Red Cross Says USA Tortured Detainees

According to the Washington Post:

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.

The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA "black site" prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

The findings were based on an investigation by ICRC officials, who were granted exclusive access to the CIA's "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning.

At least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007 but barred from public release by ICRC guidelines intended to preserve the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts.

The report continues to describe the treatment of an accused al-Qaeda operative who was waterboarded multiple times, and "suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."

President Obama's expressed reluctance to conduct a legal inquiry into the CIA's policies despite his commitment to closing Guantanamo is puzzling in light of this report. Hopefully now that this is public information, a closer look will happen.

Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish has more.

This Election Has Been Torture...And Speaking Of

How does your Senator or Congressman rank on votes that are against torture?

The NRCAT Action Fund Congressional Vote Scorecards may be useful to you as you consider your vote. The Scorecards rate all incumbent Members of Congress on their torture-related votes.

See here. and here.

Really. The White House Did Endorse Torture?

The Washington Post reports that, yep, the Bush White House did approve torture methods on suspects. It'll be a sad day to lose our Decider-in -Chief.

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaida suspects - documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.
The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.
The memos were the first - and, for years, the only - tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaida leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."

Supreme Court Torture Advocate Roberts In Des Moines

JOIN ANTI-TORTURE ACTIVISTS PROTESTING ROBERTS' SUPPORT FOR TORTURE
AND ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION, KNAPP CENTER, DRAKE U AT 2 PM.


Anti torture activists will be on hand this afternoon at Drake
University's Knapp Center in Des Moines this afternoon to protest
Chief Justice Roberts' attacks on habeas corpus and his support for
torture protested.


Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. will deliver
the 11th Dwight D. Opperman Lecture in Constitutional Law at Drake
University today, Thursday, Oct. 2. The lecture, which is free and
open to the public, will start at 3 p.m. in the Drake Knapp Center,
2525 Forest Ave., Des Moines. Protesters will gather in front of the
center with signs and banners starting at 2 PM.


On June 12, 2008, Chief Justice Roberts dissented from the Supreme
Court ruling on BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, that foreign terrorism suspects
held at Guantanamo Bay and other US prisons have rights under the
Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.
Roberts disagreed with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who writing for the
court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and
remain in force, in extraordinary times" In his dissent, Roberts
characterized the military commissions established by the Bush
administration that accepted testimony gained under torture and the
use of evidence kept secret from the accused, "the most generous set
of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this
country as enemy combatants."


Roberts' dissent also disagrees with then commander at Guantanamo,
Major General Jay Hood, who acknowledged to The Wall Street Journal
on Jan. 26, 2005, that: "Sometimes we just didn't get the right
folks," and that the reason those "folks" were still in Guantanamo was
that "[n]obody wants to be the one to sign the release papers . . . .
There's no muscle in the system."

Obama on Torture

From the Compassion Forum

Bush To Veto Waterboarding n' More Bill

President Bush plans to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

The president plans to discuss the apparent veto during his Saturday radio address.

In the past, Bush has said the bill would impinge the government's ability to prevent future attacks. However supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect intelligence while offering a boost to the country's moral standing elsewhere.

"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

However, this statement is in conflict with the bill's language which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

What do you say John McCain?

Tell Bush To End Torture

President Bush needs to be strongly urged to sign the Intelligence Authorization Bill (H.R. 2082). Section 327 of this bill provides critical language that would set a single, humane interrogation standard for all detainees in the custody of the U.S. intelligence community.

The U.S. military abides by the Army Field Manual which specifically rules out the use of torture. Congress has passed a bill that would take torture off the table completely by applying these interrogation rules to the CIA which is now reportedly operating a program in which cruel interrogation techniques have been authorized and used.

President Bush claims to not favor torture, yet he is threatening to veto a bill that would put an end to inhumane practices like the use of waterboarding, hypothermia and stress positions.

