’03 US Memo Approved Torture 2003年，美國的備忘錄中批准酷刑
WASHINGTON華盛頓 — The Justice Department in 2003 gave military interrogators broad authority to use extreme methods in questioning detainees and argued that wartime powers largely exempted interrogators from laws banning harsh treatment, according to a memorandum publicly disclosed on Tuesday. -美國司法部在2 003年發表的軍事情報廣泛的權力，用極端的方法，在訊問被拘留，並認為戰時權力基本上豁免審訊人員從法律，禁止殘酷對待，根據一項諒解備忘錄，公開披露對週二。
In a sweeping legal brief written in March 2003, when the Pentagon was struggling to determine the appropriate limits for its interrogators, the Justice Department gave the Pentagon much of the same authority it had provided to the在籠統的法律簡短的書面於2003年3月，當五角大樓正在掙扎，以確定適當的限制，其審問，司法部給五角大樓許多同樣的權力，它提供給 Central Intelligence Agency中央情報部 in a memorandum months earlier.在一份備忘錄個月前。 Both memorandums were later rescinded by the Justice Department.這兩個備忘錄，後來被撤銷，由司法部。
The disclosure of the 2003 document, a detailed 81-page opinion written by披露2003年的文件，其中詳細的81頁的書面意見，由 John C. Yoo約翰長柳 , who at the time was the second-ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, is likely to fuel the already intense debate about legal boundaries in the face of a continuing terrorist threat.他們在當時的是第二級別的官員在辦公室的法律顧問，在司法部，很可能會助長本已激烈的辯論，法律的界限，在面對持續的恐怖威脅。
Mr. Yoo’s memorandum is the latest document to illuminate the legal foundation that Bush administration lawyers used after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to give the White House broad powers to capture, detain and interrogate suspects around the globe.柳先生先生的備忘錄，則是最新的文件，照亮了法律基礎，布什政府的律師用來攻擊事件後， 2001年9月11日，讓白宮廣泛權力的捕獲，拘留和審問嫌犯遍布全球。
The thrust of Mr. Yoo’s brief has long been known, but its specific contents were revealed on Tuesday after government lawyers turned it over to the主旨柳先生先生的簡短長期以來，人們已經知道，但其具體內容分別透露，週二後，政府律師把它移交給 American Civil Liberties Union美國公民自由聯盟 , which has sought hundreds of documents from the Bush administration under the Freedom of Information Act. ，它已要求數以百計的文件，布什政府根據資訊自由法。
Some legal scholars said Tuesday that they were amazed at the scope of the memorandum.一些法律學者說，週二說，他們感到驚訝的範圍備忘錄。
“This is a monument to executive supremacy and the imperial presidency,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at "這是一座豐碑，以行政霸權和帝國院長說： "尤金傳譯fidell ，教軍事司法 Yale耶魯 Law School and the Washington College of Law at American University.法學院和華盛頓大學的法律在美國大學。 “It’s also a road map for the Pentagon for fending off any prosecutions.” "這也是一個路線圖，五角大樓為擊退任何檢控" 。
The memorandum gave the military broad latitude to use harsh interrogation methods.該備忘錄給軍事北緯廣泛使用殘酷審訊方法。 It reasoned that federal laws prohibiting assault were not applicable to military interrogators dealing with members of它的理由是，美國聯邦法律禁止毆打當時並不適用於軍事審訊人員處理成員 Al Qaeda蓋達 because of White House authority during wartime.由於白宮管理局在戰時。 It also argued that many American and international laws would not apply to interrogations overseas.它也說，許多美國和國際的法律並不適用於盤問海外。
“Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could not bring a prosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional as applied in this context,” it reads. "即使訊問方法，可以說是人侵犯了刑事法規，司法部不能把一個起訴，因為該規約將違憲，適用於在此背景下， "內容。
Justice Department lawyers later rescinded both Mr. Yoo’s memorandum and the similar one written for the CIA in August 2002.美國司法部的律師後來都撻先生柳的諒解備忘錄，以及類似的一個書面為美國中央情報局在2002年8月。 In a book published last year,在一本書去年出版 Jack Goldsmith傑克金 , who as head of the Office of Legal Counsel made the decision to rescind the memorandums, criticized the documents, saying they had used careless legal reasoning to provide national security agencies with sweeping interrogation authority.他擔任法律顧問辦公室作出決定，撤消該備忘錄，指責該文件說，他們曾不小心用法律推理，以提供國家安全機構與清掃訊問權威。
Written to William J. Haynes II, who at the time was the Pentagon’s general counsel, Mr. Yoo’s document was meant to give legal guidance to Defense Department lawyers as they wrestled with a list of interrogation methods for prisoners at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.寫信給威廉海恩斯二，在當時的五角大樓的總律師先生，柳先生的文件，是為了給予法律指導，以國防部律師，因為他們搶奪了一份清單，列出的審訊方法，為囚犯在軍事監獄在古巴關塔那摩的。
The document explains that Mr. Haynes had asked the Justice Department “to examine the legal standards governing military interrogations of alien unlawful combatants held outside the United States.”該文件解釋說，先生海恩斯曾要求司法部" ，以審查法律標準軍事盤問外來非法戰鬥人員之外舉行的"美國。
