"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[DinoDoc]

The opinion I mentioned can be found here. The text of the lease agreement can be found here.

[Ramo]

So, if Cuba is sovereign in Gitmo, why doesn't the aforementioned Torture Statute prohibit torture?

[Last Conformist]

Whether things like sleep deprivation qualifies as "torture" is morally irrelevant, isn't it? In either case, it's hurting someone to make them cooperate.

[chequita guevara]

There was no lease agreement. It was forced upon Cuba.

[DinoDoc]

Whatever.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
So, if Cuba is sovereign in Gitmo, why doesn't the aforementioned Torture Statute prohibit torture?

Because it isn't within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is not within the United States"[/smart arse answer]

[Ramo]

The point is that the Torture Statute applies outside of the US.

[DinoDoc]

This is the first I've heard of the statute anyway.

[Ramo]

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_2340A.htm

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Anyone wanta actually address the question?

I did.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In that case, you can just follow the trail of radioactive isotopes.

[Bosh]

Sounds like what DD is saying is that the U.N. Convention Against Torture is nullified wrt the U.S. due to court precedent, tho I don't buy that.

Also I believed that specific laws were signed into US law to meet with the UN Convention since it wasn't "self-executing" or some legalese along those lines.

Gitmo seems to be outside the jurisdiction of US courts. And yes it actually is interesting.

If it's outside the jusisdiction of US courts then why were administration lawyers saying that laws meant for sitatuions in areas outside the jurisdiction of US courts wouldn't apply either? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So are you all saying that if we capture a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear device in an american city (we know he did because he is contaminated by radioactive isotopes) that we should just ask him politely where it is?

Yes but this memo is in responce to frustration in extracting information from Gitmo internees who (AFAIK) didn't have any bombs set up. You're comparing apples and bananas...

Sleep deprevation, loud noise, and most nudity stuff (the parades are, in you cell alone nude isn't) has NEVER been considered torture and has been employed forever by everyone to right now.

Sleep deprivation isn't torture? So Chinese Water Torture isn't torture? I'd rather be zapped a bit than be kept awake for 96 hours straight.

I dont support breaking the laws, I simply recognize that there are circumstances in which I would personally do so and where I would support such actions.

So you don't support breaking the law except for when you want to break the law. How enlightening.

You seem to be confusing the torture of soldiers (as defined by the Geneva Convention; which doesnt cover the captives in Guantanamo and some in Iraq) with torturing a terrorist who had planted a nuclear device in a city (in the hope of getting critical info).

Which Gitmo and Iraqi detainees were planting nuclear devices?

as defined by the Geneva Convention; which doesnt cover the captives in Guantanamo and some in Iraq

Why not?

Because it isn't within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is not within the United States"[/smart arse answer]

You're missing the point. Read the original quote from the article again:

the Torture Statute applied to Afghanistan but not Guantanamo, because the latter lies within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States"

So you basically said that Gitmo is outside "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" and thus you haven't responded to the original point I raised at all. Basically the Administration was having Gitmo count as inside the US to dodge one set of laws and count as outside the US to doge another set of laws. You can't have your banana and eat it too!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
Also I believed that specific laws were signed into US law to meet with the UN Convention since it wasn't "self-executing" or some legalese along those lines.

Treaties also rank higher than run-of-the-mill laws.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It appears that in all this hype we are making torture a much larger category. Sleep deprevation, loud noise, and most nudity stuff (the parades are, in you cell alone nude isn't) has NEVER been considered torture and has been employed forever by everyone to right now.

On the other hand, interrogation that killed about 17 people has to be considered torture.

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So are you all saying that if we capture a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear device in an american city (we know he did because he is contaminated by radioactive isotopes) that we should just ask him politely where it is?

You're postulating an extremely unlikely situation. However, in the unlikely event that (1) we know a catastrophic even is impending and (2) we capture someone we know can inform us about it and (3) the information can help us prevent it, then I would support breaking international law to prevent the catastrophe. I'd be willing to make the call and take the responsibility.

Now, will you admit that your question has practically nothing to do with torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us?

[Jon Miller]

it is easy SpencerH

someone (hopefully) would break the law, torture the dude, than pay for it (with jail time or the DP or something of that sort)

there are lots of people willing to give their lives to save millions

still doesn't change the fact that torture should stay illegal (and is always wrong), even when it is the best option

Jon Miller