The danger here is clear: The failure to articulate a single standard of humane treatment will perpetuate a policy of official cruelty, undermine the rule of law, and jeopardize the safety of U.S. citizens and military personnel.

Send a message now telling President Bush that a veto is unacceptable!

Senate Nixes CIA Waterboarding, Bush Likely to Veto

The Senate voted 51 to 45 to prohibit the CIA from waterboarding and seven other "enhanced" interrogation techniques and using only the 19 methods of interrogation in the Army field manual. President Bush's spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "The president will veto that bill."

From Breitbart

The Senate voted Wednesdy to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects despite President Bush's threat to veto any measure that limits the agency's interrogation techniques.

The prohibition was contained in a bill authorizing intelligence activities for the current year. The bill would restrict the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual. That manual prohibits waterboarding, a method that makes an interrogation subject feel he is drowning. The bill passed on a 51-45 vote.

The House had approved the measure in December, so Wednesday's Senate vote set up a confrontation with the White House, where Bush has promised to veto any bill that restricts CIA questioning.

Torture is a Moral Issue

Take a look at this video and act.

CIA: Yes We Can--Waterboard

From the BBC

The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.

CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress however that it had only been used on three people, and not at all for the past five years.

He said the technique had been used on high-profile al-Qaeda detainees including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Mr Hayden was speaking as National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell presented his annual threat assessment.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which the detainee is put in fear of drowning.

Some critics describe it as torture and Congress has been debating banning its use by the CIA.
President Bush has threatened to veto such a bill.

In the recent past, US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he were subjected to it.

Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs.

He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture.

The US attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.
However, Michael Mukasey said during his Senate confirmation hearing that water-boarding was "repugnant to me" and that he would institute a review.

Lethal Introspection

With everything else that is going on, it is likely that many of us have been following the Kentucky court case that the US Supreme Court is reviewing that may lead to changes to how the lethal injection method is applied in death penalty cases. However, based on this report, it is likely that this method will continue.

According to the Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers who are challenging the use of lethal injections to carry out executions in the United States.

Death penalty foes had hoped the high court was about to rein in the most commonly used method of execution, but there were few signs of that during today's oral argument.

Instead, in comments and questions, most of the justices said they were not convinced that the commonly used, three-chemical compound causes inmates to die a painful death. They also said they were not convinced a better method was available.

If these three drugs are "properly administered," the inmate should die peacefully, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a lawyer for a Kentucky death-row inmate.

"The risk here is real," that the drugs will not be administered correctly, said Donald Verrilli Jr.

If the inmate is not given enough anesthetic and is then given a paralyzing drug, he may be fully awake on the execution table, yet unable to react when he is given a heart-stopping drug that causes searing pain, he said.

"That's why it is illegal in Kentucky to euthanize animals this way," Verrilli said.

More than 30 years ago, death-penalty states moved away from using electrocutions or the gas chamber to execute inmates and instead adopted lethal injections. At that time, and with little public debate, they decided to use a three-drug concoction. It includes an anesthetic, a paralyzing agent and a heart-stopping drug.

In recent years, this formula has been cast into doubt. In the Kentucky case, defense lawyers argued that veterinarians do better with the use of a single, powerful barbiturate to put horses to death.

Lawyers for the Kentucky inmates asked the high court to rule that the three-chemical compound causes "an unnecessary risk of pain" and should therefore be struck down as unconstitutional.

But that argument appeared to gain little traction. Even Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was not convinced that the use of a single anesthetic had been shown to be an effective and reliable way to end human life. He cited a study from the Netherlands that questioned its use in euthanasia.

"Is there more problem here than with other execution methods?" he asked Verrilli.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the defense lawyers are simply trying to stop executions. If the court agrees there are problems with Kentucky's method, "this never ends," Scalia said.

"It will lead to endless litigation," agreed Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who was supporting Kentucky.

