<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php" />
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/atom.xml" />
	<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4/tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-</id>
	<updated>2009-11-03T22:14:14Z</updated>
	<title>Comments for What The CIA Did</title>
	
	<generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.24-en</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272</id>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php" />
		<link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=4/entry_id=16272" title="What The CIA Did" />
		<published>2009-04-16T20:40:45Z</published>
		<updated>2009-04-17T12:55:09Z</updated>
		<title>What The CIA Did</title>
		<summary>The Justice Department today released four internal memorandums that supplied the legal basis for the program of torture and aggressive interrogation techniques used at so-called CIA &quot;Black Sites&quot; during the...</summary>
		<author>
			<name>Marc Ambinder</name>
			
		</author>
		
		<category term="Promo" />
		
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://politics.theatlantic.com/">
			<![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;">The Justice Department today
released four internal memorandums that supplied the legal basis for the
program of torture and aggressive interrogation techniques used at so-called
CIA "Black Sites" during the Bush administration and, at the same time, granted legal safe harbor for officers who participated in the program.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The memos include highly classified
guidance given to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 by Justice Department
official Jay Bybee, and three issued to the agency in 2005 that expanded the
parameters of the interrogation program. The names of CIA case officers
and agency officials who participated in the interrogations were blacked out, a
concession, government officials said, to the national security officers who
acted in good faith. Other redactions seem to include the details of other intelligence community collection programs and the names of some detainees.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="">Two senior administration officials said that the Department did not intend to rule out prosecuting officials who failed to act in accordance with the OLC guidelines.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="">The memos make clear that the Bush administration relied on a fairly simple principle: the believed that the methods used by the interrogators did not cause intense or severe or lasting physical pain, did not meet the threshold for torture, and did not violate the law.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">There are many revelations and details buried in &nbsp;the banal, technical language of lawyers:&nbsp;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Among the revelations:<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;Through 2005, the CIA used "enhanced
interrogation techniques" on 28 of 94 so-called "high value detainees."</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;Waterboarding was theoretically allowed
only in cases where the information solicited from the prisoner could thwart an
imminent terrorist attack; the Justice Department permitted only "six applications
of water lasting more than ten seconds" for every two-hour period during which
a detainee was strapped to the board. Only 12 minutes of water torture was
allowed per 24-hour period. Also: the CIA put potential waterboardees on a
fluid diet before the torture in order to prevent them from choking to death on
food that might be stuck in the GI tract.</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;The OLC concluded that the CIA's
careful application of the program didn't "shock the conscience" of a
reasonable person and thus would not trigger a statute that would leave
interrogators vulnerable to prosecution</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;The name of at least one High Value
Detainee who was subject to "enhanced techniques" has been redacted. <a href="http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury46pg.pdf">Later</a>,
however, the same memo mentions a "Gul" who was subjected to enhanced
techniques. This appears to be an inadvertent omission. <span style="">&nbsp;</span></o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;Through 2005, the CIA said that only
3 detainees were subject to 96-hour sleep deprivation</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;See page 7 of <a href="http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_05102005_bradbury_20pg.pdf">this document</a> for an
example of a "typical" interrogation: abdominal slaps, facial holds, "walling,"
wall-standing.&nbsp;<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial;"></span></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial;">**&nbsp;<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;">The 2002 <a href="http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf">memo </a><a href="http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf">&nbsp;</a>contended it was legal to place an insect in a
cramped confined space with a prisoner, provided that the insect was not
poisonous. The CIA wanted to use this technique on Abu Zubaydah, who was afraid
of poisonous insects. Nowhere is Zubaydah's degraded mental state mentioned.</span></span></o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;It sanctioned techniques which
caused less pain than then type of pain one would experience with a major
injury</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;It allowed a previously disclosed
technique called "walling," involving the slamming of a detainee's head back
against a fake wall.</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>** It presumed that the CIA
interrogators did not want to cause Zubaydah "severe" mental or physical pain;</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;The CIA justified its techniques by referring
to the SERE program, which teachers soldiers how to avoid capture and
interrogation.</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;**&nbsp;A May 10, 2005 memo calls torture "abhorrent"</o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Before the memos were released, the
administration circulated them to members of Congress who had been critical of
the Bush administration's approach.<span style="">&nbsp; </span>A
few minutes after Air Force One landed in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Mexico</st1:place></st1:country-region>, Obama said in a statement
that the techniques described in the memos "undermine our moral authority and
do not make us safer."</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">He said their extraordinary nature
compelled their release. But, in a juxtaposition that will rankle many of his
civil libertarian allies, he then defended his administration's court arguments
favoring the executive branch's right to protect classified information.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">"While I believe strongly in
transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that
is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that
principle in court and will do so again in the future."</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Obama said that the memos release should
assure "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal
advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to
prosecution."</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Eric Holder, the attorney general,
echoed Obama's message. "A<span style="color: rgb(80, 0, 80);">t a time of great
challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time
and energy laying blame for the past."</span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Administration officials said that Obama had
relied on Holder's advice about the ill-wisdom of future prosecutions, but it
is nonetheless unusual for a president to declare, independently, that certain
practices or people are immune from prosecution because to do so would cause
consternation in the land.<span style="">&nbsp; </span>As chief law
enforcement officer, Holder would, in theory, have had to make that
determination himself.<span style="">&nbsp; </span>The decision to
announce immunity for officials was made on Wednesday, officials said, after a
protracted internal debate that involved more than a dozen key officials.<span style="">&nbsp;</span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, said that the memos' content "is </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">as alarming as I feared it would
be."<span style="">&nbsp; </span>Breaking with the administration's
expressed desire to move along, he repeated his call for a "Truth Commission"
that would<span style="">&nbsp; </span>"take a thorough accounting
of what happened, not to move a partisan agenda, but to own up to what was done
in the name of national security, and to learn from it.&nbsp; This is another
step in that direction."<o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><o:p>Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, &nbsp;praised the president's decision to release the memos. "If we are to retain our status as a leader in the world, we must acknowledge and 
confront these abuses.&nbsp; Only then can we credibly object to the use of abusive 
tactics on our troops when they are captured&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial;">"The President's decision to release these four memos will contribute to our 
national security by bringing us closer to these goals," he said.</span></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees who has endorsed the Truth Commission concept, said he agreed with Holder that those officers who acted in "good faith" should not be prosecuted. He said that senior Justice Department officials who might be found guilty of misconduct should be disciplined by other means. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is slated to release a report evaluating the lawyers and their conduct.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></p><p></p>]]>
			
