Good Faith

In law, "Good Faith" is kind of a magic phrase. Someone who acts in good faith oftentimes is excused for what they do. Negotiations are presumed to be done in good faith. While there is no real concrete definition of good faith, one could consider it to mean with a pure heart or with absence of malice, honesty of purpose.

Now, considering that, one must then contemplate what the Justice Department meant when they said that interrogators had to believe in good faith that the harsh interrogation techniques they employed would not cause the detainees "prolonged mental harm."

Now, not being one who's been subject to torture, or "harsh interrogation methods," and having never been waterboarded, I can only speculate on what might constitute "prolonged mental harm." However, I do know that my son nearly drowned in the apartment pool where we lived in San Angelo and was terrified of the water for 4 years after that. If that were to happen accidentally (he jumped into the pool before I was ready for him to and had to pull him out) and cause a phobic reaction, then I would submit that knowing someone was intentionally subjecting me to the same sensation would cause a similar response. That being the case, I do not understand how anybody could consider doing this to another person as an act that would not lead to prolonged mental harm and believe that in good faith.

Perhaps the more consternating part of this is that even in light of the FOIA and with the information provided to the ACLU, the documents were still heavily redacted. We still don't have a complete picture. We already know that the person who wrote this, Jay Bybee was the one who informed former AG Alberto Gonzalez that torture was defined by causing a pain similar to that experienced by organ failure or death, which is concerning enough, but combined with his definition of "good faith" interrogation, is quite a disturbing concept, and not something we would expect our nation to try to justify.