Sands interviewed many senior personnel in the US government. Military, Judges, Senior Lawers and the middle men and women involved in the manipulation to subvert Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Sands shows that when people become passionate or pressured into extracting information in the effort to secure a nation under a further terrorist attack, measures taken, which include re-drafting laws and essentially throwing out the old are taken into consideration.

What should be well known is that even if a torture technique (described as being aggressive interrogation technique in this book) is applied to a suspect to extract information, often the information is compromised or useless. Most people will say almost anything to make torture and humiliation stop.
In Sands book, he exposes the way lawyers worked their magic to pass new interrogation techniques through and how they were convincing enough for inexperienced interrogators to use on the Guantanamo detainees.

The book is more legal reading than general educational reading and I generally prefer the educational, but it is well structured and will give you an insight into how the system manipulates others in the system to do things they might not normally do.

The US government may not have brought back the 'rack', or 'pressed someone to death' to get a confession, but their techniques have been well planned out and layered in such a way that they create psychological anomalies and trauma that would otherwise not have been present. Instead of looking at "well he's a Muslim" - think of "what if I was subjected to such attacks on myself and I had no way to defend myself or recourse to make it stop?"

There used to be a saying: "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". But because someone is 'suspected' of terrorism, that no longer applies. Is this the justice system that is supposed to be fair? This is no justice for either people who genuinely fear for their lives, or for a suspect to have access to a legal trial and have their case fairly represented. In centuries passed, they had the Inquisition. It was horrendous reading. The techniques are not those used, but how long before it is deemed 'necessary' to do so? History repeats itself over and over.

Sands brings up a good point that other people who were trying to get the interrogation techniques stopped, also pointed out: If we're doing this to our detainees, what might happen to our troops and civilians when they are caught? Someone determined they would cut off our heads. But that is not always the case. Should we be as bad as 'them'. Or stop being bullies and start towing the line. The fear factory that has been created as a result of 9/11 has not made the US safer. It has in fact pushed civilian rights out the window - and they're disappearing into the wilderness.

Unlike some books, I did not find this was geared at attacking Republican views, but rather an examination of how erosion of international laws, that the US agreed on, came about.

Whether you favor or scorn the Bush administration, whatever your political leanings, if you're interested in a serious book, that rigorously and honestly presents the facts -- go not here. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/12/022381.php