http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/24/10586/

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department in 2002 told the CIA that its interrogators would be safe from prosecution for violations of anti-torture laws if they believed `in good faith’ that harsh techniques used to break the will of prisoners, including waterboarding, would not cause “prolonged mental harm.”

The newly released but heavily censored memo approved the CIA’s harsh interrogation techniques method by method, but warned that if the circumstances changed, interrogators could be running afoul of anti-torture laws.

The Aug. 1, 2002 memo signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee was issued the same day he wrote a memo for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales defining torture as only those “extreme acts” that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. That memo was later rescinded by the Justice Department.

much more at link

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

I'll be damned! The CIA can do as it pleases as long as it is in "good faith". But, but, ..., I did not think the 200 lashes would hurt him much --- honest! And I prayed for him in good faith.

What faith is "good" anyway?

God damn it, this administration makes my head hurt. Why are Democrats such sniveling cowards? The Republicans impeached Clinton over an act that is legal in many parts of the USA and Bush could throw babies off a cliff and there would be no charges.

Damn, damn, damn.

Thanks for highlighting the great work of the ACLU, and others, that has given us the tidbits of truth that we have been able to uncover from this gangster administration.

As you point out, the press has mostly been missing in action for over 7 years, but so has the Democratic Party. This is horrible, and it allows those, in the service of the president, who would break the law to do so under the cover of secrecy.

A big question is why there are so many low level and mid level government employees who know the law is being broken yet remain silent. It is sad that they care so little about the rule of law and this country.

Great link, thanks for sharing it.

Why "left-leaning"? What's so "left-leaning" about wanting to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there's plenty of people of a libertarian persuasion around here that would (and do) take umbrage at being called "leftist".... Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo

Arne, I would like to know what "left-leaning" means in modern America. I bet getting a definition is like the old saying that where 3 political scientists meet you will find 10 opinions on most everything.

I bet there really is a good definition for "left-leaning" but so few know it, and agree to it, that it is useless outside academic circles.

Have you heard a good definition for it?

As I looked around for a decent definition of left-wing, left, liberal, classic liberal, or any damn thing, I came across this wonderful essay on the subject from my fellows over at AlterNet.

Matt Taibbi wrote this for the New York Press in 2005 and the Harris Poll he quotes from was recent at the time. It is a good read, funny, and witty. Well worth your time if you have ever been called left-wing, right-wing, or a chicken wing.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21354/

Right Wing, Left Wing, Chicken Wing

A new poll reveals that most Americans don't know their right from their left ... wing. The right knows this and leads the manipulation race.

The Harris polling agency last week released the results of an interesting study. In a survey of 2,209 adults, they discovered that most Americans only have the vaguest idea of the meaning of two important pairs of words that play crucial roles in the national political discourse: conservative and liberal, and left and right.

Some of the numbers are surprising. According to the survey, 37 percent of Americans think liberals oppose gun control, or else they are not sure if liberals oppose gun control. Likewise, 27 percent of respondents thought a right-winger was someone who supported affirmative action. Furthermore, the survey showed that respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs – with one caveat. In both cases, respondents were roughly 10 percent more clueless about left-wingers and right-wingers than they were about liberals and conservatives.

[more at link]

I loved this part: "Which gets back to the Harris poll. If people are confused about what left-wing means, there might be a reason for that. If you can call both Leon Trotsky and Eric Alterman left-wing and be technically right in both cases, then clearly the word is doing injustice to one of them. They have nothing in common; Trotsky had a much better sense of humor."

He is right, we have used this political labels as bludgeons to beat up our enemies to the point the terms are useless. I saw in this very comment section one time as I lurked merrily that an anarchist who did not want any government was in fact a big-government-fascist because, because, well, ..., just because!

I resolve to use labels less often in the future. (and lose weight)

Glenn,

Best idea that I have heard of in a long, long time. All the best to you and to Salon.