In 2002, lawyers within the Bush Administration (Addington, Yoo, Bybee, et al)  were busy putting the final, gruesome touches on opinion memos that authorized and rationalized the Presidents use of torture to interrogate terrorist detainees.  An integral component of the new strategies was deniability.  It just wouldn't do that the President admit the U.S. was now violating Geneva Convention articles and U.S. law and engaged in torturing suspects, so Administration officials were forced to do an elaborate dance; deny the use of torture and, at the same time, refuse to specify what techniques they would consider torture.  It was all kind of 4th grade, but it worked fairly well with the help of a non-inquisitive media. 

The Pentagon, obviously, had the opportunity to balk at the Administrations new interrogation rules.  But like the Administration, some Pentagon officials chose to play fast and loose with the law and work on deniability and obfuscation instead.  From Brian Buetler in the American Prospect:

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."

"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.

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..

One can't help but wonder how much safer would we be had Addington, Yoo, Bybee, McCahon and the rest expended even half as much effort developing strategies on how to win this war on terror as they did developing strategies on how to avoid getting caught.