[b]The real trouble began on May 7, 2004, the day the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, completed a devastating report. In thousands of pages, it challenged the legality of some interrogation methods, found that interrogators were exceeding the rules imposed by the Justice Department and questioned the effectiveness of the entire program.[/b]

That is three concerns: Legality of the Bush program, going beyond the Bush program, and questions about effectiveness.

The report landed on the desks of some White House officials who were already having their doubts about the wisdom of the C.I.A.’s harsh methods. John B. Bellinger III, who, as the National Security Council’s top lawyer, played a role in discussions when the program was approved in 2002, by the next year had begun to research past ill-fated British and Israeli use of torture and grew doubtful about the wisdom of the techniques.

The “wisdom” of the techniques. In terms of legality or in terms of effectiveness? I think we can rule out CIA excesses as one of his primary concerns (obviously not wise sans debate).

Mr. Bellinger shared his doubts with his boss, Ms. Rice, then the national security adviser, who began to reconsider her strong support for the program.

Your account seems to fall squarely in favor of Rice reconsidering her support for the program in terms of its legality rather than in terms of its effectiveness. Do you have additional support for that view apart from this story? Do you think your position is well supported by this reporting from the Times? I don’t, for what it’s worth.

Plus, Condi started getting nervous about the interrogation program before the DTA was passed. She started getting nervous because of the IG report, which I told you about before. That came out in 2004.

That’s why I want you to cite your sources regarding the contents of the IG report and Rice’s supposed reaction. It may be that Rice grew nervous after receiving the IG report, but 2005 is also chronologically after that report. Or the news reports on which you rely may be poorly sourced to begin with.

Congress passed a law that does not count? You must be kidding.

Torture has always been against the law.

Torture has always been against applicable laws against torture, naturally. But the Detainee Treatment Act, whether you realize it or not (or will admit it or not) was intended to clarify the line of demarcation between legal treatment of detainees and illegal treatment of detainees.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was just Congress being its typical gutless self and pretending that they were coming up with new law so they could avoid dealing with the fact that the Bush administration had been violating the torture statute and the Convention Against Torture and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions since 2002.

Regardless of your opinion of the law, Kathy, it may be relevant to Rice’s opinion of the legality of “enhanced interrogation.” I hope you’ll admit that much.

Plus, Condi started getting nervous about the interrogation program before the DTA was passed. She started getting nervous because of the IG report, which I told you about before. That came out in 2004.

If you fail to realize that the law changed, you may be tempted to draw incorrect conclusions about news statements to the effect that Rice started to show concern that the CIA techniques violated the law.

Then we agree that your narrative tries to implicate Rice as having approved something that was illegal at the time she approved it. Don’t you think it at all important that the relevant law changed around the time that the AG and Rice changed (according to your narrative) changed their tune on harsh interrogation?

You say you treasure the rule of law. You are familiar with ex post facto? Rice’s moral culpability changes if her view of the legality of the techniques changed as the law changed. That is my point, and the reason I’d like to see the source material behind your narrative.

Bryan, it was illegal when she, and everyone else involved in this, approved it! It was illegal whether she or anyone else in the Bush administration thought it was illegal or didn’t think it was illegal, whether they thought they had gotten “authorization” for it or whether they didn’t. The “something” she and the others approved was, and is, torture. There is no “at the time she/he/they approved it.” No law has been passed since 9/11/01 making what they authorized illegal. It’s always been illegal — well, always since the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the Constitution of the United States, and the U.S. torture statute.

Anyone directly involved in conceiving, designing, justifying, authorizing, or carrying out these acts IS potentially prosecutable for war crimes, Bryan.

All of it, especially the characterization of the IG report. You constructed a narrative that tries to implicate Rice as having approved something illegal at the time she approved it, and it is that construal of the facts that I question. I tried to make that clear with my subsequent comments.

I had started through the link parade, but it seems designed to support the idea that Rice was involved in administration meetings over the approval of harsh interrogation techniques. I don’t have much interest in that. I’m interested in how the time line relates to the law.

So you see, everyone already knows this except for you, it seems, Bryan.

Hmmm? What is it you think I do not or did not know?

Of course, the nuts and bolts of an issue are often decided on factual grounds with recognized authorities and authoritative sources being cited to support one’s argument. I don’t necessarily accept that Eastman IS a respected constitutional authority, but if he is, he is only one, and I am quite willing to stake my position on the issue of the Bush administration’s torture program on the nuts and bolts of the issue.

Could you cite your source for this, please?

“This” meaning the content of the IG report, or Condi’s response to it?

