Point to one non-combatant that was tortured.
It was legal when it was done. In fact, legal dispensation was explicitly given for it.
The condition itself is horrific. Just like a compound fracture of the femur, or a complete amputation of the leg, is horrific. It doesn’t matter how it was arrived at, it’s a horrific medical condition.
This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever – the prisoner has to be restrained for an IV or feeding tube, but not for rectal feeding? Further, the rectal feeding provides a higher risk of serious health risks, like anal fissures or prolapse.
In any case, it doesn’t justify punishment – by this justification, they could pull out his fingernails, or hammer his testicles, until he agreed to stop his water refusal.
The same would apply to rectal feedings. Further, I doubt this doctor friend advocated torturing someone who refused an IV.
That’s not bias – what else is it? They’re refusing water, and IVs don’t “motivate” them enough (e.g. don’t punish them enough), and rectal feeding is so unpleasant that it motivates them to stop refusing water.
Which means it’s totally ridiculous that you’d rather have this procedure, which is apparently so physically painful and unpleasant that detainees will stop their water/hunger strikes to avoid it.
Unless you have… unusual feelings about your butt.
Why would you oppose applying those techniques to US citizens who happen to be domestic terrorists?
How do you know they were enemy combatants? You really trust them that much?
Ah, the “sub-humans”. Got it.
Their legal counsel, John Yoo, said that they could legally torture children. That doesn’t mean that it’s actually true that they could legally torture children.
Because of Constitutional rights that apply to US citizens.
Because out of thousands and thousands of captured enemies, only around 100 were in that interrogation program and only 30 were subject to the “enhanced interrogations”. If CIA just wanted to torture people for the hell of it, they wouldn’t be this discriminating.
tbf, the poster is just reflecting the view of the President and Vice President at the relevant time.
That’s how insane it is.
Here Cheney lies about his justification:
Perhaps I’m missing something but ISTM that much of the discussion of possible prosecution has ignored or overlooked the fact that the matter has already been investigated by the Justice Department (under Eric Holder) which decided not to prosecute.
Not by anyone with authority to do so. You can always find someone to cook up some excuse if you look hard enough. That doesn’t make it legal.
Now, I don’t expect anyone to be prosecuted for what was done, but if it happens again n the future, all bets are off, and we don’t need to change any laws to do so.
I don’t think they wanted to torture people “for the hell of it” – I think they wanted to torture people they thought had useful info. I think it’s very likely that there were some non-combatants who might have had useful info, and I don’t trust that all CIA agents (and their contractors) are honest and moral enough to not try and claim that a captured non-combatant is actually a combatant so they can torture him.
Would you support or oppose the CIA’s right to torture for information, say, the non-citizen 11 year old daughter of a terrorist who might have very valuable information about her father and his activities? If not, why not?
The reason it is not being prosecuted is because it was legal at the time. And just because the laws don’t need to be changed doesn’t mean it was not legal. It just means the interpretation changed.
And only a very few of those.
That was a justification
The reason they did it was because … they were just following orders.
Yep, it rings a bell.
The point is the hierarchy; that those in command became depraved and those under them obeyed.
Only if she was a confirmed enemy combatant.
An 11 year old? Seriously?
Remember this post, Dopers… Terr admits that he would support torturing an 11 year old girl, as long as she was classified as an “enemy combatant”.
You would torture a pre-teen child that might have info?