was sworn in as a 9th Circuit Judge in March 2003. Also, perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in this article about what date the memos went public, which I think would be a useful piece of information. Naseem19 ( talk) 15:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
When and how were the memos first released (or leaked) to the public? Can't find the answer anywhere in the article... 99.38.251.212 ( talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Made an addition to Lead for a 2003 memo by Yoo, which justified torture in "overseas loations". This is important because the issue of whether Guantanamo Bay was within US jurisdiction (and the reach of the federal courts) was explicitly settled by later US Supreme Court decisions ruling that constitutional authority and the rule of law (including the right of habeas corpus) extended to operations at the detention camp - requiring detainees be given access to attorneys, allowing detainees access to federal courts to challenge detention, etc. This should probably be dealt with at greater length in the article, but maybe you guys already discussed this. Parkwells ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Editors were thorough but in some cases, I think there is unnecessary duplication of content, and too many opinions quoted on what people thought. Particularly two paragraphs about the Jose Padilla lawsuit repeat information and should be combined, or the second one edited for repetition. Wanted to announce it here first, and may take it on. Parkwells ( talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Igottheconch ( talk) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Both the NY Times and ACLU are among RS to have published material on other internal administration memos related to torture, e.g., 12/2/2002 signed by Rumsfeld at DOD on specific interrogation plan and 17 techniques authorized for use with Mohammed al-Qahtani. These should be included and referenced/discussed here, as they apply to treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, as well as contributing to the Abu Ghraib scandal (as was the 2008 finding of chairs of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees with their joint investigation of use of enhanced interrogation techniques.) I haven't come across any other article in which these are the main topic. Perhaps it is time to shorten the lengthy discussion of the first three Torture Memos, or construct the article somewhat differently to cover the wide range of administration documentation of its policies. Parkwells ( talk) 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Without a single sentence on this talk page an editor moved the page to change the title. Every major publication in the world calls these memos--and it is more than one memo--the "Torture Memos." Nobody knows what a 8/01 opinion is. That name has never been used to refer to these memos. I will wait to hear what other editors have to say and if there is suport request arbitration on the unexplained, and unsupported, page move. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an opportunity to propose adding all the memos related to torture, e.g., Rumsfeld's various ones for "Special Interrogation Plans" (SIP) for specific prisoners, etc. to this article, or at least as a linked list. (There is no existing article on Special Interrogation Plans.) I have already added to the article the March 14, 2003 by Yoo to DOD, and am inclined to think these others should be as well, since they authorized enhanced interrogation techniques for certain detainees at Guantanamo. It's a central place to have them, or to have a link to a list for all of them. They were significant for many reasons: for instance, evidence gained from Mohammed al-Qahtani under torture authorized by SIPs, in which he named 30 detainees as bodyguards of bin Laden, was used by their CSRTs as evidence to classify the 30 as enemy combatants and keep them in detention; al-Qahtani later recanted all this testimony. Also Defense in 2009 dropped its charges against him for a military commission, deciding that, since his evidence had been obtained under torture, it was inadmissible in court. Parkwells ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a cruel joke that there are people who actually claim to defend the concept of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The deliberate use of physical or psychological pain on someone who is detained, for any reason, is, by definition, torture, and there is no debate; it doesn't matter what your "point of view" is. Every single person who defends such behavior is wrong, and that is a fact, as established by every source in existence that references the topic except those biased towards the Bush administration. Here's a tip: It doesn't matter what your justification for torture is, it is still torture. So even if it is justifiable, it is not enhanced interrogation techniques, it is torture, plain and simple. 174.73.5.74 ( talk) 09:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
a google search for "lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a" shows that the text of some of these memos is online. We could upload that text to wikisource and link to it. Likewise, all the memos, not just the one memo currently shown as an image within the article would be appropriate images to accompany the article. Clearly the works are covered by {{ PD-USGov}}, and that includes a transcribed copy of the text therein, as derivative works. We already link to the memos in the references section, at least. -- Elvey( t• c) 14:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain."
While I can't say anything about the CIA manual, the Army's interrogation manual does not permit torture. This seems an out of place comment in an encyclopedia article. Also, it seems to suggest only the US employs torture. It just seems out of place. CuriousLayman ( talk) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I see now that it's specifically referring to the School of the America's torture memos. CuriousLayman ( talk) 22:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)