http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090416_memos.pdfSounds like they KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS ILLEGAL. (see the justifications starting on page 3 Section III) trying to split hairs about "pain and suffering" from "discomfort". the okayed "facial slap" isnt done for "pain" but for "humiliation".
By attempting to justify and/or excuse their behaviors, they know that they are wrong.
What other sick stuff are yall seeing
On Edit
From Page 11
As we understand it, when the w3lerboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the
subject were drowning-even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not
dro"'~ling. You have infonned us tilat this procedure does not inflict acrual physical haroL Thus,
although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning,
the weterboard does not inflict pllysical pain. As we explained in the Section 2340A
Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single
concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering." See Section 2340A
Memorandum at 6 nJ. The waterboard, which inflicts no pain Or actual harm whatsoever, does
not, in OUr view inflict "severe pain or suffering." Even if one were to parse the statute more
finely to attempt to treat "suffering" as a distinct concepl, the waterboard could not be said to
imlict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the
connotation of a protracted period oftime generally given to suffering.