Through the collection of  ”detailed medical information” from detainee interrogations that physicians and mental-health experts used to shape subsequent interrogation regimens, Physicians for Human Rights charges that medical personnel involved in the torture violated their professional ethics and long-standing legal restrictions on human experimentation. Those violations “could rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” the group writes in its report. It calls for an “immediate criminal investigation” into its charges, as well as a host of oversight mechanisms to determine that no such biological experimentation continues.

Just months after 9/11, the CIA hired two psychologists with experience in a training program to help U.S. servicemembers survive enemy torture, known as SERE, to help design an interrogation program for hard-to-crack al-Qaeda detainees. Those psychologists, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, set to work on a detainee in CIA custody, Abu Zubaydah, and under their guidance in the summer of 2002, Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. Their work contributed to the establishment of several other interrogation methods not permitted under decades-long understandings of the Geneva Conventions, like keeping a detainee’s body so painfully contorted as to prevent him from falling asleep.

Jim Risen of The New York Times has the CIA’s rebuttal:

“The report is just wrong,” said Paul Gimigliano, an agency spokesman. “The C.I.A. did not, as part of its past detention program, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees. The entire detention effort has been the subject of multiple, comprehensive reviews within our government, including by the Department of Justice.”

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture emailed reporters a statement on the report: ”These revelations are profoundly disturbing and raise for us the question of what more remains hidden.  The spiritual health of our nation will continue to suffer until the full truth opens a path to the justice and healing that our nation so desperately needs.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights calls on the Obama administration to certify that its new interrogation team, known as the HIG, does not engage in any similar human experimentation:

CCR also demands that the new intra-agency interrogation unit that was disclosed in February 2010 explain the nature of the “scientific research” it is conducting to improve the questioning of suspects. The current government may attempt to take advantage of ambiguity in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual, added by the Bush administration and left in place by the Obama administration, to justify the ongoing use of some “enhanced” interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation in the new interrogation guidelines. Any ongoing unlawful human experimentation to “perfect” such techniques must immediately cease.

For more, see Jeff Kaye, who first disclosed the existence of Appendix M.

Update: Check out this video about the report:

Yoo’s being pretty disingenuous here. The August 1, 2002 OLC memo on torture isn’t about perishable circumstances shortly after 9/11. It’s about the scope of executive power — and exclusive, inherent executive power. Yoo tells Stewart that Congress or the courts could rein in a rogue president on his conduct of a war. Yet his consistent view, as expressed in the memo, is that there’s pretty much nothing Congress can do during wartime short of cutting off funding, a politically extreme step.

Maybe people should give Yoo credit for picking his speaking venues.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[W]e also learned about a proposal advanced by certain officials from the FBI and DoJ in late 2002 to change the circumstances of [Mohammed] Al-Qahtani‘s interrogation. A draft letter prepared for the purpose of presenting this proposal to the National Security Council indicated that this proposal involved subjecting Al-Qahatani to interrogation techniques of the sort that had previously been used by the CIA on Zubaydah and another detainee. DOJ and FBI officials involved with this proposal stated to us that the rational for this proposal was to bring more effective interrogation techniques to bear on Al-Qahtani than the ineffective interrogation techniques that the military had been using up to that time. The techniques that had been previously used by the CIA on Zubaydah included methods that did not remotely resemble the rapport-based techniques that are permitted under FBI policy.

Serwer writes, “It’s unclear who within the FBI recommended that the CIA torture Al-Qahtani after the military had already done so, but it seems to me that this is a pretty harrowing example of how torture can’t be contained once its use is legitimized.”

In an interview with the Guardian for the eighth anniversary of 9/11, Pataki criticised current White House policies for sending wrong signals about US intentions around the world. In particular, he attacked the recent decision by the US justice department to launch an official investigation into alleged abuses by CIA agents during the interrogation of terror suspects in the aftermath of 9/11.

“Placing CIA officials who were acting in the aftermath of the worst attacks against our country and civilians in our history in possible criminal jeopardy years after the fact is in my mind a horrible decision. [...]

