Was going to frame an intelligent comment here but I'm so thoroughly disgusted by these memos, their evolution and subsequent use, not to mention concealment, I'll just go throw up instead.

It can't get any clearer than a president declaring Geneva does not apply - then copycat the very abuses practiced by tyrannical regimes not party to Geneva.

The problem is that far too many Americans are just fine with torture. Initially they were smug about denying along with Bush that it was happening (wink), then that what was happening wasn't torture, that a few bad apples were doing it...

In the end when it is incontrovertible that our president directed what amounts to a criminal enterprise - we are supposed to "look forward".

Under that reasoning there is no reason to prosecute anyone for any crime whatsoever. "Looking forward" is a euphemism for "look the other way", and it is certainly not forward.

Moreover, you have also orally informed us that although some of these teclmiques may be used with more than once, that repetition wilI not be substantial because the techniques generally lose their effectiveness after several repetitions., 2002 memo page 2

Did the DOJ write this under distress? Or, what? I guess parrots aren't reared for their typing skills.

You have also orally informed us that despite his wound, Zubaydah remains quite flexible, which would substantially reduce any pain associated \vith being placed in the box, We have no information frou, the medica! experts you have consulted that the limited duration for \vhich the individual is kept ill the boxes causes any subsmntial physical pain. /\.$ a result, \ve do not think the use of these boxes can be said to cause pain that is oftlle intensity associated with serious physical injury. -2002 page 10

WHAT?! How does having a wound reduce the pain of being put in the box? Just because he's flexible, which in terms of injury merely means he can move despite the injury.

This is completely nauseating.

You have informed us that the sound of hitting the wall will actually be far worse than any possible injury to the individual.

And this wasn't the first clue that they are full of sh!? Damn, did you hear that? Yeah, that hurt me more than it hurt him. Hahahahahaha... vomit.

Sorry, I can't stop posting...

Additionally, you have informed us that in one use this technique will typically involve at most two slaps. (2002, p. 11)

In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you would also like to introduce an insect into one of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless caterpiller. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or Severe pain.

If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without illfomillg him that you are doing so, then in order to not commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insec 's nt which has a sting that could produce severe harm or suffering or even cause of death.

... so long as you take e er of the approaches we have described, the insect's placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in that position... if a caterpillar was placed in the box. ... Therefore, ... not constitute a predicate act. (2002, p. 14)

Ummm... is this the DOJ saying, "Well, you can't tell him it's going to sting or hurt, but if you just happen to let an insect into the box, that would get around the Act."

Because you'd have to be silly to think a caterpillar would hurt you, even if you didn't know it was a catepillar and you had a ridiculous fear of insects and you were being "aggressively" interrogated and...

I think this above quote-- cleaned up, of course-- is enough to indict. It explains the CIA's techlidaque violates the law and then proceeds to make a 'guess' as to how the CIA could still do the technique without, they think, violating the law.

Thus, the question is whether any of these acts, separately or as a course of conduct, constitutes a threat of severe physical pain or suffering, a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses, or a threat ofimminent death. (2002, p. 12)

Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged menta! harrn must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. (2002, p. 15)

So, you won't know until you do it, but it does constitute a threat of imminent death meant to convince the terrorist leader that you are 'outside the law' and he could be killed or tortured later on... and the DOJ expects that no reasonable person would consider that threatening imminent death multiple times during interrogations could result in prolonged mental harm?

Hmm. I wonder if PTSD counts as prolonged mental harm because I bet you could get reasonable people to expect these actions could result in PTSD considering the "threat of imminent death" ASSAG so subtly ignores.

As far as things go, if any of these victims are found later to be suffering prolonged mental harm, then the interrogators violated the law since waterboarding was an imminent threat of death, and yet the DOJ thought it was unlikely to cause at least one case of prolonged mental harm despite people quitting the SERE training after the techniques. Take away the ability to leave, and you have a recipe for severe distress.

Based on the foregoing, and based on the facts that you have provided, we conclude that the interrogation procedures that you propose would not: violate Section 2340A. We wish to emphasize that this is our best reading of the law; (2002, p. 18)

Don't you mean most favorable interpretation of the law?