I refer you to the ECHR ruling in the 1978 Ireland v UK case, which declared that Britain’s subjection of Irish terrorist prisoners to sleep deprivation, hooding, exposure to hissing noise, reduced diet and standing against a wall for hours was “inhuman and degrading” but not “torture” within the meaining of the European Convention on Human Rights (You can find a summary of the case in Yearbook, European Convention on Human Rights 602 (Council of Europe), 1978.)

Now, under the DTA, such treatment is disallowed — made criminal. It was clearly not torture, based on the precendential findings of the most liberal human rights court on the planet, but was not at the time illegal.

So can you think rationally, Gus, or are you simply a parrot spewing the talking points of your cause?

‘(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–

`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and

`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

So the same thing, except that the one you quoted didn’t include (3)– in other words, the interrogation methods used could have included “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”. INHUMAN! Why this distinction, unless they had to cover their asses? It doesn’t matter who comments on this provision, it’s ugly any way you look at it.

(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that–

`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and

`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

There you have it. No “decriminalization” of torture as you contend. In fact, statements obtained by torture are not allowed. (After all, some of our allies in the Long War have less than civil interrogation techniques.) The “decriminalization” in your view apparently comes from the disputed degree of coercion clause. A dispute does not a fact make.

Because there are valid interrogation techniques that some idiots call “torture” but aren’t, just so they can score political points against Bush. And this particular president has been very lame on defending the actions of his government — look no further than his current inexcusable inability to declare and explain his prerogatives when it comes to hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys.

The political opposition to the Long War has hijacked the debate and declared nearly all interrogation techniques “torture.” (The kind of polite questioning where the suspect has been read his Miranda rights and is done in the presence of his defense attorney are still OK in their book.) The blanket condemnation of these interrogation techniques as torture has lead to silly practices such as the use of a leather recliner in which the terrorist suspect is invited to repose for up to 60 minutes of soft questioning at a time. That is, 60 minutes of easy questioning so long as the poor terrorist suspect doesn’t feel uncomfortable about his situation.

So please, you “fecking idiot,” explain yourself and your allegations of torture.

As for James Bovard, the man is an extreme libertarian critic of the federal government. Period. He has made a career over the last 16 years or so of criticizing the government, whichever party is in control of the White House and Congress. His writings are not neutral, he has a political cause in support of which he is writing. So the quote of his that you point to is also commentary.