So…. is the tip of the pyramid a psych report? Is it a report that concludes he is lying and withholding? Yes, I think we have enough info from the Aug 1, 2002 “authorization” to conclude that. Is it a report that also views him as so psychologically defended that no amount of friendly persuasion would suffice to get the desired info? That same report would seem to suggest that also.

So we’ve got a set of beliefs underlying the torture process and this man’s personality and his importance. We already know he wasn’t important and likely didn’t have the info they were seeking. But where is that personality assessment? The one that claims he was an inveterate liar, strongly defended, in “need” of being “broken” – and we have this nice torture process, just waiting to be tried…..

I want to see that assessment. And the raw data from which the conclusions were drawn.

I guess I should have been clearer in my comment that the FBI follows a wobbly path between policy and justice, veering more towards justice in Democratic administrations while the CIA is always a policy tool. The other difference is (and you can see this quite clearly in the DOJ IG’s report on GITMO), the only restraint anybody apparently felt was due to the fear of Congressional hearings. The CIA has more defenses against that than the FBI and DOJ. Maybe somebody should remind Congress of that.

That said, Leon Panetta was asked about covert ops in his confirmation hearing. That probably relates to CIA’s relations to JSOC, but it also may relate to this kind of thing.

That was an amazing post!

Mary for President! You could do a lot of good up high with that insightfulness.

BTW, I think incoming politicians and presidents should be trained in the basics of law and their job requirements.

This bangs right up against the Downing Street Memo ”…the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy…”

Bingo!

Which, as Aftergood pointed out, should mean that Congress’ intelligence committees were informed.

Therefore, prosecutions will not happen.

That 2001 directive did not spell out specific guidelines for interrogations, however, and senior C.I.A. officials began in late 2001 and early 2002 to draw up a list of aggressive interrogation procedures that might be used against terrorism suspects.

We really need to see that September 17, 2001 directive. Do you know if anyone has been trying to get it?

Meanwhile, I have surmised for some time that the December 17, 2001 fax of something (we don’t know what yet) from Lt. Col. Baumgartner to Richard Shiffrin concerned a CIA request (even if no CIA personnel are known as yet attached to it). But if the recipient is Shiffrin, then DoD should have been the recipient. And the document should have been JPRA or SERE related. Sounds like a document sent from one part of DoD to another. Why was there so much trouble (so I was told) getting it declassified?

The important point is that anything related to Administration torture plans or operations prior to any of the enabling memos or findings is immediate cause for prosecutions, IMHO. None of Obama and Holder’s “good faith” BS.

The CIA evidently wasn’t happy enough with the details in the 9/17 directive, thinking perhaps of CAT, or Geneva, or War Crimes Act. But I’m glad you pointed out Johnston’s article.

I hear (he said cryptically) that many of our questions will be answered very, very soon.