Daniel Levin, a former assistant US attorney general, was fired in 2004 for his opposition to torture, specifically waterboarding. He had researched various methods of torture and even waterboarded himself. Levin issued a memo contradicting a 2002 memo justifying the use of torture, and was fired before he could write a second memo recommending an outright ban on waterboarding. His opposition to the practice drew public attention and revealed problems within the presidential administration.
Daniel Levin is a former assistant US attorney general who gained attention in 2004 when he spoke on the issue of torture, specifically the practice known as waterboarding. Levin’s outspoken commentary on the matter ultimately led to his ouster, leading to widespread public comment on the American stance on torture. Many activists believe Levin was unfairly fired in an effort to suppress his political views.
Levin began working as an assistant attorney general in 2004 and became interested in the official administration’s position on torture shortly after assuming his position. During his tenure, he has researched various methods of torture and interrogation and has even waterboarded himself so that he understands what the practice feels like. In this interrogation tactic, also known as “simulated drowning,” a prisoner is stretched out on a board while water is poured over his head, simulating the experience of drowning. Discussing the practice after his experience with him, Daniel Levin said that although he knew he would not be allowed to drown, he was in extreme emotional distress.
In December 2004, Daniel Levin issued a memo that directly contradicted a 2002 memo written by Jay Bybee, in which the use of torture under certain circumstances was justified. Levin believed that tactics such as waterboarding would only be considered acceptable in extremely limited and tightly controlled situations and suggested that the lack of clear guidelines on waterboarding was a serious problem. Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ordered Levin to change the contents of the memo and ultimately fired Levin before he had a chance to write and publish a second, stronger memo.
Had Daniel Levin been given the chance to write a second memo, the memo likely would have contained a recommendation for an outright ban on waterboarding, since Levin defined the practice as torture. This would have directly contradicted statements made by the presidential administration indicating that the United States did not practice torture as an interrogation tactic, and this would obviously have been a source of humiliation for several government leaders.
While Daniel Levin is not one of the better known figures in American politics, he is sometimes credited with drawing increased public attention to the issue of waterboarding, and activists point out that his determined opposition to the practice was a sign of integrity. Levin may have lost his job over the issue, but the fuss has revealed serious problems within the presidential administration, leading some citizens to question how widespread practices like waterboarding might be in American camps and prisons.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
