Contrary to Bradbury's and other's claims, I am confident that there would be permanent psychological damage from water boarding not the least of which could be Thalassophobia or fear of the ocean, etc.

-AF

So...since this isn't torture, it should be ok for other countries to do to US soldiers (and citizens).

Speak, up congress person, i don't think the mic caught that.

Also, i mean if lives really depended on it (kidnapping victim in a shallow grave), we could do it to US citizens too, right?

How about forcing them to play russian roulette? That doesn't cause any pain at all if we don't actually put the round in.

How big of a threat does it have to be to qualify for 'special methods': over 2 people killed if it succeeds? 100? 1000? what about those crazy IRA attacks where they call ahead?

well fantastic.

Well, yes, we have reason to be proud.

The Bush Administration: America's Khmer Rouge
George W. Bush: America's Pol Pot

Our killing fields? They're in Iraq, of course.

I just can't tell you how happy I am to know that we are NOT the Spanish Inquisition, only the Khymer Rouge. But, really , it might be better to be the Spanish Inquisitiona, because, of course,

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!

Not to beat a dead horse but if you go back and look at Mukaseys recent testimony and you look closely at what Bradbury said you will find a common defense. That defense comes straight out of the Bybee Memo, and it goes to "Intent". Bradbury said it yesterday here :

under the Torture Victims Protection Act, it requires an intent to cause prolonged mental harm. Now that's a mental disorder that is extended or continuing over time and if you've got a body of experience with a particular procedure that's been carefully monitored that indicates that you would not expect that there would be prolonged mental harm from a procedure, you can conclude that it's not torture under the precise terms of that statute.

Just who defines what "prolonged mental harm" is? The torturers! Natch. I bet if you asked those we water boarded they would consider the experience "prolonged mental harm."

Also, I for one refuse to believe we only water-boarded three individuals. Not when our government continues to hold prisoners at Gitmo for no reason other than to postpone the embarrassment of releasing the innocent (and to set up the next preznit for an attack upon his release i.e. "He's making US unsafe by letting X go."

With the Bush Administration's constant use of too clever parsing and frequent bold-faced lies, you can be sure the US has water boarded and otherwise tortured dozens. Where we haven't we asked others to do it for us. I'm sorry, George, but that counts too.

-AF

I think it would be outstanding if the World Court issued arrest warrants on all American government employees involved in these self explained forms of questioning. bush and the republicans might protect them under U.S. law but it would put notice on these people that They are now wanted. Maybe the world firestorm would make the monsters in our country back off. There are plenty of acceptable ways to catch and punish the enemies of our country. You are no better than your enemy when you become your enemy.

We don't need any witnesses or a tape: DOJ OLC has overtly admitted to war crimes: "Waterboarding, even the CIA version, entails excruciating and intense physical suffering. That's why they use it. Geneva bars all abuse. "Intense physical suffering" is evidence that there was abuse. DoJ OLC has asserted that the CIA did use waterboarding; and that the intended objective of that POW abuse was to cause suffering.

It is irrelevant that the CIA tape has been destroyed; or that DOJ-GOP-EOP-OVP emails are missing. DoJ OLC statements are not defenses, or explanations: They are alleged statements contrary to interests which shows the defendant US government and DOJ Staff are allegedly fully supporting an alleged illegal policy to implement war crimes, that the intent of these alleged war crimes was to violate Geneva, and that the objective of the war crimes was to do what Geneva expressly prohibits: Abusing non-combatants who have been removed from the battlefield.

If the US DOJ OLC is going to argue for continued abuse of POWs after they are removed ffom the battlefield then they are not POWs, they are targets of ongoing combat operations despite their inability to fight back. No foreign combatant -- lawful or not -- is going to "surrender" to US authorities when they know they're going to be mistreated.

The DoJ OLC assertions have sent a simple message to all combatants worldwide: The only way the US will oppose you is if we can induce you to surrender, then abuse you. That is a self-evident argument/example to justify in the minds of combatants continued combat operations while they have been detained. Nobody should be surprised why abused-POWs continue to oppose the Guantanamo jailers: Because the POWs know the Guantanamo jailers consider them still legitimate military targets for abuse despite the POWs being taken out of the fight.

