E/CN.4/2006/120 page 33 See at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051107.html (accessed on 8 December 2005), but for more ambiguous statements see also Amnesty International, “United States of America. Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power,” AI Index: AMR 51/063/2005 (13 May 2005) and Human Rights Watch, Getting Away with torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees, vol. 17, No. 1 (G) (April 2005). 50 “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that torture as defined in and proscribed by Sections 2340-2340A, covers only extreme acts. Severe pain is generally of the kind difficult for the victim to endure. Where the pain is physical, it must be of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure. Severe mental pain requires suffering not just at the moment of infliction but it also requires lasting psychological harm, such as seen in mental disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed on Section 2340. Because the acts inflicting torture are extreme, there is significant range of acts that though they might constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment fail to rise to the level of torture. […] Finally, even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability.” 51 The interrogation techniques approved on 2 December 2002 (see paragraph 49 and note 55), were rescinded by Secretary of Defense memorandum for the commander, United States Southern command of 15 January 2003 on “Counter-Resistance Techniques”. A Working Group on Detainee Interrogations within the Department of Defense was established by Secretary of Defense memorandum for the General Counsel of the Department of Defense of 15 January 2003 on “Detainee Interrogations”. Based on the final report of the Working Group of 4 April 2003, interrogation techniques were approved by Secretary of Defense memorandum for the commander, US Southern command of 16 April 2003 on “Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism”. According to the update to Annex I of the second periodic report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture, (submitted on 21 October 2005), on 17 March 2005, the Department of Defense determined that the Report of the Working Group on Detainee Interrogations is to be considered as having no standing in policy, practice, or law to guide any activity of the Department of Defense (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/55712.htm). See also CAT/C/48/Add.3/Rev.1, para. 78, dated 13 January 2006. 52 53 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r1099i99u4:b0. “Several weeks ago, I received a letter from CPT Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a West Point graduate. Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers. In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action to establish standards to clear up the confusion, not for the good of the terrorists but for the good of our soldiers and our country. […] The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based