Obama has torture memos released

[Lord of the Abyss]

I certainly don't recall many people being willing to condemn them for it. I did hear a lot of "Oh, it's just a few bad apples" and "you have to support the troops in wartime".

Exactly what standards of condemnation did you have in mind? Is denouncing torture not enough or do you want people to go spouting internet tough-guy bullshit about how we should string up torturers on posts, have them waterboarded, etc. etc.?

What Wong said. I certainly never called for them to be tortured, since opposition to torture is one reason I condemned them.

[Chris OFarrell]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD97N56RO0

Obama open to torture memos probe, prosecution
By BEN FELLER – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.

Less than a week after declaring it was time for the nation to move on rather than "laying blame for the past," Obama found himself describing what might be done next to investigate what he called the loss of "our moral bearings."

His comments all but ensured that the vexing issue of detainee interrogation during the Bush administration will live on well into the new president's term. Obama, who severely criticized the harsh techniques during the campaign, is feeling pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on the subject. At the same time, Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney are insisting the methods helped protect the nation and are assailing Obama for revealing Justice Department memos detailing them.

Answering a reporter's question Tuesday, Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted. The methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last Thursday, included such grim and demeaning tactics as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning.

He said anew that CIA operatives who did the interrogating should not be charged with crimes because they thought they were following the law.

"I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved here," the president said. "As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."

Still, he suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.

The harsher methods were authorized to gain information after the 2001 attacks.

The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury. Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.

It might be argued that the officials were simply doing their jobs, providing legal advice for the Bush administration. However, John Strait, a law professor at Seattle University said, "I think there are a slew of potential charges."

Those could include conspiracy to commit felonies, including torture, he suggested.

Bybee also could face impeachment in Congress if lawmakers were so inclined.

A federal investigation into the memos is being conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which usually limits itself to examining the ethical behavior of employees but whose work in rare cases leads to criminal investigations.

The chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary committees said Tuesday they want to move ahead with previously proposed, independent commissions to examine George W. Bush's national security policies.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has referred to his proposed panel as a "Truth Commission," said, "I agree with President Obama: An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. ... Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed separate hearings by his committee in addition to an independent commission.

Over the past weekend, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview the administration did not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." White House aides say he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

Yet it was unclear exactly whom Obama meant in opening the door to potential prosecutions of those who "formulated the legal decisions." Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president meant the lawyers who declared the interrogation methods legal, or the policymakers who ordered, them or both.

"I don't know the answer to that," Gibbs said during a briefing in which he was peppered with questions about the president's words. Later, he added: "The parsing of some of this is better done through a filter of the rule of law and done at the Justice Department and not done here at the White House."

When pressed about any confusion stemming from his comments and Emanuel's, Gibbs said: "Take what the president said, as I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us."

A number of Republicans, including former Vice President Cheney and former top intelligence officials, say Obama has undermined national security with his release of the memos on the matter. On the other side, some Democratic lawmakers, human rights groups and liberal advocates want to see punishment for those involved in sanctioning brutal interrogations — the kind they say amount to torture and have damaged U.S. standing around the world.

"Certainly, this is an attempt not just to stake a ground between the left and the right, but also to navigate through something that he would prefer not be there as an ongoing issue," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar of U.S. politics at the American Enterprise Institute.

"He's walking the tightrope," Ornstein added. "You don't want to give a blanket, `Everything's OK, we're only moving forward.' And you don't want a president making a decision that it is a legal decision."

Obama said he was not proposing that another investigation be launched, but if it happens it should be done in a way that does not "provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way."

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett and Larry Margasak contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Interesting sort of stance. It might well be his 'pardons for all!' was a test of the political waters and he's adjusting...we'll see I guess.

[Dominus Atheos]

Obaman & company can still change their minds, nothing is written in stone. The current administration has floated ideas before only to change them if public sentiment indicates changing them is a good idea. The problem is not so much that Obama & Holder don't give a damn, the problem is that a lot of the nation doesn't give a damn. THAT I find more disturbing. These revelations have hardly caused even a small ripple. The notion that a majority of Americans are either indifferent or in favor of torture is what I find most disturbing here.

Bullshit. I really wish people would stop repeating that brainbug without actually finding out if it's true or not.

[ray245]

Obaman & company can still change their minds, nothing is written in stone. The current administration has floated ideas before only to change them if public sentiment indicates changing them is a good idea. The problem is not so much that Obama & Holder don't give a damn, the problem is that a lot of the nation doesn't give a damn. THAT I find more disturbing. These revelations have hardly caused even a small ripple. The notion that a majority of Americans are either indifferent or in favor of torture is what I find most disturbing here.

