Bush To CIA: 'Leave No Marks'

[RestoreGore]

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0734,hentoff,77589,2.html

Nat Hentoff
Bush to CIA: 'Leave No Marks'
With no sign of torture on a prisoner, then it didn't happen, right?
by Nat Hentoff
August 21st, 2007 7:24 PM

On July 20, George W. Bush issued an executive order authorizing the CIA to use "enhanced" techniques (as the president likes to call them) in its terror interrogation program—including in the CIA's secret prisons, known internationally as "black sites."

CIA director Michael Hayden assures us that "now our mission and authorities are clearly defined." Adds national intelligence director Michael McConnell: "We now have a clear legal basis" for the CIA's crucial national-security responsibilities.

The new Bush directive claims to forbid torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, as required by the Supreme Court's 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision and the Geneva Conventions. However, under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only the president can interpret the meaning of the Geneva Conventions.

snip

As of this writing, there has been hardly any penetrating press coverage of the charges in this report. For example, "Officials and interrogators who authorize and participate . . . in the CIA's so-called interrogation techniques . . . face a substantial risk of criminal liability under the provisions prohibiting 'torture' and 'cruel or inhuman treatment' in the U.S. War Crimes Act, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and under the Torture Convention Implementation Act of 1994."

In other words, it's not only the actual CIA interrogators in these "black sites" who may themselves wind up in the dock. The Leave No Marks report adds:

"Officials who authorize these techniques . . . are at significant risk: namely, that in future trials involving the War Crimes Act and other legal prohibitions described in this report, courts will be presented with credible and compelling evidence of harm—provided by medical and psychological experts skilled in the documentation of physical and psychological consequences of torture and ill treatment, in accordance with internationally accepted protocols."

However, underlying the question of whether these horrific crimes (made in the USA) will ever be prosecuted in our courts is a basic problem: How many Americans will give a damn about demanding such justice?

[tularetom]

1. If you ain't ever gonna let the guy go what's the difference?

They are denied access to legal counsel, they aren't allowed to see their families, they could have marks all over them and who would know besides the guys who put the marks there in the first place.

Which is probably why they don't want us to know about all this stuff. I actually think a lot of Amurkins could put two and two together. They are certainly afraid of it otherwise why all the secrecy. If we were all gung ho to torture all mid eastern people they'd brag about it to us.

[RestoreGore]

2. They know it is immoral and illegal

And they also know that history will reveal what they have done. Unfortunately, it appears that the people of this country don't seem to give a damn whether there are marks or not. The fact that you even had to ask what's the difference is very telling.

[tularetom]

3. Um it was supposed to be sarcastic

From the standpoint of the assholes doing the torturing what difference would it make to them? From the standpoint of most of us, it's despicable whether or not it leaves marks.

The point is the prisoner will be held indefinitely without contact with anyone. Who's gonna know whether or not there are marks.

[RestoreGore]

4. Understand, Sorry for misunderstanding you.