		</content>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:184845</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-184845" />
		<title>Comment from Rhoda on 2009-04-16</title>
		<author>
				<name>Rhoda</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>I don't consider these banal in any respect.</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-16T21:37:53Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:184880</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-184880" />
		<title>Comment from Joel on 2009-04-16</title>
		<author>
				<name>Joel</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<blockquote>** Through 2005, the CIA said that only 3 detainees were subject to 96-hour sleep deprivation</blockquote>

<p>Well gee, that's comforting.</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-16T22:46:06Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:184924</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-184924" />
		<title>Comment from Elrod on 2009-04-16</title>
		<author>
				<name>Elrod</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>And from the Republicans outraged at "big government" and "fascism"?  Crickets.</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T01:17:27Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185112</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:184845" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-184845"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185112" />
		<title>Comment from OGLiberal on 2009-04-17</title>
		<author>
				<name>OGLiberal</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>I think Marc was referring to the language used by and writing style of Bybee, Yoo, et al.  I guess you can call it banal but the word I would us is sterile.  It's legalese.  And that makes them even worse.  These guys are using legal technicalities and language to justify torturing another human being.  It's sociopathic.</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T16:32:11Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185115</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185115" />
		<title>Comment from jb on 2009-04-17</title>
		<author>
				<name>jb</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>"The memos make clear that the Bush administration relied on a fairly simple principle: the believed that the methods used by the interrogators did not cause intense or severe or lasting physical pain, did not meet the threshold for torture, and did not violate the law."</p>

