Sully has a roundup of what both informed and stoopid people are saying In The Wake Of War Crimes. It's well worth clicking through for a look.
Included in Sully's excerpts is The Anonymous Liberal, a lawyer who takes his craft seriously. Here is his response in full:
A Controlled Acute Episodehilzoy says: Something Is Missing
I wish I had more time to write about the truly revolting Bush administration torture memos that were released today. They really need to be required reading for everyone. I think the line that probably sums them up best is on page 11 of the Bybee memo, where he casually observes that "[t]he waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering."
With that wonderful bit of "analysis," our government lawyers concluded that the most iconic example of torture in human history--a technique that dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, if not earlier--was not in fact torture. That's like writing a memo concluding that forced sexual intercourse doesn't constitute rape so long as you make it quick.
Indeed, the entire Bybee memo (which was likely written by John Yoo) is shockingly conclusory in its reasoning. One obvious torture technique after the next is quickly dismissed as not generating a sufficient level of suffering to constitute torture. But there's no attempt to back these conclusions up or explain away possible objections to them. No attempt to address the wide array of contrary precedent. And there's virtually no evidence that the author of the memo even spent much time imagining what it might actually be like to be subjected to some of these techniques.
As I've said many times here before, the most culpable parties in this whole disgusting affair are the lawyers. Their job was to stand up for the rule of law, to tell the Dick Cheneys of the world that what they wanted to do was clearly illegal. They didn't do that. Indeed, they went to elaborate lengths to give their legal blessing to conduct they had to have known was illegal.
I know many of you disagree with me on this, but I think Obama did the right thing by promising not to prosecute CIA officers who acted in accordance with the OLC's prior advice. Given the kind of things these folks are asked to do and the important missions entrusted to them, they have to be able to rely on the legal advice they're given by the government. If we start prosecuting people for conduct they were specifically advised was legal by the OLC, it will severely hamper our ability to conduct future intelligence work. No one will trust the advice they are given, they'll worry that the rug will be pulled out from under them at some point down the road. That's an untenable situation.
The people who should be punished are the people who gave the advice. The lawyers. The Jay Bybees, John Yoos, and David Addingtons of the world. Obama did the right thing by releasing these memos today. It is now up to us to make sure they generate the degree of outrage that they should.
Getting away with torture? April 16: The White House released Bush-era secret memos that appear to depict and promote waterboarding and other torture techniques. Obama has ruled out prosecuting CIA officials used these tactics. Is this the right decision? Rachel Maddow is joined by George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley. In which Turley says: "It's not retribution to enforce criminal laws."I'm still digesting the torture memos, and probably won't say anything comprehensive about them tonight. I did, however, want to flag one thing that is missing.
The US Code defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. "Severe mental pain or suffering", in turn, is defined as: "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from", among other things, "the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality."
Suppose there were something that these memos said, in passing was done to detainees (see e.g. here, p. 4), and that we know independently was done to detainees in US custody; that was known to reliably induce terror and pyschosis in fairly short order; that was described as doing so in government documents that are among the obvious antecedents of the interrogation procedures described in these memos; and that was used precisely in order to produce its psychological effects.
You'd expect the memos to consider whether this technique might count as an act intended to produce "severe mental pain or suffering", since it involves a mind-altering procedure "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality", and might well produce "lasting psychological harm", right?
Wrong. There is no consideration of sensory deprivation as a form of torture in these memos.
Here's an account of early CIA experiments on sensory deprivation:
"Dr Donald O. Hebb at McGill University found that he could induce a state akin to psychosis in a subject within 48 hours. Now, what had the doctor done? Hypnosis, electroshock, LSD, drugs? No. None of the above. All Dr Hebb did was take student volunteers at McGill University where he was head of Psychology, put them in comfortable airconditioned cubicles and put goggles, gloves and ear muffs on them. In 24 hours the hallucinations started. In 48 hours they suffered a complete breakdown. Dr Hebb noted they suffered a disintegration of personality. Just goggles, gloves and ear muffs and this discovered the foundation, or the key technique which has been applied under extreme conditions at Guantanamo. The technique of sensory disorientation. I've tracked down some of the original subjects in Dr Hebb's experiments of 1952 and men now in their 70s still suffer psychological damage from just two days of isolation with goggles, gloves and ear muffs."
Here's the CIA's Kubark Manual:
"Drs. Wexler, Mendelson, Leiderman, and Solomon conducted a somewhat similar experiment on seventeen paid volunteers. These subjects were "... placed in a tank-type respirator with a specially built mattress.... The vents of the respirator were left open, so that the subject breathed for himself. His arms and legs were enclosed in comfortable but rigid cylinders to inhibit movement and tactile contact. The subject lay on his back and was unable to see any part of his body. The motor of the respirator was run constantly, producing a dull, repetitive auditory stimulus. The room admitted no natural light, and artificial light was minimal and constant." (42) Although the established time limit was 36 hours and though all physical needs were taken care of, only 6 of the 17 completed the stint. The other eleven soon asked for release. Four of these terminated the experiment because of anxiety and panic; seven did so because of physical discomfort. The results confirmed earlier findings that (1) the deprivation of sensory stimuli induces stress; (2) the stress becomes unbearable for most subjects; (3) the subject has a growing need for physical and social stimuli; and (4) some subjects progressively lose touch with reality, focus inwardly, and produce delusions, hallucinations, and other pathological effects."
