Don't say they didn't warn you

Daphne Eviatar reads the latest torture memo -- really, an FBI anti-torture memo -- so you don't have to:

The memo lays out clearly and simply what the interrogation experts at the FBI knew about interrogations of terror suspects, what would or would not work on them, and what sort of conduct was illegal. And it reads much like the sorts of arguments we’re now hearing from the America Civil Liberties Union and other civil and human rights organizations arguing that senior defense department officials and lawyers who approved abusive techniques ought to be criminally investigated.

“Central to the gathering of reliable, admissible evidence is the manner in which it is obtained,” the authors write to the General. “Interrogation techniques used by the DHS [Defense Human Intelligence Services, part of DoD] are designed specifically for short term use in combat environments where the immediate retrieval of tactical intelligence is critical. Many of DHS’s methods are considered coercive by Federal Law Enforcement and [Uniform Code of Military Justice] standards. Not only this, but reports from those knowledgeable about the use of these coercive techniques are highly skeptical as to their effectiveness and reliability.”

The memo went on to explain the need for interrogaton psychologically tailored to each captive, and to criticize as unconstitutional (and in violation of the Torture Act) many of the DOD methods.

That was in November 2002, 3 months after the Bybee-Yoo memos. I'm pretty confident the full record would disclose that no one up top let the FBI analysis bother their pretty little heads.

(You can read the memo here, it seems, if this ubiquitous-and-obnoxious "Scribd" software works in your browser -- it doesn't in mine.)

... In related news, an article on the solitary confinement of al-Marri. Relies rather heavily on his defense counsel, but the feds aren't talking.