Patraeus went on to say that he believed that banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States. He said Guantanamo Bay inflamed U.S. hostility and he supported its closure, commenting, “Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it . . . the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us.”

General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the top commander in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal became publis, also expressed concern with the torture and abuse of prisoners. On May 31st he described torture as a “war crime” and called for a truth commission to investigate abusive interrogation practices. Sanchez blamed prisoner abuse on the civilian and military command at all levels, concluding “and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission.”

Sanchez also disagreed with Dick Cheney’s claim that torture helped stop terrorist attacks: “During my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques.” Sanchez expressed concern that the U.S. will repeat these errors, telling the Huffington Post, “If we do not find out what happened then we are doomed to repeat it.”

And, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered reported that Alberto Gonzalez approved torture well before the Department of Justice memoranda when he served as White House counsel. The torture involved Abu Zubaydah who was arrested on March 28, 2002. The Justice Department issued its first memorandum on torture four months later on August 1. An FBI interrogator testified before Congress that they requested permission to use harsher and harsher interrogation methods. The CIA told NPR that there was legal guidance provided before August 1 but would not say what it was, when it was given or by whom. A source told NPR that Gonzalez signed off on the harsh interrogation techniques on a daily basis. The NPR report concludes with a former government official describing the DOJ memoranda process as a complete charade.

One of the documents we filed as an addendum to the bar complaints was a series of Department of Justice emails from Deputy Attorney General James Comey stating that Alberto Gonzalez was “weak” by succumbing to White House political pressure to approve torture, and warning Gonzales that the approval would come back to haunt him and the DOJ. In fact, when these emails are read it is evident there was a lot of pressure on DOJ to sign-off on torture, which they euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation.” The pressure was made clear in one email where Comey implicated both the president and vice president, writing:

“The AG explained that he was under great pressure from the Vice President to complete both memos, and that the President had even raised it last week, apparently at the VP’s request and the AG had promised they would be ready early this week.”

He goes on to describe the Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel as “too weak to stand up for the principles that undergird the rest of this great institution” (meaning the Department of Justice). Another email, dated April 28, 2005, suggests that Comey was told the torture memoranda needed to be drafted quickly to provide retroactive cover for torture that already occurred. This adds to the NPR conclusion that the memoranda were a charade to provide cover for an already ongoing torture program.

It really is astounding to think the United States is actually debating whether torture is appropriate or not. The U.S. led the world in getting the Geneva Convention approved and Ronald Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture. Both of these treaties, which have been ratified and are now U.S. law, prohibit torture.

And, in the report accompanying their resolution, the ABA points to the role of lawyers who provided legal cover for the torture program. They say: “We do not construe the giving of good faith legal advice to constitute endorsement or authorization of torture . . . the memoranda and the decisions of high U.S. officials at the very least contributed to a culture in which prisoner abuse became widespread.”

In fact, the lawyers were the lynchpin. There was dissent inside the CIA, FBI and DoD over the torture program. Those directly involved were worried that they could be prosecuted for war crimes as torture is clearly prohibited by international and U.S. law. If lawyers had not manipulated the meaning of the law through tortured legal reasoning, the torture program would have ended rapidly. Honest legal advice would have prevented these war crimes.