Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
On November 4, 2002, Sam McCahon, chief legal adviser to the Defense Department's Criminal Investigation Task Force, raised objections to a legal opinion authored by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver of the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps that greenlighted a number of controversial interrogation tactics. In a memo to CITF Commander Brittain Mallow, McCahon wrote: "Any policy decision to use [techniques that could violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment] will be contrary to my recommendation."None are what you might call profiles in courage. All seemed to understand they were steaming ahead, in violation of that law. It just wasn't all that important to them. It wasn't about how to legally engage in a new kind of fight with a new kind of enemy. It was, instead, all about how to keep from being held accountable for breaking the law..
"Nonetheless," McCahon went on, "if the application of the requested measures is approved, I recommend the following actions to mitigate the adverse impact on the CITF."
McCahon suggested first that detainees subjected to harsh treatment be interrogated at a facility other than Guantanamo. In addition, though, he recommended that those selected for harsh interrogations "not be a (sic) considered for referral to the Military Commission" in order to "reduce the risk that the more aggressive techniques used against a few detainees [will] be revealed." His last request was that "CITF personnel should not participate in aggressive techniques... [to] preserve the integrity of our investigations [and] insulate CITF personnel from potential administrative or criminal liability."
The goal, in other words, was to keep blood off CITF's hands.


