Id at fn 22, p. 39.

The restrictions of Article 17, are, of course, much broader than torture alone. In effect, the Bybee Memo¹¹ makes the case that, whether they are torture, or merely "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," certainly the interrogation techniques of Categories II and III,¹²constitute prohibited conduct when applied to POWs protected under the Article 17's prohibitions not just against physical and mental torture, but also against threats, insults, or "unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." ¹³

^{1. Memorandum For Alberto Gonzales Re; Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 USC §§ 2340-2340A, dated August 1, 2002. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf.}

^{2. Although it argues at length that Presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief authorize conduct which would be otherwise illegal if necessary to defense of the United States. See, id at Section V, commencing on p. 31, "The President’s Commander-in-Chief Power."}

^{3. See, e.g. id at pp. 21 et seq and 27 et seq. The distinction is made for the purposes of domestic law to analyze both the reservations placed by the United States on its ratification of the Torture Convention, id at__, and the intention of the enabling legislation id at __.}

^{4. The Memo discusses Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978) where the ECHR considered interrogation methods which included 1) wall standing where the prisoner leaned against a wall standing on his toes and with all his weight on his fingers, 2) continuous hooding except during interrogation, 3) subjection to loud and continuous noise, 4) sleep deprivation pending interrogation and 5) deprivation of food and drink through a reduced diet during and pending interrogation. The Memo notes that the ECHR concluded "that the techniques produce ‘intense physical and mental suffering’ and ‘acute psychiatric disturbances,’ [but] they were not [sic] sufficient intensity or cruelty to amount to torture." Id at 29.}

^{5. The Memo also discusses Public Committee Against torture in Israel v. Israel, 38 ILM 1471 (1999) in which the Israeli Supreme Court considered five interrogation methods which included forceful shaking, stress positioning with an opaque hood and loud music, crouching stress positions, excessively tight handcuffs, and sleep deprivation. It notes that "While the Israeli Supreme Court concluded that these acts amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment, the court did not expressly find that they amounted to torture." id at 30.}

^{6. Id at 31.}

^{7. See id at fn 8, and a reference to a to date unpublished Memorandum for John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal counsel, from James C. Ho, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Possible Interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Feb. 1, 2002).}

^{8. . That statement is certainly correct within its limitations. The questions presented by the invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of a terrorist organization, however, have other and more complex ramifications as discussed above.}

^9.GPW Article 17, states in part: