Do We Torture?

"While the executive order flatly forbids torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, its failure to specify permissible and impermissible techniques seems designed to leave the CIA wiggle room. A prohibition on 'acts of violence,' for example, applies only to those violent acts 'serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment,' as defined by the Military Commissions Act. The MCA, in turn, limits 'cruel and inhuman treatment' to the infliction of bodily injury that entails: '(i) a substantial risk of death; (ii) extreme physical pain; (iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or (iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.' In other words, the president's order appears to permit cutting or bruising a suspect so long as the injury does not risk death, significant functional impairment or 'extreme physical pain,' an entirely subjective term. . . .

"The executive order's most revealing words come at the end. Its final section states that the order creates no rights enforceable by any victim against the United States or its employees, while expressly offering CIA employees a defense against any attempt to hold them liable for abuse. The ultimate purpose of the law, in other words, is to protect the potential perpetrators, not the potential victims."

Joanne Mariner writes for Findlaw: "Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the new order asserts, the president has the power to interpret the meaning and application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This much is true, but the power to interpret the law does not encompass the power to impose a misinterpretation by executive fiat.

"Secret, incommunicado detention is illegal, both under U.S. and international law. By purporting to 'determine' that the CIA's secret prison program is legal, the president does not make it legal; he simply confirms that responsibility for this illegal program lies with him."

Ana Marie Cox blogs for Time: "The good news: We don't torture! The bad news: As to what torture is, as to how violators will be punished, as to whether or not torture ever took place, well, you'll have to take their word for it."

McConnell's Surprising Admission

McConnell's appearance on Meet the Press was notable for reasons other than his vague statements about torture.

Dick Polman blogs for the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Most Americans have long believed that the Bush team knowingly misled the nation into war by building a specious case against Saddam Hussein -- in one national poll last October, 58 percent shared that view -- but it's rare indeed that a high-ranking Bush teammate stands up in public and says the same thing.

"Actually, Admiral Mike McConnell was sitting down yesterday when he confirmed the Bush team's prewar deceptions; it was a newsworthy event, given the fact that McConnell, a former National Security Agency official, currently serves Bush as director of national intelligence. It was valuable to get him on the record. His words yesterday, on Meet the Press, will probably be grist for those future historians who will assess Bush's legacy."

Russert read out loud some quotes attributed to McConnell by Stephen Hayes in his new biography of Dick Cheney. According to Hayes, McConnell told him in an 2006 interview: "All of these current players, Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and the president... My sense of it is their political faith and convictions influenced how they took information and interpreted it, how they picked up and interpreted outside events. As a former intel pro, when you don't like the answer and you set up your own thing, you tend to get the answer you want. You hire people who think like you do or want to satisfy the boss. I've read much more about the current set of players and they did set up a whole new interpretation because they didn't like the answers. They've gotten results that in my view now have been disastrous."

As Russert put it, when he stopped reading: "That's pretty harsh."

McConnell replied: "Indeed."

Shocking Executive Privilege Move

Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein broke the news in Friday's Washington Post: "Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege. . . .