This London international lawyer and professor sometimes jumps to conclusions connecting the dots, but lays out detailed, extensive interviews, arguing high-level administration lawyers broke their code of ethics and may be subject to criminal prosecution as were those tried at Nuremburg. He traces their advice and bosses’reaction including a November 2002 “action memo” from Jim Haynes, general counsel of Defense Department, recommending “blanket approval” to 15 out of 18 proposed techniques of aggressive interrogation which Rumsfeld approved on December 2, adding “I stand for 8–10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” Dr. Abigail Seltzer, a London psychiatrist, who treats trauma victims for the National ... More »

This is a well researched and well written review of the chain of events that resulted in violations of the Geneva Conventions at Guantánamo which then, according to various official investigations, spilled over into Abu Ghraib. The final paragraphs are somewhat melodramatic but they do not detract from the article's overall objective approach.

This is a detailed and meticulous account of the path taken by our government to torture detainees. This piece provides dates, sources and details, and a thorough analysis of the history and context of violations of US and international law. It is painful--but mandatory--reading.

The evidence that the torture crimes were authorized from the top and that that path was covered up by the president's war criminal lawyers is painstakingly documented with interviews of prime actors in the moral disaster. Very well written and documented. Worthy material in the overdue impeachment proceedings.

Philippe Sands interviews a broad cross-section of US and international lawyers. Many are direct participants in the Bush administration's efforts to remove legal restrictions to torture, effectively stripping detainees of legal rights afforded to them by US or international law (to which the US is a signatory). In addition, Mr. Sands cites the many documents, made public or not, providing a time line of the origin of each - along with when the participants claimed to know - and actually (likely) knew of the content, purpose, writers, and approval. He takes a realistic, global view of the potential criminality of the actions of the US attorneys, who conspired to circumvent detainee rights under US law and particularly Common ... More »