1) I never said Guantanamo detainees, what i am talking about is more specific, the CIA program happened outside the U.S. that was one of the key things.

2) I said that the 2002 OLC memo that said Common Article 3 did not apply would have been law until overruled.

The fact that Obama just went and rescinded every OLC memo from September 11th 2001 - January 20th 2009th

doesn't change anything I said, it just shows the White House at least knows OLC memos are law until overruled and thus overruled them.

I am just being realistic who is MORE likely to get prosecuted President Bush or some CIA operative at the bottom who wasn't waterboarding or any of the grave abuses but was doing something else that may touch that line.

I am making a very narrow argument, people have just wanted to broaden my original point to discuss many other things. also doesn't help with Gonzales today. but I am very limited and focused mostly due to and in response to the John Radsan piece.

thus the conflict of United States vs. al Qaeda is not considered between two nation states.

The only part of the Geneva convention that may or may not have applied would have been Common Article III, which I already discussed the gray area with that.

How long is it acceptable to keep someone standing?
How long can you keep them from sleep? and how much and to how far can you mix and max different techniques.

according to PCA the answer is

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

I guess thats down to the minute?

no one is ready to say here is the clear cut this torture, you can do right up to this and not cross the line. But thats what they wanted to know in 2002, for the first time ever someone wanted to know

but yes ok exactly how far ARE we allowed to go?

Their interpretations were bad, and at the very least incompetent, but they were not long after 9/11 when were trying to determine exactly where the line is.

and when 1 person goes to far in reading the law, how do you expect non-lawyers to realize it?

Bybee, Yoo, Haynes, Addington tortured interpretation? don't you get it in 2003 its not a tortured interpretation its law.

and indeed people have opinions and can disagree so thats why there are chains of command and authority. You can believe what you want as an executive employee.

but if the OLC says it its LAW. unless The Supreme court, the President, the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General overrule it, the OLC memos are basically the governments top lawyers telling not what they THINK the law says, they are telling you what the law says, plain and simple.

in 2003 were harsh interrogation techniques illegal? ofcourse not! the OLC already concluded everything they were doing was legal especially since common article 3 didn't apply.

The point is, it may not be correct, but when the OLC says it, it is law unless otherwise overruled.

but I have National Security Law currently with John Radsan, and he taught me Constitutional law - Powers (focus on the powers that the constitution gives, versus the Constutitional law - Liberties class that focus on the liberty side of the constitution). and it was discussing with him from his aspect as a CIA Lawyer from 2002-2004, wasn't there any way at all these people would or could be held accountable.
and he said for what?
and its really from that discussion and learning about the OLC and the actual progression of events, that I realized you almost can't touch the principals the only ones we can hit would be the bottom guys, the people who actually carried things out.

And in the end its a bit unfair, everything is vague because no one has wanted to really spell out what you can and cant do. its just a list of known can'ts. So after 9/11 people wanted to push the limit. Where is the limit when the limit is vague? So first Lawyers push an interpretation, because of this one line and other international cases, Common article 3 doesnt apply. and here is what torture is considered, so this is the line an d don't cross this.

4 years later it becomes actually the line may have been a mile back. This is why congress passed the MCA, but what do you do as a regular CIA person knowing at any day you can be charged with War Crimes if the MCA goes away or is ruled unconstitutional?

so in the end its just not fair, and it made me realize just how important the LAWYERS around these people really are.