There's a vast difference between a state whose agents sometimes use torture illicitly and a state whose policies officially sanction and prescribe torture. Th

There's a vast difference between a state whose agents sometimes use torture illicitly and a state whose policies officially sanction and prescribe torture. There was probably a gradual shift towards the use of torture in U.S. intelligence culture such that Bush's policies were just a rubber-stamp after the fact. The use of techniques such as the "Bell telephone hour" during the Vietnam war were heavily encouraged by pressure from above on intelligence agents to gather confessions and enemy troop positions in quantity, veracity being heavily undervalued. However, even during this period, being caught (by the wrong people) was a danger. It was very much a situation of, "I don't care how you do it so long as you do it, but don't tell me how you did it and, for pete's sake, don't get caught!". The knowledge that torture was not officially sanctioned, even if routinely ignored, still served to restrain its use. That's why Bush's rubber stamp is still a truly heinous and evil thing. It's the difference between agents re-purposing telephone equipment in the field and permanent torture facilities. To a prisoner, it's the difference between hours of torture and years. That's why I'm still upset with my own government for handing over prisoners to U.S. forces in Afghanistan despite knowing full-well what treatment awaited them.