In this December 11, 2008 article, Ray McGovern talks about the new Army Field Manual

[link at sig]

…nothing about “classified”, though.

JoeMommaSan. I had the same reaction to that line. First we have to push ourselves up out of the crater we’ve allowed ourselves to fall into.

it will be hard to know where (or if) to stop exactly. Those who carried it out, of course. But who else? Everyone from the top down? Until we ferret out the identity of every public official who knew about it and imprison them?

So, we shouldn’t do it because it may “be hard”? “Those who carried it out” were not to blame for the policies which set the whole thing in motion. Those who set the policy…the “deciders” must take the most responsibilty.

reasonable minds disagree as to whether it was justifiable under the circumstances. For while there are those (such as myself) who think it is wrong under ANY circumstance, others clearly believe it can be used to produce useful, life-saving information.

“Reasonable” is a qualifier with which I “disagree”. It does not matter WHAT people believe to be true. What matters is what is true. And knowledgeable people from every possible area have been telling Bush and the Cheney gang for years that torture does not produce “believ”able evidence.

I hardly think a forum of suits or uniforms will convince those who believe what they authorized or what they were doing was necessary of anything other than the fact that the efficacy of torture is contested.

I don’t care what the “believed”, or what they can be “convinced” of. Did they break the LAW or didn’t they? They have admitted that they did.

I would hope those who carried it out felt they were doing what was necessary under the circumstances, but I am not so naïve as to think it wasn’t at times disproportionately used. But even if Bush and Cheney did take maniacal pleasure in their work, do you think they would admit to it? What would anyone say other than that they were doing what was necessary?

Torture is NOT legal. It can not be used “disproportionaly”. It can not be used AT ALL. The law does not care if they “admit” to taking “maniacle pleasure”, or even if they admit to torturing at all. The question is “Did they allow torture”. They have answered it themselves.

It's like you were reading my mind. I hope we're wrong, too

for mis-spelling your name, ScuzzaMan

;-)

wrt: "classified annex" [Human Rights Watch, to the Committee Against Torture, May 3, 2006]

Human Rights Watch is also concerned that planned revisions to the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, which will reportedly include a classified annex, will also undercut the gains of the McCain amendment. Given that military personnel have been authorized to use abusive interrogation techniques against terrorist suspects in the past, and given the administration’s continued refusal to denounce waterboarding as torture, Human Rights Watch is worried that the contents of this annex will allow for practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other abuse. Human Rights Watch hopes that the Committee will inquire of the United States as to the need for and scope of interrogation techniques that will be included in the classified annex.

Human Rights watch supplemental submission to the Committee Against Torture

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/05/03/human-rights-watch-supplemental-submission-committee-against-torture

During its Consideration of the Second Periodic Report of the United States

May 3, 2006

I don't know when this feature at the NYT started [self imposed NYT moratorium] but they now have an interactive "Guantanamo Docket".

http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo

Waterboarding is said to be "simulated drowning".

The fact is that the person experiencing waterboarding is actually in the process of drowning. Can anyone tell me what's "simulated" about it?

Someone mentioned "deliberate confusion". Here's an example which had huge consequences.

May 2002-The CIA takes over the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.[16] [See March 28, 2002] “Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be.”” –Pentagon analyst [17]

January 9, 2004-Cheney again cites the long discredited claims of an Iraqi-Qaeda meeting in Prague (L)

June 16, 2004-The 9/11 Commission concludes that the Atta-Ani meeting in Prague never took place. (L)

March 27, 2007-“The [Combatant status-review] tribunal president, a colonel whose name is redacted, asked [Abu Zubaydah]: “So I understand that during this treatment, you said things to make them stop and then those statements were actually untrue, is that correct?” Abu Zubaydah replied: “Yes.”” [17]

[17] Tortured Reasoning - Vanity Fair, December 16, 2008 - by David Rose

(L) What the White House Knew and When It Knew It: Time Lines of the Selling of the War http://frankrich.com/timeline.htm

to me that within the last 5-10 minutes we have two commenters who actually think begging for praise from Glenn for Obama would seem like something worthwhile to do. wow.

Human Rights Watch wrote [“Fabricated Justice”, 1/23/06]:

“The military commissions might look like genuine legal proceedings. But their rules are Kafkaesque, made up as the Pentagon went along, despite the efforts of military lawyers who take seriously their responsibility to the rule of law.”

[link at sig.]

President Obama's New Presidential Records Order

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/21/president-obamas-new-presidential-records-order/

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 21, 2009.

Sorry, haven't read the new post yet. Just HAD to shout this out. :-)

President Obama's New Presidential Records Order

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/21/president-obamas-new-presidential-records-order/

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 21, 2009.