Same source?

No, not the same source. Condi’s having been present at the earliest meetings where the torture program was designed has been reported both in the traditional and independent media, based on declassified documents.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/66727.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203141.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture-chrono23-2009apr23,0,4135783.story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/condoleezza-rice-cia-waterboarding

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8013759.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6154255.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5208701/Condoleezza-Rice-approved-torture-techniques.html

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/23/2009-04-23_condoleeza_rice_approved_use_of_waterboarding.html

And here is a right-wing blog making fun of liberal bloggers for being shocked that Condi Rice and other high-ranking Bush officials approved the CIA interrogation techniques. “Who do they think approved it, Bugs Bunny?” the Neocon News blog snarks.

So you see, everyone already knows this except for you, it seems, Bryan.

That’s a good amendment, but you must be wary of the fallacy of appeal to the people: Popular vote does not hold sway over the truth, not even among a group of experts. Once you have allowed that legitimate authorities differ on a given subject, the issue is decided on the nuts and bolts of the issue itself rather than by either appeal to authority or by an appeal to the people (or even a combination thereof).

Except that, after the Inspector-General’s report in May 2004, which concluded that the CIA interrogation program violated the Convention Against Torture. John Bellinger, Condi’s legal counsel, gave her a copy of that report, and after reading the report, Condi was so alarmed about the possibility that the Bush administration was violating the law and opening itself up to possible future war crimes charges that she tried to shut down the program.

Could you cite your source for this, please?

And even before she saw that actual documentary evidence, the idea that “she trusted her friend George Bush’s assurances,” etc., must be taken with a great deal of skepticism, since she was present at the early meetings where the program was designed, and she signed off on every single one of those techniques.

Same source?

(T)hat’s why the CIA stopped waterboarding after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It’s also why, after the IG report came out and its conclusions became publicly known, the CIA destroyed all the torture tapes. And refused to carry out any more “harsh” interrogations at all after a certain point. They were *very* concerned about the possible legal consequences.

Not so fast. The CIA was the body originally asking for waterboarding and other “enchanced interrogation” techniques. Can we use the same rationale for both the CIA asking for/starting the harsh methods as well as for stopping application of the same methods? It makes sense in terms of political cover, but I don’t see how it makes sense in terms of legal cover. The erosion of political cover could surely have prompted a reversal, since it doesn’t matter if the CIA thinks its legal if they believe the DOJ will see it differently in the future. The threat of prosecution would be present regardless.

That persists as a sticking point in your argument about Rice’s words (the Horton issue). Does the evidence suggest that Rice felt the techniques were illegal, or merely that the next administration would treat them that way? The portion of the evidence with which I am familiar suggests that laws passed by Congress (subsequent to the original authorization) would have made the techniques potentially illegal, and if the techniques were not used after those laws went into effect then how could it be properly said that Rice felt they were illegal when she approved them? Do you follow what I’m saying?

Point taken. I will amend: Nobody can reasonably think the Yoo memos a pretty good legal argument. And that’s an assessment shared by many if not most respected constitutional scholars. Obviously not including Eastman.

Do you support prosecution for Jimmy Carter if stress positions were used by interrogators under his administration? Same for Bill Clinton?

Absolutely.

She trusted her friend George Bush’s assurances that he would not permit authorization of something that was contrary to the Convention Against Torture.

Except that, after the Inspector-General’s report in May 2004, which concluded that the CIA interrogation program violated the Convention Against Torture. John Bellinger, Condi’s legal counsel, gave her a copy of that report, and after reading the report, Condi was so alarmed about the possibility that the Bush administration was violating the law and opening itself up to possible future war crimes charges that she tried to shut down the program. And even before she saw that actual documentary evidence, the idea that “she trusted her friend George Bush’s assurances,” etc., must be taken with a great deal of skepticism, since she was present at the early meetings where the program was designed, and she signed off on every single one of those techniques.

What kind of legal cover can they expect from the Bush administration if they themselves believe they are doing wrong? Did they not realize as you do that the memos would offer no protection against future prosecution?

Well, that’s a very good question, Bryan. And that’s why the CIA stopped waterboarding after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It’s also why, after the IG report came out and its conclusions became publicly known, the CIA destroyed all the torture tapes. And refused to carry out any more “harsh” interrogations at all after a certain point. They were *very* concerned about the possible legal consequences.

I love your response, tas. Your failure to address my utterly fair characterization of your rationale for ignoring my posts weakens you rhetorically, as I pointed out above. And you’re still responding to my posts under the banner of ignoring me. Keep it up. You’re always building your reputation.