It doesn’t matter if you are a “starry eyed idealist” or a “black hearted pragmatist” (joke), you can still find plenty of perfectly valid reasons why torture is bad. When the “do gooders” and the “cynics” are in agreement on that, each for their own reasons, it’s often a sign that they (maybe) are right.
Here’s another:
Certainly you can see there is a great amount of distance between torture and hunky-dory.
I’ve read nothing before about waterboarding resulting in water entering the lungs. My understanding is that this is deliberately avoided.
The second link should be
You think that waterboarding can’t be torture simply because American soldiers who volunteer for SERE training undergo waterboarding?
That’s like arguing you can’t torture someone using a taser because cops who undergo taser training are hit with the taser themselves.
Waterboarding of a detainee is torture. Period. There is no room for discussion of this fact.
Writing plausible deniability into our laws for agents of the United States of America is not an American thing to do. If it is done, it is invalid, and is not a defense against a charge of violating the law. There is no room for discussion or dispute regarding this fact.
This is the reality I have decided we live in.
Get. The. FUCK. Used To. It.
ETA: That’s why the big deal over torture.
If this is a reply to me, then it is and is not what I’m saying.
I never said the people who underwent SERE’s training actually tortured anyone. I wish they would have (been the ones, if this had too happen, b/c at least they would understand what was happening).
I’m saying, having knowledge of the SERE training program and the fact that waterboarding is being done there on hundreds upon hundreds of fellow Americans, and knowing it is all good and legal, and knowing it can being told it can be done “correctly”, would probably lead the actual watberboarder to the conclusion that what he was doing was not causing “severe” mental or physical pain on the terrorist, although the person was likely enduring some f’n pain.
We can define torture a hundred ways. In my definition, waterboarding is torture. I do not think waterboarding is torture as defined under the CAT, which include the Senate’s understandings.
If someone does believe they are inflicting severe mental/physical pain, they are violating it. If they do not believe, they are not. It’s subjective. There is no objective, reasonable, part to it.
This is the law, it needs to be amended, write your Congressman.
Opinion.
You shouldn’t rely on my opinion or the FBI etc. Rely on your own opinion.
I’m not trying to force anyone to agree with me. As Chairman Mao said, “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend”.
Being shamed is not pleasant but not torture.
I would rather be shamed in this manner in some prison, than be handcuffed and perp-walked out of my home or office in front of friends/family/coworkers on an arrest warrant from some DA. But the latter is routinely done (to many people who turn out to be innocent) and no one says the shame & humiliation involved constitute “torture”.
Willing to go with the professional on this rather than our uninformed opinion.
My understanding is they do not want you to aspirate a lot of water (that may kill you) but that you need to aspirate some water to trigger the panic reflex that is the whole point of the procedure. This is why they use a towel or plastic wrap with a little hole over the face and are not submerging your head wholesale into water. As you try to breathe sooner or later you suck up some water…it is unavoidable. Not a lot (the whole thing is setup so you cannot inhale much water no matter what you do) but enough to send your brain into primal panic mode.
Watching one of the waterboarding demonstrations the guys doing it placed a hand firmly on the person’s abdomen under their diaphragm. The waterboarder said this was done to determine if the person being waterboarded was trying to time their breathing to avoid breathing water to which the waterboarder can alter their approach so as to make it unavoidable.
1.) … You would rather be captured by your enemies, smeared with feces, and forced to masturbate in front of them than arrested in front of people you know? Seriously?
2.) It’s already been established that any suffering that is incedental to a lawful punishment (and not deliberately inflicted in an attempt to get information, punish, etc.) is not considered torture. Stop using discredited arguments, please.
Leave out the “captured by your enemies” part, which is not part of the comparison. Also the masturbation, which was not part of the FBI quote cited.
I was not aware of this prior discussion. In any event, I disagree with it, regardless. You can claim that under some legal rules, laws against torture don’t apply in such cases, but that’s a legal technicality. There’s no reason for whether it is or is not “torture” to depend on whether it was incidental to something else or not.
My remarks to this thread were not about legal technicalities.
You keep saying this. The law is fine as is.
You keep harping on “specific intent” yet never define it.
-
Why would you waterboard if it wasn’t inflicting suffering? Note that “suffering” here extends beyond suffering incidental to lawful sanctions (e.g. you may suffer some merely being a prisoner).
-
Waterboarding was used as torture by the likes of the Spanish Inquisition and Khmer Rouge and Gestapo (to name a few).
-
The SERE program explicitly researched torture techniques, including waterboarding, to help train US soldiers resistance techniques. They did not research comfy chair techniques.
-
Waterboarding is so dangerous that when it is done they have a psychologist and doctor on hand…both for SERE trainees and in actual use against suspected terrorists.
-
We have the testimony of a Master Instructor for SERE who has both been waterboarded himself and participated in the waterboarding of others describing it unambiguously as torture.
-
We have that same guy noting that it is impossible to watch the procedure and not immediately be affected by its disturbing impact. He described most people on the board becoming hysterical (there are stories of people breaking their own bones as they struggle against their restraints). So, maybe you could do it once and not be aware of its profound effects but hard to imagine doing it over and over and being unaware. Not to mention the waterboarding people are trained in its use. They are not just kids playing around. Difficult to imagine them being completely clueless about what they are doing and its effects.
