in 2340A, the law applies to ANY American:

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

I’m not a liberal but I’ll give it a shot…

This is what the Army uses: FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Chapter 8 describes the different approach techniques. Having served with professional interrogators in the U.S. Army I can tell you these soldiers are incredibly good at their job and the different approaches they use are very effective. The most useful information (especially with respect to force protection and enemy plans) is usually gathered within hours of the detainee’s capture, so the military is very skilled at gathering time-sensitive information.

http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf

What was done at AG was disgusting, unnecessary, and against military law.

There were actual beheadings and roadside bombs in Afghanistan, as well as even prior to 9/11.

However, to answer your question, please note that the memo was written on March 14th, 2003, which was less than a week before the Iraq War was started. So the answer to your question is there had been no beheadings and roadside bombs at that time. And ultimately, in regards to Iraq, they flew no planes into buildings. The 2-3 US troop or contractor beheadings that came later began after the Abu Ghraib tapes went public so they were apparently reacting to our torture, not the other way around.

In Afghanistan, the memo was written months after the fighting had pretty much ceased and the Taliban was in hiding. Using the memo against those already held from that conflict grants your argument some consideration. Yet as we’ve subsequently seen, several hundred of those folks would ultimately be released as non-terrorists or no threat to our country. So while they were in years of detention, did they earn torture?

Again, the Taliban sheltered Al Qaida, but the training occurred in Pakistan, the funding and 9-11 hijackers camemostly from Saudi Arabia (where the government beheads) or the Middle East.

Talibanis weren’t in on 9-11, hadn’t been roadside bombing us and weren’t beheading us. Nor were Afghanis.

Finally, countless interrogation efforts have spoken about the ineffectiveness of torture in gaining info. And to this day, we haven’t heard how much actionable intelligence was obtained through normal interrogation methods.

So besides being cruel, unecessary and ineffective, the sole motive for torture is revenge. Except we were detaining many who had no part in the conflict, nor the atrocities you mention.

For use against Al Qaida’s leadership is all that really merits consideration. But there, no official approval was necessary. Just let the Special Forces necessary to capture or kill them do their job. And if any acted vengefully against that group, I doubt they’d ever face trial or be convicted.

The legal cover provide was unnecessary, ineffective and stupid, as it exposed the White House staff to legal action, and for what?

The revelation of torture at Abu Ghraib didn’t protect troops from prosecution and it provoked terror recruitment and brutality and an escalation of the Iraq insurgency. That’s a pretty high cost for the minimal, fleeting moments of revenge. And since it occurred in Iraq, revenge for what? For them fighting back after we attacked?