TheraP,
From your NYT quote: “…no one involved... investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.”

They must have read my blog (just kiddng). But this article by Powell’s chief of staff, I linked to in a reply there, provides damning testimony as to the thinking in the WH and Pentagon regarding Gitmo and the WOT, which I’m sure was the same MO for their “enhanced interrogations.” The article is definitely worth a read.

The word George Orwell used was "double-speak."

It's an interesting point you bring up about timing. It's also an important point.

But the answer to your question about use of the word torture is I think partly because yes, use of the word torture implies what it appears to. There are no "outs" as it were, legally when you suspect torture has occured. There is no differentiation, no selection of who will be investigated. The law is exceptionally clear that all instances must be investigated and thoroughly and, where appropriate, prosecuted. But I think while this is a consideration in play, pr/message considerations dominate currently. They are trying to act like they don't know what happened and that a "policy dispute" has occured as opposed to a crime or series of crimes have occured and so if they don't use the term torture, perhaps it will be create some mental space in the public mind to move the issue into other territory which is what they're desperately attempting to do now. I think it's too late for that but they're trying anyway. In short, they don't have many choices because they've botched the whole thing so badly.

As to the question of timing, the first thing that pops into mind is "why now?" Remember, the White House essentially chose the timing even though the court case was out there from the ACLU. The administration could easily have strung the matter out for quite a while even if they intended to make the memos public in the end. They created this monster for themselves. They were right to release the torture memos, but they were foolish with respect to when.

I think a very serious strategic error was made in the White House. I don't know why it was made, but it was a serious error. I agree with you that now is not the right time to try and address the torture issue while other, more immediately pressing issues are on the President's plate. It's an even worse time to try attempting to do what the administration is attempting which is clearly to sweep it all under the rug and move on. They may have figured that the President is so popular right now that he can "get" anything he wants and the public would take his word for it and that they would kill the issue slowly in piece meal fashion by exempting the CIA first and the rest later, which would blunt the opposition. They miscalculated.

It was the White House that put this issue on the front burner, not the opponents of torture. My view is that their arrogance got the better of them at 1600 Pennsylvania (a very easy thing to have happen in that atmosphere especially wehn you're new and feel golden) and that their isolation in Washington fooled them into thinking the nation is as amoral and corrupt as the villagers in Washington, DC. But quite clearly, this is an issue they aren't going to be able to sweep under the rug easily.

There are at least two ways they could have handled this that would not have forced the issue to the top of the fold headlines that I can think of. First, and most appropriately, instead of treating this as a political matter which it is only in a remotely secondary way, the White House should have treated this according to the very clear rules set down in the law. Nobody involved at any level is naive or thick enough to wonder whether or not torture occured. We all know it did. It is beyond question. The pertinent question is what is required by the law?

The President could have, should have, and (if he is big enough to admit his error) still can direct the Attorney General to fully comply with all the laws and treaties involved and to set up a professional investigation that would be completely above and beyond any charge of partishanship. Once that directive was issued, torture as a headline would have disappeared off the front pages almost instantly. No one could have complained if the investigation by the AG into the issue was lengthy. Which is another way of saying they could have taken many, many months before having to take any substantive public action on the matter. That would have provided the breathing room the new adminstration would need to focus on more immediately pressing matters. It would also put the President in a much, much different light on this issue which would have struck the balance the President so clearly is comfortable with. Anti-torture folks wouldn't have a whole lot to complain about since his position about following the law is clear, but he's not really taking a position. They would also have created time to develop a strategy for handling the politics of the issue far more competently and ethically.

Another way the White House could have dealt more successfully with torture and avoided the mess they have created for themselves is that the President could have simply let the word out that it was a law enforcemernt matter for the AG to look at. Similar to the option above but with no Presidential involvement, the AG could then put off any real and substantive public action for a long time (easily 3 months or more) and provided similar breathing room for the administration. Then, if they were still determined to pursue the foolish course they have set thus far, the political landscape would at least be very different after that time lapse and it might not be as bad a storm as the one they have kicked up for themselves.

All around, simply as a strategic political matter, the White House has thoroughly mishandled this entire thing, not to mention they are doing something that is essentially obstructing justice in defiance of the law by ruling out doing precisely what the law requires. I'm sure there are other ways this whole thing could have been dealt with that would have kept the torture issue off the front page and also could have more responsibly and legally gotten the job done that needs to be done about this criminal activity.

I kinda like that too!

The article says nothing about her, Ellen. Where are you getting this?

Actual part of report posted below. I can get more quotes if needed.

"In January 2009, the website TPMmuckraker discovered that Mylroie was the author of two 2007 reports about Iraq which were done for the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. This means that she had still been employed by the U.S. government after her theories had been widely discredited." - wikipedia

I think it was Ellen's idea of a joke.

One of the great things about the posters here is that we still question authority, even our own.

TheraP
Thanks for the heads up on Zipperupus's post, brilliant and highly rec'd