“Finally, you would like to use a technique called the “waterboard.” […] This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e., the perception of drowning. […] The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then by repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in any one application.”
"Even if one were to parse the statute more finely to attempt to treat “suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.”
People need to be prosecuted for this. I understand why Obama isn’t going to do it - he’d lose the confidence of the intelligence community - but doing otherwise is equivalent to demanding intelligence personnel surrender their consciences.
This is stupid. You are saying they aren’t guilty of violating laws, but they did do something “morally wrong.” This means nothing more than that you personally disagree with what they did. There is absolutely no impact to them doing something that you feel is morally wrong. If it didn’t violate the law, then that’s the end of the inquiry–it doesn’t matter whether anyone thinks that torture is “morally wrong” or not. You are a child stamping your feet.
Americans can still be tried by a war crimes tribunal. Serbia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Cambodia and Indonesia weren’t signatories to the ICC treaty either.
Of course, the government will never hand over any of our accused war criminals, so it’s a moot point.
Did you read the articles? Bybee and others were making up legal principles out of thin air. I’ll agree that simply being morally wrong doesn’t mean you’re guilty of a crime- especially since you don’t believe in morals anyway.
Obama is going into Afghanistan with zeal. Do you think that his soldiers will commit an atrocity or two? If he goes after the Shrubs misdeeds ,what will his defense be? The leaders have a gentlemens agreement not to go after each other too hard. You have to go way over the line to get persecuted. The question is not that torture is wrong. it is whether we can overlook it or cover it up.
I haven’t read the whole opinion, but the part you just quoted apparently says that “suffering” means pain over a protracted period of time. Given that definition of suffering, then I can agree that waterboarding as described in the opinion does not produce suffering.
Now find me any definition of suffering in case law or statute (or a dictionary) which includes the words “protracted period of time” or implies in any way that protracted time is a necessary element of suffering.
America, both sides of it, know well that what they did was torture. It was not only waterboarding, people have died. It was torture and we all know it. The Justice Department tried to provide a legal cover which we also know does not hold water. It was just meant as a fig leaf to cover the indecency. No one believes it has any merit, legal or otherwise. We all know America tortured. It is just that some do not want to admit it so they will go around and around muddying the water, saying waterboarding is not torture, when in fact it has always been regarded as torture by America and by the other civilized nations. These are the same people who called Abu Ghraib a “frat house party”. They are the same quality of people who justified the barbarities of Hitler, Mao or Stalin on the grounds that the ultimate good required the breaking of a few eggs. They are the scum of the earth.
Rand Rover, do you have any cards in your deck other than “I am smarter than all of you, and look down upon you with contempt?” Since you’re an Objectivist, I expect the answer is no. This is about torture, not a disagreement over legal opinions. It centers around self-delusion, a concept you display at nearly all times. If others in this thread are children stamping their feet, you’re the child who wanders the house making a racket, yelling “LOOKITME LOOKITME LOOKITME I IS SO SMAAAAART!!”
This thread is about the release of some documents. Those documents express the legal opinion that certain actions do not violate statutes prohibiting torture. You and others disagree about that legal opinion. Therefore, this thread is about legal opinions that happen to be about torture.
It was torture and it was terrible; and regardless of Rand’s opinions might be, the United States has a history of treating water boarding as torture and a war crime (for example, the prosecution of Yukio Asano after WWII). I think the people who instituted these policies are morally bankrupt and I hope they have problems sleeping for the rest of their lives, but I agree with President Obama on this issue: we should not prosecute. I also think the government should defend those who participated while at the same time making damn sure that it never happens again. Releasing these memos and other documents that shows how reprehensible the behavior is will help in making it less likely to happen in the future. But actually prosecuting those responsible will tear this country apart. I would love to see Cheney and his ilk behind bars, but going after him would destroy the current administration and make bipartisan government impossible for several decades at least. It’s just not worth it. It would be stupid to burn down your house to prove a point, even a valid one.
Where are the nuts being kicked? Guys who were “just following orders” are NOT going be prosecuted, or even named.
Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Cheney, and whoever else *issued *the orders aren’t going to be prosecuted either, not in this country anyway. But they won’t have the opportunity to clear their names either, if they think they can, and none of them have said shit about it.
Obama appears to be hoping that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission effort, without the Commission, will constitute justice for the instigators without giving the RW’s a basis to label it mere partisan retribution (no doubt they would). Sunlight is the best disinfectant, sure, but that may not be enough.
Rand, torture is illegal, both under US law and under the treaties to which we are a party. Period. That isn’t “opinion”. :rolleyes:
We’ve already said that what happened was torture, regardless of what the torturers or torturer’s superiors want us to think. We’ve taken the question out of the equation. All that’s left is whether or not we will do to our own what we do to others who torture. This isn’t rocket science.