Breaking News: Bush Personally Authorized Torture

[Kuciwalker]

UR said:

Would you want to be subjected to some of that?

Which is an incredibly stupid measure of whether something is torture. I pointed that out.

[Mr. Harley]

You'll have to cut and paste, I couldn't get the link to work. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/ from May!

An interesting commentary on how the Senate defined torture in 1994.
www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2004/0511brutal.htm

Plus you had JAG lawyers getting their own private opinion because the memos coming out of the civilian DOD had them so nervous.
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0405/S00104.htm
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1968808
Oh, and for you uber-conservative, more from The Washington Times, not exactly a liberal mouthpiece.
www.benadorassociates.com/article/4414


I loathe the utter idiocy of it. I have trouble believing that this administration, in the world of today, could be so STUPID as to assume you can keep things like this secret. They left a paper trail, the damn fools, that could be used as a public relations bonanza to recruit for Al quaeda and similiar organizations around the world. Even if they could keep it secret now, how long could they keep it one? Cretins. American soldiers will get to die for their incompetency, while they will go on to national office. I wish I had a puke smiley.

Please note that the Bush administration is comfortable floating the idea of Gonzales as one of their top next Supreme Court nominees! He might be able to move Taney up from the bottom rung of Supreme Court justices. I find it utterly terrifying, that Scalia could become the spokesman for civil liberties on SCOTUS as the current justices die out. :eek

edit forgot to eliminate a phrase when editing sentence earlier

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by ixnay
Surprised nobody's posted about this section yet:

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

Am I the only one somewhat troubled by the DoD planning to pin everything on another government agency?

Sorry, we STILL glanced over this after you posted it . I think this shows that the DoD realized they were doing wrong things. They wanted the people to blame the FBI and then they'd get off scot free, realizing that the FBI would be the one charged with violating the law.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
UR said:

Would you want to be subjected to some of that?

Which is an incredibly stupid measure of whether something is torture. I pointed that out.

No it isn't. The spirit behind torture laws is: if you wouldn't want it done to you (or your troops), don't do it to them. Kind of like the "do unto others" thing.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Because it is... at least legally speaking.

Besides, Plato, there is more to this than just breaking the law or not. The whole reason we have rules like this, with international treaties that we signed, is to prevent it from happening to our soldiers too.

What kind of moral authority does the US have to denounce beheadings when we engage our POWs in sexual torture and other kinds of inhumane treatment?

Jimmy, sexual torture is not something I mentioned...nor did the article. I still don't understand why these things(hooding, sensory deprivation, and standing) are torture...very coersive yes, but torture? Maybe I just don't understand the definition.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The combination of many elements like these, on a systematic basis, is torture.

If you add up sleep deprivation, forced standing, psychological humiliation, lack of contact with the outer world, etc, for monthes, it is actual torture. It is btw what the Soviets inflicted to their political prisoners.

Becoming more like those we loath? Perhaps that is the terrorist greatest victory.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
No it isn't. The spirit behind torture laws is: if you wouldn't want it done to you (or your troops), don't do it to them. Kind of like the "do unto others" thing.

That rule applies equally to imprisonment and taxes.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by PLATO
Maybe I just don't understand the definition.

Well, what's your definition? Could you give a few examples? Does your torture require permanent physical mutilation or something?

[Ted Striker]

/.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Becoming more like those we loath? Perhaps that is the terrorist greatest victory.

Agreed.
The terrorists didn't destroy your country, they didn't destroy your resolve, but they contributed to bring up such changes in the American society that one could say they have won in this regard.

Actually, an Israeli argued exactly the same: that the way Israel fights the dirty war against Palestinian terrorist destroys the "spirit of Zionism", the legacy of enlightenment Israel is supposed to bear. If you're interested in that line of argument, you may want to check out the speeches of Avram Burg (sp?)

[Ted Striker]

.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by PLATO


Jimmy, sexual torture is not something I mentioned...nor did the article. I still don't understand why these things(hooding, sensory deprivation, and standing) are torture...very coersive yes, but torture? Maybe I just don't understand the definition.

My definition is anything that the cops in the United States wouldn't be allowed to do to someone they have in custody or have arrested.

But you are putting a very light face on what they're doing, ie. just standing, wearing a hood, or being in a dark room. Its not nearly so benign. You're acting like these people have no rights.

And as far as sexual torture, whether or not its in your article, it IS something that has been practised in Iraq, namely, Abu Gharib

[PLATO]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by PLATO
Maybe I just don't understand the definition.

Well, what's your definition? Could you give a few examples? Does your torture require permanent physical mutilation or something?

Well it certainly involves more than discomfort. That's a good question however. There seems to be some subjective measure to what constitutes torture. I would certainly say that physical abuse is torture. Of course, then you get into "what is the definition of abuse?" I don't know at what level mental abuse would be torture though. I would think that their is probably more acceptence of mental abuse than physical abuse. Still...a very interesting question indeed.