ADVERTISEMENTS

Dana Hunter points out this report in The New York Times:

The program began with Central Intelligence Agency leaders in the grip of an alluring idea: They could get tough in terrorist interrogations without risking legal trouble by adopting a set of methods used on Americans during military training. How could that be torture?

In a series of high-level meetings in 2002, without a single dissent from cabinet members or lawmakers, the United States for the first time officially embraced the brutal methods of interrogation it had always condemned.

This extraordinary consensus was possible, an examination by The New York Times shows, largely because no one involved ? not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush, not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees ? investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate. ...

The process was "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm," a former C.I.A. official said.

There it is. If we do prosecute the architects of our torture program, we won't be putting the likes of Hitler, Himmler and Eichmanm on trial ... it'll be Larry, Moe and Curly.

I don't know if that isn't more horrible.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.