Doesn't that sound like the sort of thing that might constitute a mind-altering procedure "calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"? It does to me. And guess what? Just sixteen months after this memo was written, the Army published a brand new field manual that said:
"Separation does not constitute sensory deprivation, which is prohibited. For the purposes of this manual, sensory deprivation is defined as an arranged situation causing significant psychological distress due to a prolonged absence, or significant reduction, of the usual external stimuli and perceptual opportunities. Sensory deprivation may result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and anti-social behavior. Detainees will not be subjected to sensory deprivation."
So I'm wondering: didn't it occur to anyone to ask the OLC whether sensory deprivation was a form of torture? If so, where's that memo? And if not, why not?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
For your morning Chutzpah, here's hudson (Daily Kos): NY-20 !!!??! Down by 178 votes, Tedisco sues to be declared winner
Just when you thought the Tedisco campaign's tactics couldn't get any more absurd here in the 20th Congressional District, they just became utterly ridiculous.
According to late Thursday night report in the Hudson Register-Star, the Tedisco legal team filed suit in Dutchess County court demanding to be declared the winner in the special election race with Scott Murphy.
Yup, you heard that right.
Tedisco's down by 178 votes, according to the official New York State Board of Elections tally. Yet he's asking a judge to declare him the winner.
Come again?
Even though he's falling farther and farther behind as the count reaches its final stages (before a court rules on challenged ballots), and even though the vast majority of ballots yet to be opened are Democrats challenged by Tedisco...
Here's the front page headline and lede in Friday's Register-Star:
http://www.registerstar.com/...
Tedisco asks to be declared winner
Murphy still holds lead
By Jamie Larson
COLUMBIA COUNTY — 20th Congressional District candidate Republican Jim Tedisco submitted a petition to the Dutchess County Supreme Court Thursday asking the judge to declare him the winner of the extremely close special election race, despite the numbers currently being in favor of his opponent, Democrat Scott Murphy.
According to The Associated Press, Murphy leads Tedisco by 178 votes district wide — 79,452 to 79,274. The only ballots that have not been counted are those challenged by each candidate’s lawyers, and while Tedisco’s office has said the challenges are roughly evenly split between the two camps, Columbia County lawyers for Murphy have only challenged 22 ballots, while Tedisco’s have challenged 258.
Yes, folks, we have officially entered Bizarroland in the 20th CD, with the GOP candidate arguing that (as the guy whose lead has evaporated, from a high of up 25 votes on Election Night to a deficit of down 178 votes today) he should be declared the winner by a hand-picked judge.
Despite the fact that he's losing.
The Register-Star also notes that:
Tedisco is also asking the court to authorize recanvasing of all machine ballots to acquire the “proper” tallies. He would like them to reassess the validity of absentee votes already counted, and keep ballots challenged by Tedisco unopened. County Board of Elections Democratic Commissioner Virginia Martin said this new development could result in the election taking quite a bit more time to be decided. She would not venture a guess on how long it will be before the 20th District has a representative in congress.
I didn't think it could get worse than Tedisco's lawyer and a GOP election commissioner stalling the vote count by going to the first regular-season game at the new Yankee Stadium instead of showing up to count votes.
But this is beyond laughable. It's loony-tunes. Frankly, I'm speechless.
Attaturk: Epilogue
Since the right-wing blogs likely will not revisit and the press certainly will not.
The coda of the Beauchamp Affair:A senior enlisted Army soldier was convicted on Wednesday of killing four handcuffed and blindfolded Iraqi men with pistol shots to the backs of their heads shortly after arresting them in Baghdad two years ago, The Associated Press reported.If you cannot place the name, Master Sgt. Hatley was the direct superior of Pvt. Scott Beauchamp and the person most used to discredit (along with the gay porn star) the New Republic diary of the life of a soldier in Iraq and the ways they dealt with the pressures of Operation Clusterfuck. All of which Hatley said was absolutely not what his ever virtuous soldiers did.
A military jury in Germany, where his unit is deployed, found the soldier, Master Sgt. John E. Hatley, guilty of premeditated murder in the deaths of the men, whom he and several other members of his unit had detained after a firefight with insurgents in Baghdad in spring 2007, according to testimony in the case.In February, another military jury convicted the unit’s medic, Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr., 28, of premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison. On March 30, Sgt. First Class Joseph P. Mayo, 27, pleaded guilty to murder and received a 35-year sentence.Which was exactly the subject Scott Beauchamp was writing about.
Military legal experts said the soldiers’ rank showed the frustration of fighting insurgents who blended in with the locals.
Edmund Burke -- what he would have thought of the denimization of America can be inferred from his lament that the French Revolution assaulted "the decent drapery of life"; it is a straight line from the fall of the Bastille to the rise of denimI take it Will doesn't really get what that whole "French Revolution" thing was about.
"I mean, yeah, peasants were being tortured in the Bastille," Will says, "and starving on the streets, but at least the King looked dashing."