©
From wire reports
WASHINGTON
The Justice Department made public detailed memos on Thursday describing brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA, as President Barack Obama sought to reassure the agency that CIA operatives who carried out the techniques would not be prosecuted.
In dozens of pages of dispassionate legal prose, the methods approved by the Bush administration for extracting information from senior al-Qaida operatives are spelled out in careful detail - from keeping detainees awake for as long as 180 straight hours, to placing them in a dark, cramped box, to putting insects into the box to exploit their fears.
The interrogation methods were authorized beginning in 2002, and some were used as late as 2005 in the CIA's secret overseas prisons. The techniques were among the Bush administration's most closely guarded secrets, and the documents released Thursday afternoon marked the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the program.
Some Obama administration officials have labeled one of the 14 approved techniques, waterboarding, as illegal torture. During war crimes trials after World War II, the United States prosecuted some Japanese interrogators for waterboarding and other methods detailed in the memos.
The release of the documents came after a bitter debate that divided the Obama administration. Fueling the urgency of the discussion was Thursday's court deadline in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued the government for the release of the Justice Department memos.
Together, the four memos give an extraordinarily detailed account of the CIA's methods and the Justice Department's long struggle, in the face of graphic descriptions of brutal tactics, to square them with international and domestic law. Passages describing forced nudity, slamming into walls and dousing with 41-degree water alternate with elaborate legal arguments concerning the international Convention against Torture.
The documents not only catalog the methods that the CIA was authorized to use but spell out in often disconcerting detail how such methods were to be administered.
Prisoners could be deprived of sleep for as much as 180 hours - or 7-1/2 days - could be shoved against a wall "30 times consecutively," or be forced to undergo the simulated drowning method known as waterboarding as many as six times within a two-hour stretch.
"We understand that water may enter - and may accumulate in - the detainee's mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing," reads one passage in a May 10, 2005, memo sent to the CIA from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. If a prisoner failed to recover, the document says that "the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy."
The procedure involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of "10 to 15 degrees" and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth "from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches" for no more than 40 seconds at a time.
But a footnote to a 2005 memo makes clear that the rules were not always followed. The waterboard was used "with far greater frequency than initially indicated" and with "large volumes of water" rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general.
In some cases, the memos address specific interrogation plans. When the CIA asked whether it could prey on al-Qaida suspect Abu Zubaydah's fear of insects, the Justice Department endorsed the idea, as long as it was "a harmless insect" such as a caterpillar and he was told the sting would not be fatal or cause severe pain.
A footnote in a later memo clarifies that the CIA never carried out the insect plan.
The documents were released with minimal redactions, indicating that Obama sided against current and former CIA officials who for weeks had pressed the White House to withhold sensitive details about specific interrogation techniques. CIA Director Leon Panetta had argued that revealing such information set a dangerous precedent for future disclosures of intelligence sources and methods.
A more pressing concern for the CIA is that the revelations might give new momentum to a full-blown investigation into Bush administration counterterrorism programs and possible torture prosecutions.
Within minutes of the release of the memos, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the memos illustrated the need for his proposed independent "Commission of Inquiry," which would offer immunity in return for candid testimony.
Obama condemned what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our history," and said that the interrogation techniques would never be used again. But he also repeated his opposition to a lengthy inquiry into the past, saying that "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Obama said that CIA officers who were acting on the Justice Department's legal advice would not be prosecuted, but left open the possibility that anyone who acted without legal authorization could still face criminal penalties. He did not address whether lawyers who authorized the use of the interrogation techniques should face some kind of penalty.
The four legal opinions, released in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU, were written in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the highest authority in interpreting the law in the executive branch.
All legal opinions on interrogation were revoked by Obama on his second day in office, when he also outlawed harsh interrogations and ordered the CIA's secret prisons closed.
This story was compiled from reports by The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo


My kind of guys?