The Pentagon was trying to set clear guidelines for military interrogators after五角大樓正在試圖確定明確的指導方針，為軍事審訊後， Donald H. Rumsfeld唐納德拉姆斯菲爾德 , the defense secretary at the time, withdrew approval for some interrogation techniques opposed by some senior military lawyers. ，國防部長，在那個時候，撤回批准了一些審訊手段反對一些軍方高級律師。
Ultimately, Mr. Yoo’s memorandum provided the legal foundation for the group’s final report, which defended the use of harsh interrogation methods.最終，柳先生先生的備忘錄，提供了法律基礎，該組的最後報告，其中捍衛了使用嚴厲的審訊方法。
Similar to the document written for the CIA in August 2002, Mr. Yoo’s memorandum offered a narrow definition of what constitutes torture.類似的書面文件，為美國中央情報局在2002年8月，柳先生先生的備忘錄，提供了一個狹隘的定義什麼構成酷刑。
“The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result,” Mr. Yoo wrote. "受害人必須經歷劇烈疼痛或痛苦的那種等於痛苦會與身體受到嚴重傷害如此之嚴重，以至於死亡，器官衰竭或永久性的損害，造成的損失重大的身體功能，將可能導致" 。柳寫道。
Despite the wide latitude the document gave to the military, the Pentagon never authorized some of the harshest interrogation methods used by the CIA, including雖然被廣泛緯度文件送給軍方，國防部從未授權的一些最嚴厲的審訊方法中情局利用，其中包括 waterboarding , a simulated drowning technique. ，模擬溺水技術。
Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the Yoo memorandum seemed to give military interrogators “carte blanche” to use any techniques and suggested that it was the legal underpinning for abuses that occurred months later at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. amrit辛格，一名律師，為美國公民自由聯盟說，這個柳備忘錄似乎給軍方審訊人員"處理權" ，利用任何技術，並建議表示，這是法律上的承諾，對侵權行為的發生幾個月後，在阿布格萊布監獄伊拉克。
No Pentagon investigations have found that any senior Bush administration officials were complicit in the abuse at Abu Ghraib.沒有五角大樓調查後，未發現任何布什政府高級官員共謀虐待在阿布格里卜監獄。
The investigations did find, however, that for several years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon failed to set uniform standards for military interrogations worldwide.本次調查發現，然而，數年後，九一一事件以來，五角大樓沒有一套統一的標準，為軍事盤問全世界。
Martin S. Lederman, a former lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel who now teaches at馬丁第lederman ，一名前律師為法律顧問辦公室的人，現在任教於 Georgetown University喬治敦大學 , noted Tuesday night on the legal blog Balkinization that Mr. Yoo’s memorandum was issued on a Saturday one day after his boss, Jay S. Bybee, left the Justice Department.指出，週二晚就法律博客balkinization先生柳的諒解備忘錄，發表了一個週六一天後，他的老闆傑伊第bybee ，離開了司法部。
Some legal experts and civil liberties groups have for years criticized the August 2002 memorandum written for the CIA as overly expansive in the authority it gave the agency to interrogate detainees.一些法律專家和公民自由團體已多年批評2002年8月寫的備忘錄為中央情報局過於膨脹，在權力，它給予該機構審問囚犯。
That memorandum was also written by Mr. Yoo, who is now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, but it was signed by Mr. Bybee and for several years has been commonly known as the Bybee memo.該備忘錄還寫柳先生先生，他現在是一個法學教授，在加利福尼亞大學伯克利分校的，但它是由先生bybee和幾年一直是俗稱為bybee備忘錄。
It was prepared after an internal debate in the government about the methods used to extract information from它準備後，一個內部辯論中，政府所採用的方法提取信息 Abu Zubaydah阿布祖貝達 , one of ，其中一 Osama bin Laden拉登 ’s top aides, after his capture in April 2002. ' s最高幕僚後，他的被捕，在2002年4月。
The document provided a legal foundation for coercive techniques used later against other high-ranking detainees, like該文件提供了法律基礎，為強制使用的技術後，對其他高層被拘留者一樣， Khalid Shaikh Mohammed哈立德謝赫穆罕默德 , who is believed to be the chief architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and was captured in early 2003.他們相信是總設計師， 911被抓獲，在2003年年初。
The Detainee Treatment Act passed by Congress in 2005 required the Defense Department to restrict interrogation methods to those set out in the Army Field Manual, which bans coercive interrogations.被拘留者待遇法案在國會通過，在2005年要求美國國防部限制審訊方法，以這些內容已載列於陸軍戰場手冊，其中禁止強制盤問。
Last year, President Bush issued an executive order narrowing the list of approved techniques for the CIA Intelligence officials have said that waterboarding is not on the list of currently approved techniques but that President Bush could authorize its use during an emergency.去年，美國總統布什發布行政命令，縮小名單核定技術中情局情報官員已表示， waterboarding不在名單上的，目前核定的技術，但布什總統可以授權它的使用是在緊急情況下。
Comment on '’03 US Memo Approved Torture' : 評論'' 03年美國便箋批准酷刑' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