Bullshit. I really wish people would stop repeating that brainbug without actually finding out if it's true or not.

What the hell? Broomstick isn't talking about the amount of democrats who supported the prosecution of Bush, but the general public as a whole. The total percentage of the population who favours it against the percentage of people who don't care or don't want any action taken.

[Dominus Atheos]

*snip AP article*

Christ the AP sucks. Something you read in the National Enquirer is probably more likely to be true then something the AP prints.

Since this is the internet, we can go directly to the source to find out what Obama said. Here's a transcript:

Q I appreciate it. I want to ask you about the interrogation memos that you released last week; two questions. You were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions under this legal advice. Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then quickly on a second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether special — a special commission or something of that nature on the Hill to go back and really look at the issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the — look, as I said before, this has been a difficult chapter in our history, and one of the tougher decisions that I’ve had to make as President. On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people, not just in our military but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn’t have scruples, that isn’t constrained by constitutions, aren’t constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I’m not suggesting that that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at the CIA when I visited, what makes America special in my view is not just our wealth and the dynamism of our economy and our extraordinary history and diversity. It’s that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard. And sometimes we make mistakes because that’s the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And that is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And I’m confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, and live up to our values and ideals. And that’s not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe. And I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate. I’ve got a big banking crisis, and I’ve got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we’ve got an auto industry that needs work. There are a whole things — range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I do not take these things lightly, and I am not in any way under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people.

So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

So to sum up: "I'm opposed to any criminal investigations but no one should blame me since it's the Attorney General's decision and I'm passing the buck to him".

Here's what Robert Gibbs said yesturday:

Q You talk about America's image around the world, the President has talked a lot about that, as well. What signal does it send the world if, potentially, people in the Bush administration -- I stress "potentially" -- broke the law? This administration is now saying, we're too busy, there's a lot on our plate, obviously, this argument is out there, but we're not going to --

MR. GIBBS: Listen, I don't --

Q -- but you said we can't look back, we're going to look forward.

MR. GIBBS: Right, but, Ed --

Q What signals does that send?

MR. GIBBS: The administration didn't say they were too busy, Ed. The administration on the second day of a very busy day in a very busy week and very busy 100 days banned the technique.

Q Right.

MR. GIBBS: Okay? I mean, let's understand --

Q But people broke the law before it. You're just turning the page.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- give me a chance to answer your multitude of questions.

Q Well, but it's my real question.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, and I'm glad you've rephrased it. The President took the extraordinary step of stopping these techniques from ever being used -- again, as part of his administration. The President does believe and the Attorney General said quite clearly that those that believed in good faith that these techniques had been declared legal by the Department of Justice should not be prosecuted.

The President also believes that rather than looking backward and fighting this backward, that it's important to move our country forward. That's what he signaled by banning the use of these techniques, and that's where his focus is.

Q So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed through in what they were told was legal, they should not be prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why are they not being held accountable?

MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why.

Q A follow-up on that? You just reiterated the President's comments that he won't -- that harsh interrogation techniques won't be used. But there is a Guantanamo detainee who is currently being detained, who last week made a telephone call out of Guantanamo alleging that he is beaten almost on a daily basis and tear gas has been dumped on him -- Mohammed el Gharani.

MR. GIBBS: I haven't seen something like that, but -- so I have no basis to answer the question.

And what Rahm Emanuel said on Saturday

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final quick question. The president has ruled out prosecutions for CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe that the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

EMANUEL: What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I would just take a step back. He came up with this and he worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see. And Thursday morning, I saw him in the office, he was still editing it.

He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?

EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement -- in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.

We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don't use anymore. He banned it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Rahm Emanuel, thank you very much for joining me.

EMANUEL: Thank you, George.

Video1, Video 2, and Video 3.

[Dominus Atheos]

Obaman & company can still change their minds, nothing is written in stone. The current administration has floated ideas before only to change them if public sentiment indicates changing them is a good idea. The problem is not so much that Obama & Holder don't give a damn, the problem is that a lot of the nation doesn't give a damn. THAT I find more disturbing. These revelations have hardly caused even a small ripple. The notion that a majority of Americans are either indifferent or in favor of torture is what I find most disturbing here.

Bullshit. I really wish people would stop repeating that brainbug without actually finding out if it's true or not.

*Please don't quote images*

What the hell? Broomstick isn't talking about the amount of democrats who supported the prosecution of Bush, but the general public as a whole. The total percentage of the population who favours it against the percentage of people who don't care or don't want any action taken.

You don't read so good, do you? That has the results from every political affiliation, not just democrats.

