Walling involves the construction of “a flexible false wall.” The individual’s heels touch the wall. The interrogator “pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall.”

"During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash. To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise in the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."

This action is justified:

“While walling involves what might be characterized as rough handling, it does not involve the threat of imminent death or, as discussed above, the infliction of severe physical pain. Moreover, once again we understand that use of this technique will not be accompanied by any specific verbal threat that violence will ensue absent cooperation. Thus, like the facial slap, walling can only constitute a threat of severe physical pain if a reasonable person would infer such a threat from the use of the technique itself. Walling does not in and of itself inflict severe pain or suffering.”

The most startling part of the memos, however, is the fact that Bush Administration officials considered using insects on detainees.

It is tough to grapple with the reality that our military, with the support and consent of psychologists and medics and government officials, thought that using insects could help us in our effort to “win” the so-called “war on terror.”

The section on insects reads:

“You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him.”

A few paragraphs later:

“In addition to using the confinement boxes alone, you also would like to introduce an insect into on of the boxes with Zubaydah. As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, then, in order to commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death ***********SHORT SECTION REDACTED FOR HOPE AND CHANGE IN AMERICA*******************so long as you take either of the approaches we have described, the insects’ placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in this position. An individual placed in a box, even an individual with a fear of insects, would not reasonably feel threatened with severe physical pain or suffering if a caterpillar was placed in the box. Further, you have informed us that you are not aware that Zubaydah has any allergies to insects and you have not informed us of any other factors that could cause a reasonable person in that same situation to believe an unknown insect would cause him severe physical pain or death. Thus, we conclude that the placement of the insect in the confinement of the insect in the confinement box with Zubaydah would not constitute a predicate act.”

For the purposes of this article, Chris Floyd wrote in September of 2006 that Zubaydah, at the time of interrogation was “literally insane, suffering from a severe multiple personality disorder.”

Floyd goes on to say, “He was never a top al Qaeda operative, as Bush claimed yet again in his bluster yesterday; and the "information" he spewed out under torture was almost entirely garbage” and he “sent American agents on wild goose chases all over the world.”

So, what do you think when you read any of the sections of the memos which are meant to justify the interrogation techniques used on Zubaydah? Do you think any of this didn’t cause mental or physical harm?

Keywords show just how Bush Administration officials were going to prevent themselves from being accused of torture.

The words “severe physical pain or suffering” mean physical pain and suffering could occur but as long as it wasn’t severe, it was okay.

The words “reasonable person” imply, for one, that a reasonable person would be able to handle being in a box (I wonder if the writers of the memos and those who kept them secret consider themselves to be reasonable men?). The words mean that, possibly, even if taken to court and accused of torture based on Zubaydah’s reactions, one could claim Zubaydah was a “terrorist” and therefore, not a “reasonable man.”

Memos like these prove again (like previous memos have) that the Bush Administration asked and paid lawyers to create the legal justification for torture or techniques that are tantamount to torture.

The Bush Administration used the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) training program to justify anything it did to detainees.

The memos go through statistics from those who in the military have endured the SERE training to suggest “a small minority students have had temporary adverse psychological reactions during training. Of the 26,829 students trained from 1992 through 2001 in the Air Force SERE training, 4.3 percent, only 3.2 percent were pulled from the program for psychological reasons. Thus, out of the students trained overall, only 0.14 percent were pulled from the program for psychological reasons.”

Most would read that and think that if our bravest and most finest men and women can handle the "CIA torture tactics", why would it be a problem to use interrogation techniques or SERE training methods on detainees?

But, think about this: What’s the likelihood that those in the military actually think to risk their status in the military and in the country by saying they think they may have been mentally or physically harmed? And, how do they know? For all they know, the mental or physical pain is part of the training.

In addition to memos on Zubaydah and the explanation of how SERE training makes the CIA torture tactics permissible, there is a part which talks about using multiple techniques (like stress positions and sleep deprivation or walling and then facial holds, etc).