Several justices, including David H. Souter, suggested the court send the case back to Kentucky for further hearings to compare the use of a single powerful barbiturate against the use of the three-chemical compound. "We need some kind of definitive answer," he said.

But most of the justices sounded as though they were inclined to reject the challenge and to uphold Kentucky's approach.

The battle in the high court over lethal injections has temporarily halted executions around the nation. It will be weeks, and perhaps six months, before the court hands down a ruling on the issue.

Bloomberg has more.

Feingold: No to Mukasey

Senator Russ Feingold says:

I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Apparently the President needs the rule of law spelled out for him. Again, Congress, the ball's in your court.

Specter to Vote for Mukasey, But Reminds Us of Congress' Job...

Senator Arlen Specter, minority Leader on the Judicial Committee said he believed "Judge Mukasey went about as far as he could go" in stating his views [about waterboarding]because a more categorical answer that waterboarding was illegal could open a wave of lawsuits against administration officials.

"It is very important, in the national interest, that we have a strong attorney general. So I would have liked better assurances," Specter said. "And I think Congress ought to take a firm stand on waterboarding."

Okay Congress, time to get cracking on the anti-torture bill. Oh, and you might want to take a meeting with these folks before you vote on Mukasey.

Waterboarding 101: As Explained by Naval Instructor Malcolm Nance

Not that anyone should need to question that waterboarding is not torture, but best to have an expert say so, right? As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California Malcom Nance knows "the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people."

The following is from Nance:

There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets.

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives. The Small Wars Council had a spirited discussion about this earlier in the year, especially when former Marine Generals Krulak and Hoar rejected all arguments for torture.

UPDATE: If you can stomach it, here is a demonstration. Thanks to CR.

Edwards, Clinton, Obama: No to Mukasey

Reuters reports that the top 3 Democrtic candidates all do not support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for US Attorney General because of his nuanced stance on waterboarding as torture.

The three leading Democratic White House contenders on Tuesday opposed President George W. Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey to be attorney general, citing concerns about how the retired judge views torture.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said they were troubled by Mukasey's refusal to denounce as torture an internationally criticized interrogation method known as waterboarding, simulated drowning.
Critics have accused the United States of torturing suspects in the war on terrorism, with the CIA reportedly using waterboarding shortly after the September 11 attacks.

Despite Bush's assurances that he prohibits torture, it's unclear how detainees are treated since he has refused to disclose interrogation techniques.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards, rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in the November, 2008 election, also said they were concerned about what they characterized as Mukasey's excessively expansive view of presidential powers.

The retired federal judge and former U.S. prosecutor from New York may still likely be confirmed as attorney general by the 100-member, Democratic-led Senate, party aides said.

Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy Call on Bush to Replace OLC Nominee

From Think Progress

In September, the White House has declared that its “next priority this fall” is to obtain Senate approval for Steven Bradbury, “the man who is advising President Bush on the extent of his terrorism-fighting powers.” In 2005, Bradbury replaced Jack Goldsmith as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and has since been interim OLC chief.

Today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed reservations about Bradbury. “What we know is troubling. Mr. Bradbury refuses to repudiate un-American and inhumane tactics such as waterboarding and mock executions. … There are also serious and unanswered questions about Mr. Bradbury’s role in NSA warrantless surveillance programs.”

Durbin announced that he, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), have written a letter to President Bush calling on him to find a more independent nominee:
I think we need new leadership at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, joined by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, I’m sending a letter to President Bush calling on him to withdraw the nomination of Steven Bradbury … and to submit another nomination. … OLC is a small office, but it really has a lot of power, especially in this administration.

A lengthy New York Times expose this month revealed that in 2005, Bradbury signed off on a secret DoJ torture memo that endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the CIA.” Bradbury also approved an executive order approving “enhanced” interrogation techniques.

