TORTURE MEMO: Here’s a New York Times piece on the March 2003 “president can legally order torture” memo, in which weirdness abounds:

“…The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

“One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors ‘except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.’ …

“Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“‘The April document was about interrogation techniques and procedures,’ said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman. ‘It was not a legal analysis.’ [See? That sounds weird and patently false, no? –Eve]

[clipped]

[uber-creepy part starts here–Eve]

“The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator ‘knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith,’ the report said. ‘Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control.’

“The adjective ‘severe,’ the report said, ‘makes plain that the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture. Instead, the text provides that pain or suffering must be “severe.”‘ The report also advised that if an interrogator ‘has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture.’

“The report also said that interrogators could justify breaching laws or treaties by invoking the doctrine of necessity. An interrogator using techniques that cause harm might be immune from liability if he ‘believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm.’ …

[clipped]

more

Last word goes to the Washington Post‘s editorial board: “Before the Bush administration took office, the Army’s interrogation procedures — which were unclassified — established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law.”