Even the article you cite makes clear that the CIA engaged in many more “enhanced interrogations,” than those three instances. You seem to agree that any interrogation regime which, not infrequently, results in the death of the interrogatee probably counts as torture.

And the CIA was not the only branch engaged in torture. We have recorded instances of torture by the US Military, by private contractors, and we have scores of people “rendered” to third countries where it was clearly understood that they would be (and where they, in fact, were) tortured.

Now, you raise the perfectly valid point that it make little sense to prosecute the underlings who actually carried out the torture, while letting those, who ordered it, get off scot-free.

I agree with you that that poses the politically uncomfortable prospect of putting high cabinet officials if not the president, himself, in the dock. You say that’s a non-starter (and President Obama, apparently agrees with you). I say that’s a mistake, precisely because, as you say yourself

Had the techniques been used haphazardly, that would be one thing, but they were used after clearance from superiors and under monitored conditions.

This wasn’t a one-off improvisation by some CIA field officer. This was organized and deliberate.

And our children will rue the day when we decided to sweep the whole thing under a rug.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself;
(I am large—I contain multitudes.)

I refer specifically to this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

The same article says that the CIA did not consider the techniques torture, but does refer to several detainee deaths:

The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners.

According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level — by the deputy director for operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progressively harsher technique is used. The described oversight appears tough but critics say it could be tougher. In reality, sources said, there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use.

Two sources also told ABC that the techniques — authorized for use by only a handful of trained CIA officers — have been misapplied in at least one instance.

The sources said that in that case a young, untrained junior officer caused the death of one detainee at a mud fort dubbed the “salt pit” that is used as a prison. They say the death occurred when the prisoner was left to stand naked throughout the harsh Afghanistan night after being doused with cold water. He died, they say, of hypothermia.

According to the sources, a second CIA detainee died in Iraq and a third detainee died following harsh interrogation by Department of Defense personnel and contractors in Iraq. CIA sources said that in the DOD case, the interrogation was harsh, but did not involve the CIA.

Now, three questions arise here: one, if the technique can cause death, should it even be in the arsenal available to the interrogator? I don’t think it should.

Second, is a technique consistent with international and national legal standards, including the Geneva Conventions? Most if not all of the 6 techniques fail here, so another good argument for getting rid of them.

Third, is the answer to two is positive, and for most people it is, do you prosecute?

This is where you and I have a disagreement. Had the techniques been used haphazardly, that would be one thing, but they were used after clearance from superiors and under monitored conditions. I have a hard time prosecuting the underlings in that scenario, except in cases where death occurred.

And if you go after the big cheese, you have to go all the way up the chain, and that means Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Harman, and anyone else ‘in the know’. Now we’re right back where we started…and right back where I made the assertion that I think war crimes trials should be reserved for systemic terrorizing of a community.

It’s enough for me that the practice has apparently ended. You and many, many others disagree. Very well…let the chips fall where they may. But I think a President Bush who stood in the docket, raised the specter of 9/11, described the threats he was facing, related the conversations he had with members of oversight committees, and said forthrightly, “I authorized the techniques based on the threat facing our country and advice from my legal staff on their legality, and I stand by that decision” would not be convicted…

Clearly, the CIA personnel were in the same position (but to a far lesser extent) as Nazis who were ‘just following orders’, in the sense that if orders are morally and legally wrong, and you follow them, you are culpable. But this is not Poland in 1940, and the incidents were isolated, not directed in a random, terroristic fashion at the general populace. There IS a difference in degree, and thus, while I have previously admitted to being on the proverbial slippery slope, I am prepared to go after a Saddam Hussein for war crimes when he used chemical weapons on Kurds in Northern Iraq, where I am NOT prepared for going after George W. Bush for okaying the waterboarding of three high-ranking al Qaeda detainees…

Let us leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether waterboarding is torture. It clearly is, both under international law and under US law, but that’s not the point.

You now say that killing a detainee is a prosecutable offence.

Is torturing a detainee (under whatever legal definition of “torture” we can agree upon) a prosecutable offence ?

If not, why not?

And what does “the mood in Washington” have to do with whether or not crimes were committed?

I may be riding down that slippery slope full gallop, but that’s still my stance.

Am I comfortable with waterboarding? No, I’m not. Most people think it’s torture, and a good-sized body of law, too.

Am I glad we put a stop to it? Yes, I am.

Do I have a solid leg to stand on here? Probably not.

However, given the totality of the circumstances, and the ‘mood’ in Washington post-9/11, I’m not going to support going after anyone based on waterboarding.

However, that doesn’t mean anything goes – and in your example of detainees dying under duress, then absolutely those responsible must be brought to trial…

I’m not going to win any awards for coherent arguments here…nevertheless, this is truly how I feel on the issue…

I don’t want to see a war crimes trial, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want criminal proceedings brought in cases that clearly warrant it…

I am not sure I understand the distinction you are making. But if you are saying that these actions should be prosectuted under domestic law, rather than international law, then I can assure you that the first defence motion, in each case, will be for summary dismissal, on the basis that US courts do not have jurisdiction to try crimes against foreign nationals, committed on foreign soil.

The whole point of envoking International Law, in these cases, is to give US courts jurisdiction that they would not otherwise have.

If we proceeded as you suggest, under domestic law, then essentially none of these acts would be prosecutable.

Perhaps that’s your intent…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/washington/19gitmo.html?_r=1&hp