The White House “relies on OLC for legal approval of surveillance programs, detainee treatment” and a host of classified issues; subsequently, Bradbury has been on the forefront of these efforts, allowing himself to become a politicized tool of Dick Cheney’s office. Such politicization appears to have occurred, “with Cheney’s blessing, to ensure that the department didn’t balk, as Goldsmith and his allies did, over torture or surveillance or indefinite detentions.”
In July 2006, Bradbury testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and proclaimed that “the president is always right.”

Four in Ten Think that the US Tortures POWs

Apparently torture is becoming the new "American Pastime"...are we really such a nation of sick puppies or do people really think that torture can be justified?

Forty-two percent (42%) of American voters believe that the United States tortures prisoners captured in the War on Terror. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 30% disagree and say the U.S. does not torture prisoners while 28% are not sure. Last Friday, President Bush said that the United States "does not torture people."

However, news reports have suggested that the Administration has approved aggressive forms of interrogation that many might consider torture. Congress has passed, and President Bush has signed, a federal ban on the use of torture.

While a plurality believes the U.S. does torture terrorist prisoners, 66% believe that the United States treats prisoners of war better than most other nations. Just 16% disagree on this point. In fact, the Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 78% of voters believe that the terrorists torture U.S. soldiers. Only 4% disagree on this point.

Fifty-three percent (53%) say that the U.S. should not torture prisoners while 27% believe it should. Forty-one percent (41%) believe torture helps gain valuable information that protects U.S. soldiers while 35% say it does not. In his remarks last week, the President stated that interrogation techniques have provided valuable information that have helped protect the American people.

Squeamish Supreme Court Takes a Powder on Torture Case

The NY Times reports:

A German citizen who said he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency and tortured in a prison in Afghanistan lost his last chance to seek redress in court today when the Supreme Court declined to consider his case.

The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.
As I have said before, the biggest legacy of this White House will be the chilling effect it has had on civil liberties. If the state secrets in question have to do with the degree of torture that the US government has been a party to, shouldn't a free people know this?

Uh, About the Torture Thing...

NY Times: Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, “We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law” and international agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern. More

Sen. Ron Wyden Says "No" to Torture Lawyer

From Talking Points Memo

A Democratic senator says he will block President Bush's nominee to become the CIA's top lawyer indefinitely over concerns that the agency's interrogation techniques may not be legal.

"I'm going to keep the hold until the detention and interrogation program is on firm footing, both in terms of effectiveness and legality," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Wednesday.

Wyden said he was troubled that John Rizzo _ who is serving as the CIA's interim general counsel _ did not object to a 2002 memo authorizing interrogation techniques that stop just short of inflicting pain equal to that accompanying organ failure or even death.

Wyden also said he was concerned that an executive order Bush issued last month did not clarify legal guidelines regarding CIA detentions and interrogations.

"I am not at all convinced that the techniques outlined in these guidelines are effective, nor am I convinced that they stay within the law," said Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"The last thing that I want to see is hardworking, well-intentioned CIA officers breaking the law because they have been given shaky legal guidance," he said.

Spokesman Mark Mansfield said CIA Director Michael Hayden strongly supports Rizzo's nomination, noting that Rizzo would be the first general counsel to come up through the ranks of the CIA. Rizzo has been with the agency for more than three decades and served as acting general counsel from 2001 to 2002 and again since August 2004.

"Mr. Rizzo's objective has been and continues to be to give the CIA the legal framework it needs to help protect our country in full and strict accord with the laws and treaty obligation of the United States," Mansfield said.

The agency's terrorist interrogation and detention program has been implemented lawfully and with great care, Mansfield said: "It has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives. The United States does not conduct or condone torture."

At a public hearing in June, Rizzo said he did not object to the 2002 memo that said for an interrogation technique to considered torture, it must inflict pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." He said he later found the document to be an "aggressive, expansive" reading of U.S. law.

Under Senate rules, a single senator, sometimes anonymously, can put a hold on legislative action for months. Wyden makes a practice of announcing his holds.