posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:14 PM
I don't see a point to this post or these articles. The Bush administration said that they started "torturing" in 2002. Carrying out the action,
and planning, are not the same thing. They started planning in '01, yes, attemping to find out if they were justified in using enhanced interrogation
techniques in the event of capturing an enemy combatant they could not get to talk.
They never specifically said what was in the memos, nor did they describe any of the tortures, other than standing, which they attempt to draw
attention to Rumsfeld for making a joke about standing. They said that standing, stress positions, dogs for intimidation, and stripping were
authorized. Another memo says that that authorization could "rise" to torture, meaning that that memo did not consist of it, but that it could pave
the way for torture to be used. Then, another memo was released saying that enemy combatants are not protected under the Geneva Conventions anyway,
which they are not.
I see no evidence of anything being discredited by the Bush administration, nor do I see anything valuable learned from this. I do see, however, that
you failed to leave out that Obama may still be in hot water for granting the CIA leniency.