“It jeopardises our ability to continue to effectively protect our country against those who hate us and want to attack us again.”

A prominent Republican, his criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the CIA interrogation affair reflects thinking widely held within his party. The attorney general Eric Holder has come under sustained fire from the right of US politics for appointing a special prosecutor to look into whether the agency went beyond legal limits in its so-called “enhanced interrogation” of al-Qaida suspects.

Pataki’s role on 9/11 gives his views added resonance. “We must make sure we obey the rule of law and act in ways that are not just legal but moral,” he said, but continued: “But now, years after the fact, to consider charges is wrong for our country, wrong for our security and wrong for the entire world that believes in the rule of law.” [Emphasis added.]

(Via ThinkProgress)

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

According to [REDACTED] the hard takedown was used often in interrogations at [REDACTED] as “part of the atmospherics.” For a time it was the standard procedure for moving a detainee to the sleep deprivation cell. It was done for shock and psychological impact and signaled the transition to another phase of the interrogation. The act of putting a detainee into a diaper can cause abrasions if the detainee struggles because the floor of the facility is concrete. The [REDACTED] stated he did not discuss the hard takedown with [REDACTED] managers, but he thought they understood what techniques were being used at [REDACTED] stated that the hard takedown had not been used recently. [REDACTED] After taking the interrogation class, he understood that if he was going to do a hard takedown, he must report it to Headquarters. Although the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] and OMS [Office of Medical Services] Guidelines address physical techniques and treat them as requiring advance Headquarters approval, they do not otherwise specifically address the “hard takedown.”

So the Hard Takedown involved putting a detainee into a diaper and preparing him for sleep deprivation, which was done through placing a detainee in painful contorted positions. And those who performed it believed they merely needed to report it to CIA headquarters. Obviously no one thought he was doing anything above and beyond the approved techniques. Another operative tells the inspector general that “they are authorized and believed they had been used one or more times at [REDACTED] in order to intimidate a detainee.” (That’s a direct quote of the IG report, not the CIA operative.) And why not? Sleep deprivation wasn’t even considered an enhanced technique by then-CIA Director George Tenet, and clearly “headquarters” knew what the Hard Takedown was if officials were reporting its use — and could have stopped it. It’s harder and harder to argue these abuses weren’t the direct outgrowth of policy, even if the Justice Department didn’t explicitly order such techniques.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted. Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.

“The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

“I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

“Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

“I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

Of course, that’s way too much for nine GOP senators, including Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who, as Politico’s Manu Raju reports, sent a letter to Holder insisting that if he investigates anyone for torture then it’s only a matter of time before the next terrorist attack.

[T]here is little doubt that further investigations and potential prosecutions of CIA officials would chill future intelligence activities. The intelligence community will be left to wonder whether actions taken today in the interest of national security will be subject to legal recriminations when the political winds shift…

I’m sure I can speak for Daphne when I say I can’t wait for Monday’s release of the CIA report.

The op-ed itself is a jumble of different points, from the idea that Congress and the intelligence community need to come to a “balance” over the role of each to a plea not to investigate or prosecute “public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided” on — he doesn’t specify, but — torture or warrantless surveillance or other stuff. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) may have Panetta shook. So what to make of this?

All of Panetta’s mishmash of points go in one direction. It’s all stuff CIA wants to hear in an era of tumult and possible criminal investigation. Just count all the chest-puffing references to how rad the agency is. “Our present tools are effective, we use them aggressively to go after our enemies, and Congress has been briefed on them. … The men and women of the CIA truly are America’s first line of defense. … The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001.” If there remains doubt that Panetta could be a forceful advocate for an agency that he didn’t really have much experience with, the op-ed ought to remove it. It reads like an attempt to stick up for his troops against a particularly annoying Democratic Congress.

Except for one thing. Read this paragraph:

The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided. The last election made clear that the public wanted to move in a new direction.

That’s not sticking up for the frontline interrogators who carried out the abusive treatment of, say, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. That’s Panetta sticking up for the CIA senior leadership under George Tenet who helped design, implement and protect it. And that’s much different from what Panetta’s said in the past.