Give me a break. If it were up to me, Bin Laden would've been caught years ago - and I certainly would not have stated a year after 9/11 that I didn't care where Bin Laden was (remember who did say that? It was the same guy who stated many times that we did not torture). Terrorism is a huge problem, but you don't combat it by engaging in behavior that will fuel their recruitment efforts. So don't paint me as a friend of the terrorists because I don't buy into the false premise that torture is necessary or effective. And by the way, by treaty, the IRC is the body which defines torture. Way to shoot the messenger.
Wrong again..
No AM, I'm talking about the Spain that surrendered after their trains were hit a few years back. In other words, your kinda guys. And in case no one told you, the IRC is not charged with defending this country. I include them along with the Spains of this world for their selective outrage as far as what they say about this nation's efforts to defend itself, and their silence about the tactics and 'techniques' utilized by your beloved terrorists.
Nice try guy
That is not what the IRC represents torture to be, but way to spin it. Read the IRC report. And by the way, aren't you talking about the Spain which tried Pinochet? At any rate, something needs to be done here.
Uh-huh..
For AM..
“Like the International Red Cross calling our behavior torture? “
Yeah right, the IRC, which said that the (now debunked) ‘mishandling’ of Korans at Gitmo was a form of torture too? Give me a break. I’ll rather have my head in the sand than in whatever place, on or outside your body, you’re keeping yours in.
And for mriver..
“Other countries have every right to file war crimes against President Bush, and his administration.”
Of course, and Spain is doing so. The same Spain that rolled over and surrendered when their trains were targeted. I’m sure they’re amenable to anything Al Queda orders them to do at this point, they will dutifully blame it all on the US (well, Bush that is) with the likes of you and yours carrying their water for them. It’s funny, isn’t it, how there are NO actions, like lawsuits, aimed at the terrorists anywhere. Certainly not in Spain. But when a whole continent like Europe caves because of political cartoons not being liked, it is hard to give them any credibility on anything..
Facts
Like the International Red Cross calling our behavior torture? Do you realize the significance of that? I don't need the media to identify something as a spade for me to know it is a spade. Keep you head in the sand sir, it is probably a little more comfortable down there...
The are Internation Rules that the United States aggreed too
Allowing and giving instructions on doing Torture that is banned, puts us at jeopardy of loosing what little we have with the international countries.
We have broken international law. Basic point. These rules were set to try war criminals, such as the ones that were tried after WWII.
For those that argue about our secrets let out. Do you think we are the only ones that have individuals that think this stuff up. I'm betting psych majors in school, deal with issues of this an worse. We have people that rape, torture and mutilate, while committing murder.
The CIA has gone beyond the law, per the prior presidents approval. If they had any integrity they would abide by the international laws set. They didn't and now are trying to protect themselves, not the nation.
If we don't abide by the laws we agreed to, we set ourselves at the level of the extremists.
The current president has a lot of repairing to do in this country and with our neighbors. Other countries have every right to file war crimes against President Bush, and his administration. I wonder why Powell left other than the war. Was their other reasons, positions he didn't agree with.
I pay my
Again, you just don't get it AM..
I believe in effective approaches for defending the country. I do NOT subscribe to the media description of many of these techniques as torture, nor do many others. As I've said before, it is apparent that torture will be accepted as an accusation simply because these detainees say they were! But again, don't let facts interfere with your world view. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
And guyfromches
you believe in torture, or at least defend it. I get it sir. I just don't understand how you can try to justify it. I guess that it is a moral thing...
No AM..
you continue to NOT get it. It has nothing to do with 'two wrongs making a right', it's the fallacious argument that somehow, our troops are going to be better treated if this rabble were treated like genuine soldiers, which they are not. History has shown that is just not the case. We're not dealing with people or cultures who are 'just like us'. They are the result of a mindset and worldview that most of the planet left behind back in the Middle Ages. Their abuse of captives they take has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Gitmo or any other location, they've been doing far worse forever now. That is reality.
Oh
I get it, the 'two wrongs make a right' argument! So, since the North Vietnamese treated our soldiers poorly, it is morally acceptable to treat theirs in the same manner? Seems like I remember this logic from somewhere...oh yes, on the playground in elementary school.