A section of the memo on multiple techniques says it is “possible that the application of certain techniques might render the detainee unusually susceptible to physical or mental pain or suffering.”

You know, I’m no sadomasochist so if I was confined in a tight space, deprived of sleep for hours, and then made to do some wall standing a half a day later after being violated by a caterpillar, I think I would be physically and mentally in pain. I think there would be more than just a possibility that this chain of experiences physically or mentally harms me. 

The contents of these memos are just astounding and as despicable as the previous memos. But, what’s worse is the reality behind these released memos and the ones released prior to these.

I’m imagining myself in high school. I’m thinking about becoming a lawyer. My mommy and daddy have all the money in the world, enough to send me to a great undergraduate school and then enough to send me to graduate school. I have decent grades and get some scholarship money.

Why do I want to be a lawyer?

Well, why would anyone want to be a lawyer? I would guess some crave power. Some want the glory. Maybe they want to consistently win big cases in America. Maybe they want to be part of the preservation of the rule of law and learn to defend or prosecute well. Maybe they would like to do something good for people and fight for human rights and civil liberties.

So, I go to law school for a few of the above reasons and graduate and then I do what? A couple decades later, I go to work for the President of the United States of America and find myself creating the legal justification for acts that have not been seriously considered since medieval times.

I research law to find out what torture is and what torture isn’t. Is pain torture or is suffering torture? What is intent and if the interrogator tortures and wasn’t thinking he would torture is that torture? And, how long can he be in this box and what amount of time can he be deprived of sleep? And is it okay to drop some ants in on him or are we only able to use butterflies? What about earthworms or maybe even centipedes?

I can’t speak for Jay Bybee, John Yoo, David Addington, Douglas Feith, William J. Haynes, or Stephen Bradbury or anybody else who was in on the writing of this legal justification, but I can say that I would go, “Oh, shit, what have I become? And, what have I done?”

Pundits like David Gergen can go on news shows like Anderson Cooper 360 all they want and claim to support finding the truth about torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and lawlessness that occurred during the Bush Administration so long as “witch  hunts” are not carried out. They can make the claim that you can’t blame those in the CIA for listening to their superiors. But, we cannot allow such wisdom to prevail.

Anyone involved in justifying these interrogation techniques had to know they were inhumane and outrageous. Anyone compiling research had to have some prior knowledge of the Nuremberg Trials. Anyone who wrote the memos knew they were creating a defense for the Bush Administration in case people accused the administration of committing crimes.

So, maybe, the Bush Administration trained military, medics, and psychologists to think in a way that would allow lawyers to claim they had no intent to put detainees through pain and suffering. And, maybe that makes it impossible to prosecute them for torture or crimes against humanity. That’s why Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama are putting on displays of cowardice and refusing to take decisive action to uphold the rule of law.

One thing’s for sure: The people of the world can charge those involved in the Bush Administration with attempting to create a defense to allow Bush Administration officials to use techniques tantamount to torture on human beings.

It may not be possible to prosecute that in a court of law, but those involved can be found guilty in the court of public opinion. Indeed, they may have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

Read the full memos here.

Author's Bio: Kevin Gosztola goes to Columbia College in Chicago where he is studying film. He is a YP4 2009 Fellow and is interested in becoming more involved in progressive leadership and using media for social change. Kevin Gosztola is a documentary filmmaker and also an At-Large Senator for the Student Government Association at Columbia College. Currently, he is an Issues Researcher for a documentary being produced by Intersection Pictures in Chicago on housing and gentrification in Chicago. The 2016 bid for the Olympics is accelerating the displacement of residents in areas of Chicago, particularly Bronzeville, and the film being crafted examines Chicago's history and the current housing situation. On Columbia College's campus, he is working to create a Student Civic Collective and increase funding and resources for political and social student organizations on campus. He is working to show students how they can use arts & media for social change and is the leader of Students for Media Reform at Columbia College (SMRCC).