The laws of war permit POWs to use all means to escape, resist, and attempt to wage lawful resistance to abuse and unlawful treatment. However, once the US treats the POWs as combatants and abuses them despite the POWs being removed from battle, the POWs are allowed under the laws of war to treat their jailers as ongoing combat opponents.

DOJ OLC's problem is that they fail to understand the laws of war when those laws of war are directed at the US government as a retaliatory or reciprocal act. Once the US violated the laws of war, all other POWs, combatants, and nations make similarly violate the same laws of war the US has violated, and other nations may on accusation alone detain US citizens on the charge that those US citizens are unlawful combatants or spies.

US Policy of Not Enforcing Geneva

Refusing to approve limitations against POW abuse which Geneva recognizes as required limitations could be construed as evidence of war crimes; or civilian policy makers decisions to not fully comply with the Geneva conventions. These issues were adjudicated at Nuremberg: Those with an illegal policy cannot defend themselves by pointing to a policy which implements war crimes.

Whether the President feels he is or isn't bound by Congress is irrelevant. The President is bound by the Geneva Conventions, a treaty obligation, enforced through the US Constitution as part of the Supreme Law. By agreeing to enforce the Constitution, the President agreed to enforce the obligations of all Constitutional officers who are bound to recognize treaty obligations as part of the Supreme Law.

Presidential Inaction On Legislation Does Not Alter Geneva Obligations

This is an irrelevant argument:

"But he also has threatened to veto a bill that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh tactics, saying he won't sign legislation that limits the agency's interrogation tactics

It doesn't matter. The President's decision to "not approve" something that is a requirement in Geneva is meaningless. That Congress may or may not have legislation is curious, but does not change the Geneva obligations on the President as the detaining official. Geneva is binding on all detaining powers. Whether Congress does or does not pass rules, legislation, or acts which "limit" something fails to address the larger Geneva issues.

Geneva is clear: All POW abuse is illegal. The Question is not whether there is or is not confusion in current law or the DOJ OLC, but whether the DOJ OLC will be compelled to accept there is no confusion in the Geneva Conventions. DoJ OLC is shifting the issue from the clear standards in Geneva barring all abuse, to whether or not DOJ OLC is clear or has or hasn't reviewed a legal standard. A failure of DOJ OLC to review this EO relative to Geneva isn't a defense, but alleged evidence of recklessness and legal malpractice.

If, as DOJ OLC/AG assert there has been "no determination" that waterboarding is or isn't legal, then what was the basis for the EO on waterboarding: Did nobody review any legal standard; if there was a review, where are the notes showing that a review of Geneva was done?

Bradbury "There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding under any circumstances would be lawful under current law

- What kind of legal review is done on whether EOs, as implemented, are or are not lawful?

- How does DoJ OLC explain DOJ OLC memoranda which cites case law concluding waterboarding is torture?

- Did DoJ OLC or anyone "when reviewing current law" include in that review the Geneva Conventions which prohibits all abuse?

Bradbury: "The department, as I've tried to indicate, has not had occasion to address the question since the enactment of these new laws."

- Who decides what resets the clock on whether the "current law" has or hasn't been reviewed?

- Is DoJ OLC/AG asking us to believe that that before the EO was signed/issued, DOJ OLC did not provide "any" input on whether the EO on waterboarding was or wasn't lawful?

- How can an EO which "authorizes" waterboarding in specific situations not have any inputs from DOJ OLC?

- Is the President in the habit of issuing any EOs which DOJ OLC are not providing inputs?

- How often does the President issue executive orders that the DOJ OLC or AG are not providing "any" input?

- is it the policy of the President to rely on WH counsel -- who indirectly rely on DOJ OLC?

- Why did the former WH counsel on PBS Frontline say that the President/EOP uses DOJ OLC for inputs on legal matters?

- How do we reconcile the [a] EO on waterboarding that supposedly "didn't" have any DOJ OLC input; with [b] former WH Counsel comments that EOP did rely on DOJ OLC for inputs?