Posted by WLS:

Its probably not widely known, but the current DOJ Policy Guidance defining what is “torture” under Sec. 2340 is not a secret document as was its predecessor. 

You can read all 16 pages of it here.

This came to my attention when considering the “Special Comment” from Keith Dolpermann this past Monday. I started to watch a video of it, but it was just too painful listening to his sanctimonious prattle for more than 30 seconds.  So I read the msnbc transcript instead.

I’m sure Keith prefers people to watch him rather than read what he has written.  Because if one reads what he has written, the egregious errors are that much more obvious. 

As an aside, I have to mention this one not-quite-so-egregious factual error by Dolpermann because he makes it while accusing someone else of making stuff up.  In making Brit Hume his “Second Worst Person in the World” Monday night for criticizing State Department Foreign Service Officers who are objecting to being sent to work at the US Embassey in Iraq, Dolpermann said this:

Hume claimed this was political and it‘s about the Bush administration and Iraq and the diplomats, quote, do not support the policy and do not think they should be obligated to carry it out, which is contrary to their oath. 

He called one dissenter, quote, a disgrace.  Brit made the stuff about the oath up.  Diplomats must swear to support and defend the Constitution, bear true faith, enter the obligation freely, faithfully discharge the duties.  Nothing about getting themselves killed or supporting moronic policies.  

Well Keith, having taken that oath a couple of time for a couple of different positions, let me say that you are making stuff up.  Here is the oath in its entirety: 

I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

So, what are the “duties of the office on which” a Foreign Service Officer enters? 

Well, here’s what the State Department website says:

When making assignments, however, the needs of the Service remain paramount…. Officers who come in with critical language skills should expect to serve in positions using their language skills in their first or second assignment. Later, as mid-career officers, they may be required to serve again in a country which uses that language skill. All officers are considered worldwide available and must be prepared to go where needed.

The need to influence the rapid pace of world change effectively requires more assignments to hardship posts where such change is occurring. Some of these positions are in danger or war zones and a good number involve sending officers without their families, who usually remain in the U.S. for the duration of the particular assignment.

So, Dolpermann, among the “duties” which Foreign Service Officers take an oath to “well and faithfully discharge,” is the duty to be worldwide available and be prepared to go where needed. 

But since muddle-headed cableTV talking heads aren’t sworn to uphold anything other than their egos, I can see where you might have gotten confused.