But here's the totals:



A plurality prefer criminal investigations, and only a third (AKA the republican base) think Bush should get away with it.

[Elfdart]

Oh snap!

Watch one of Condoleezza Rice's henchmen jump off the sinking ship:

Part 1

Rachel Maddow talks to former State Department lawyer under Condoleeza Rice, Philip Zelikow who says that the Bush administration attempted to destroy all copies of an alternative memo on interrogation techniques he wrote in 2005.

From Philip Zelikow's blog at Foreign Policy magazine The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter:

At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.

Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:

* the case law on the "shocks the conscience" standard for interrogations would proscribe the CIA's methods;

* the OLC memo basically ignored standard 8th Amendment "conditions of confinement" analysis (long incorporated into the 5th amendment as a matter of substantive due process and thus applicable to detentions like these). That case law would regard the conditions of confinement in the CIA facilities as unlawful.

* the use of a balancing test to measure constitutional validity (national security gain vs. harm to individuals) is lawful for some techniques, but other kinds of cruel treatment should be barred categorically under U.S. law -- whatever the alleged gain.

The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

Part two below the fold.

An interesting point since Sheriff James Parker of San Jacinto County, Texas was sent to prison for using water torture on inmates in his jail.

I wonder how many others kept copies of this kind of CYA memo for just this occasion.

[SirNitram]

Hey look.

I feel all vindicated for pointing out it's the DOJ's bag. And miraculously, we are seeing a President do the right thing and put it in the DOJ's bag.

Anyway, not really surprising. And the phrasing on interrogators makes the immunity window razor thin, from what I understand has been gleaned from the memos and reports. Still, you roll up criminal enterprises by rolling the little fish.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Some of the right-wing response, from here.

President Barack Obama said that while he wanted to see the whole truth come out about what kind of interrogation tactics were used on the Sept. 11 plotters and other terrorists, he did not want to see the matter become “politicized.”

But by releasing four memos from the Bush Justice Department providing CIA agents with guidance on working over the bad guys, Obama has ensured that it will be a dominant political issue for months to come.

It would have been helpful for Obama if the memos were a little more shocking.

As it is, the Left remains convinced that there is more to learn about Dick Cheney’s dark arts. And those on the Right and in the middle are underwhelmed by the revelation of careful techniques being used on men who were trying to slaughter another 3,000 Americans immediately after 9/11.

While the president tries to gather support for polarizing proposals like global warming fees, nationalized medicine and the military buildup in Afghanistan, both the Left and the Right will eye Obama more suspiciously.

Obama may eventually be forced to choose between losing his liberal base or losing credibility with moderates and conservatives who hope the president proves to be serious about defending America.

So far, Obama seems to be leaning toward his base. The president said the memos revealed that America had lost its “moral bearings,” and suggested that criminal prosecutions for at least two Bush lawyers — one now a Berkeley law professor and the other a federal judge — might be possible.

Obama is looking to accrue moral clout and cast ignominy on his predecessor, but releasing the memos has achieved neither.

Because the practices detailed aren’t as bad as Hollywood and MoveOn.org have suggested, the memo release has only whetted appetites on the Left for revenge.

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., is pushing for a full Senate probe, and the folks at the United Nations are hoping to get international criminal indictments against members of the Bush anti-terror team.

This would be a disaster for the Obama presidency. On the other hand, resisting the angry Left would eventually result in him becoming its target.

But even by releasing the memos and possibly allowing the prosecution of Bush lawyers, Obama may have already lost the tenuous rapport he has had with hawks.

Obama’s director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, a foe of harsh interrogation, admits that the information obtained from the practices the administration abhors helped thwart attacks.

The new bosses at the CIA confirm that the information wrung out of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed was key to stopping a similar attack in Los Angeles.

Obama must remember that KSM and his comrade Abu Zubaydah were being interrogated as Americans felt gnawing fear and anger every day for months after the attacks.

Had the nation been offered a deal in 2002 that if KSM, Zubaydah and others were roughed up under a specific set of rules there would be no attacks for at least seven years, it would have been no contest.

Consider the practices detailed in the memos:

» Waterboarding for 40 seconds at a time, but “for a total of no more than 12 minutes during any 24-hour period.”

» Placing Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s enforcer, in a small box with a harmless insect “such as a caterpillar” that interrogators told him was poisonous.

» Throwing prisoners against a “flexible false wall” that was designed to make a loud noise and scare detainees.

» “Nudity, sleep deprivation (with shackling and, at least at times, with use of a diaper), and dietary manipulation.”

Many conservatives were unsure about where to stand on interrogation practices. What if Americans were putting innocent Afghan shepherds through a living hell, as those on the Left suggested?

These memos stop far short of anything that might be called torture — especially in the face of an imminent attack. Instead of making conservatives ashamed, they are feeling vindicated.

Americans assume their commander in chief knows more about the threats facing the country than they do and are likely giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on matters of intelligence.

But with his repeated laments about American immorality, he strains his credibility with Democrats and Republicans alike who came to have a clear-eyed understanding of the threat from radical Islam in the fall of 2001.

In time, Obama will wish that he had fought to keep the memos secret.

This is pretty disgusting to me. It tries to claim that the memos vindicate the Bush administration by showing how what they did wasn't really that bad.

[Edi]

More of the standard right-wing whine. No substance, no merit and nothing but more FUD and extortion just because they think they should be able to do whatever they want. Fuck them.

[General Zod]

Many conservatives were unsure about where to stand on interrogation practices. What if Americans were putting innocent Afghan shepherds through a living hell, as those on the Left suggested?

These memos stop far short of anything that might be called torture — especially in the face of an imminent attack. Instead of making conservatives ashamed, they are feeling vindicated.

How much you want to bet this douchebag would be quickly changing his tune if he were put through the same techniques? They're not so bad so he shouldn't have any problems stepping up to the plate, right?

[Darth Wong]

If these methods were so comfortable, then why were they effective?

These people want to have it both ways: they want to claim that they weren't so bad, but they also want to claim that they can break the will of religious fanatics so we should keep using them for their ruthless effectiveness. Which is it?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Thursday that any attempt by the Obama administration to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote memos signing off on waterboarding would start a “witch hunt.”

“If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive,” McCain said during an interview on CBS’s “Early Show.”

The former GOP presidential nominee and POW supported Obama’s decision to end the use of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques but insisted that those who gave legal advice should not be prosecuted because they were “sworn to do their duty to the best of their ability.”

“Look, I didn't agree, as you said, with the techniques — and I'd be glad to continue that debate with people. But to criminalize their legal counsel, unless you can prove that they intentionally violated existing laws or ethics, then this is going to turn into a witch hunt,” he said.

McCain compared the potential prosecutions with the actions of “banana republics” that “prosecute people for actions they didn't agree with under previous administrations.”

“To go back on a witch hunt that could last for a year or so, frankly, is going to be bad for the country, bad for future presidents — precedents that may be set by this, and certainly nonproductive in trying to pursue the challenges we face,” he said.

McCain is accusing Obama of a "witch hunt." I bolded the best parts.

[Samuel]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Thursday that any attempt by the Obama administration to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote memos signing off on waterboarding would start a “witch hunt.”

“If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive,” McCain said during an interview on CBS’s “Early Show.”

The former GOP presidential nominee and POW supported Obama’s decision to end the use of waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques but insisted that those who gave legal advice should not be prosecuted because they were “sworn to do their duty to the best of their ability.”

“Look, I didn't agree, as you said, with the techniques — and I'd be glad to continue that debate with people. But to criminalize their legal counsel, unless you can prove that they intentionally violated existing laws or ethics, then this is going to turn into a witch hunt,” he said.

McCain compared the potential prosecutions with the actions of “banana republics” that “prosecute people for actions they didn't agree with under previous administrations.”

“To go back on a witch hunt that could last for a year or so, frankly, is going to be bad for the country, bad for future presidents — precedents that may be set by this, and certainly nonproductive in trying to pursue the challenges we face,” he said.

McCain is accusing Obama of a "witch hunt." I bolded the best parts.

Terrible- we might make it so that future legal counsel might not put foward torture as an option! And then where would we be?

This is more of the "you can prosecute them because it would be partisan" It is so nice to see that McCain is sticking to the principles of prostituting himself for the party.

[Patrick Degan]

“If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive,” McCain said during an interview on CBS’s “Early Show.”

Gee that would be bad. Lawyers just might be afraid to give presidents illegal advice.

[erik_t]

Boy, I wish I worked in a field where gross misconduct was not a reason for post-fuckup punishment. How is this any different from what most professionals deal with?

[Pablo Sanchez]

My two favorite things about the news coverage of the torture memos:
1) The hand-wringing about whether to call what was done "torture." They love to put scare quotes on it, or call it enhanced interrogation techniques, or whatever the fuck the cop-out phrase is now. What was done is torture, morally as well as in legal precedent. There just aren't two ways about it.
2) The way that they just completely ignore the elephant in room with respect to Cheney's public statements about torture. Gee, I wonder why he's going around talking about how torture worked. Maybe because he was really fond of interfering with American intelligence agencies and could very well have been personally involved in getting our torture program started, and therefore legally vulnerable if a real investigation finally comes to pass?