<p>Right there is the key to the whole argument.  Under Article 1 of the US resolution torture is that which causes severe harm.  There is no definition of what is meant by severe, but it is clear to me that the opinions attempt to determine that the techniques are NOT severe.  In addition they discuss an escalating process of techniques to ensure the least drastic possible means are being used.</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T16:36:39Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185118</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185112" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185112"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185118" />
		<title>Comment from jb on 2009-04-17</title>
		<author>
				<name>jb</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>They are lawyers asked for a legal opinion.  What do you expect them to write in, pig-latin?  If they didn't write in legal verbage it wouldn't be a legal opinion.</p>

<p>As to technicalities, there is always more than one way to interpret a law until it goes to court.  That is why there are at least twoopposing sides in every legal disagreement.  What you consider torture I might consider interrogation.</p>

<p>Lets go with a simple hypothetical that I think gets to the crux of the matter...</p>

<p>A threat has been made against your family to potentially harm and even kill them.  You are uncertain how or when the threat is going to be carried out but you are fairly certain you have someone under your control that does know the information.  Are you willing to just sit by and do nothing in hopes that the threat is not made good, or are you willing to take steps to get the information, and if the latter to what degree are you willing to go?<br />
</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T16:43:23Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185120</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185115" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185115"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185120" />
		<title>Comment from jb on 2009-04-17</title>
		<author>
				<name>jb</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>Oops, make that the UN resolution.<br />
</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T16:44:11Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185348</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185348" />
		<title>Comment from Mario Vieira on 2009-04-17</title>
		<author>
				<name>Mario Vieira</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>Mutatis Mutandi, the criminals at the Nuremberg trials acted also in good faith. They were following orders. What does "good faith" means in American jargon?</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-17T22:42:24Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185506</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185112" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185112"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185506" />
		<title>Comment from carlianschwartz on 2009-04-18</title>
		<author>
				<name>carlianschwartz</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>I should add that the language used at the Wannsee Conference (30 January 1942), also considered "secret" at the time, was similarly banal and professional. The proceedings were dramatized on HBO. Not a single use of an anti-Semitic expletive in the detailed planning of the Holocaust!</p>

<p>"The banality of evil..." Does anybody read Hannah Arendt these days?</p>

<p>Those who ignore history will end up reliving it. We have. Does it please me to see BushCheney using the Nazis' playbook (albeit without organized anti-Semitism)? NO!!!!!</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-18T17:28:03Z</published>
	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185507</id>

		<thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.16272-comment:185118" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185118"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_torture_memos.php#comment-185507" />
		<title>Comment from carlianschwartz on 2009-04-18</title>
		<author>
				<name>carlianschwartz</name>
				<uri></uri>
		</author>
		<content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
				<![CDATA[<p>You are making the same arguments as those who ran the Prinz Albrechtstrasse torture cellars in Berlin. They didn't work at Nuremberg.</p>

<p>Also--craftsmanlike lawyers also can recuse themselves if they feel the task at hand is morally repugnant or illegal. These guys didn't. They found personal loyalty to BushCheney was more important than their oath to support the Constitution. </p>

<p>Do you realize what a stain on our national reputation this whole matter is? At a time when our economy is wrenched by the results of 30 years of crackpot economics, and our infrastructure is crumbling, we need friends in this world more than ever. We sullied our reputation by torturing. Anybody with the moral center (also preached by these hypocrites who tortured, but not practiced) can see through this. The only way to atone is to punish the authors and those who ordered them to dump on the Constitution. Bybee, Yoo, and Addington exemplify the kind of moral turpitude that Bar admission panels consider when considering whether to admit someone to practice law. Disbar them, and prosecute Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC") who proposed the Iraq adventure premised on a "Pearl Harbor-like event". </p>

<p>Do you ever wonder why the PNAC pulled its website last May? It's as incriminating as "Mein Kampf."</p>]]>
		</content>
		<published>2009-04-18T17:37:34Z</published>
	</entry>

</feed>