-
We have the testimony of doctors who have dealt with victims of waterboarding-as-torture and they noted the profound long-term psychological effects.
-
The US has prosecuted others for this very thing before. From the same link above noting the prosecution of the Texas sheriff they also mention (per your request): “To take one example, there was a court-martial addressing the practice of waterboarding from 1903, a state court case from the twenties, a series of prosecutions at the [post-World War II] Tokyo Tribunal (in many of which the death penalty was sought) and another court-martial in 1968.” (cite)
-
Doing it once to a US soldier who agrees to the procedure as a learning exercise, among people he knows means him no harm and a procedure he can stop at any time is in no way equivalent to being someone’s captive and being an unwilling participant and unable to stop what is happening to you repeatedly.
Over and over again the evidence points to torture. Torture by anyone’s definition. A method of torture notoriously nasty regimes found useful. All the experts agree, testimony from anyone who has been waterboarded agree, testimony from doctors dealing with waterboarding victims agree, legal precedent agrees.
Waterboarding IS torture! No two ways about it. Legally, morally…anyway you slice it.
Being a captive is a crucial component of torture.
I may find listening to Rap music torturous but then I generally have the ability to turn it off or walk away. Tie me down and blare it at me for days on end is something else entirely.
The Rap music is not inherently tortuous. Its application is.
That “technicality” is the actual Federal statute on this:
So, just being imprisoned could be said to cause suffering but that is a lawful sanction and the suffering is not severe and as such does not rise to “torture”.
You may not want to argue the legalities but it defangs any contention that anything may be considered torture so therefore who are we to say that waterboarding is special? This distinguishes between incidental suffering and intentionally inflicted severe suffering.
Also note that “custody or physical control” are necessary components. If you walk up with your boombox blaring Rap music I cannot claim you are torturing me since I can walk away. Tie me down and make me listen to it and you are at least part way down the road to torture (just a lighthearted example…don’t pick on that point too much).
I appreciate your post, and your reply. You know waterboarding is torture, I know waterboarding is torture. My saying it’s not is only because I don’t think someone can be prosecuted for it because the way the CAT/2340 is written.
Specific Intent: In order for a defendant to have acted with specific intent, he must expressly intend to achieve the forbidden act*. - Black’s Law Dictionary.
*What this means is the defendant (waterboarder) must have used the technique of waterboarding to expressly intend to violate 2340.
What this doesn’t mean is, if the defendant waterboarded knowing that severe mental or physical pain and suffering was reasonably likely to result from his actions (ie, general intent - Black’s Law).
Small difference, but makes it very hard to convict someone. So this is why I keep saying that knowledge of people being waterboarded at SERE’s makes it less likely to violate 2340/CAT. Lawyer’s telling you you’re not violating 2340/CAT makes it impossible to violate the CAT. So the waterboarders will not be prosecuted; it’s simple. You might get them to talk under oath and hope they perjure themselves, but you won’t be able to convict them of violating the CAT.
So what about the lawyers? You can get them on “conspiracy” to commit torture, or make them talk under oath and hope they commit “perjury.” They probably won’t perjure themselves. For conspiracy, you’d have to show their advice (memo’s) were intended to do something more than draw a legal line in the sand and say one side is legal, the other side is not. You’d also have to prove a connection that the Executive branch acted in concert with them (ie, make waterboarding legal, not, Is waterboarding legal?).
By your own admissions, waterboarding is being done constantly. The only difference is the ability to make it stop. Do you see how fine of a line that legal line is to draw? And how grey the area is?
So what about the Executive Branch? Conspiracy, Perjury. Cheney said he’ll talk to Congress. Under oath? ha, probably not. He’s your best bet because he’s an arrogant SOB who’s never wrong. Conspiracy, you’d have to prove they acted in concert with the lawyers to make waterboarding illegal.
Obaba, as executive, can un-classify anything he wants, so if the evidence is there, he can release it. The Attorney General has the ability to prosecute anyone.
Write your Congressman, tell them to prosecute. Say waterboarding is torture and these people shouldn’t get away with it. Tell them to change the law from specific intent to general intent.
Ah, but if you’re in control of the situation, it isn’t torture. So no, I won’t leave it out. Neither will I leave out forced masturbation, as it’s documented (hello, Abu Ghraib photos) and a further example of humiliation as torture.
Uh, it’s pretty *central to the debate *about what constitutes torture or what doesn’t. It sucks to be locked in prison as part of a sentence, but it’s not torture. It hurts like hell to be shot by a police officer when you’re holding someone hostage, but it’s not torture. This was already addressed in the thread, so thanks for paying attention.
OK, let’s put it this way. I would regard the humuliation of feces etc. in a situation where I was already imprisoned as being less of a humiliation than the perp-walk situation.
I’ve not signed up to defend anything that’s “documented”. I was commenting on some specific interrogation descriptions cited by (IIRC) Whack-a-Mole.
No, it’s not. It’s a technicality.
How do you interpret it that way? 2340 reads (in part): ““torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”
I see “specifically intended” in there referring to intending to cause suffering. NOT intending to violate 2340.
Really? Looks an awful lot to me like you’re just attempting to change what you said because you’ve been proven wrong. I quote:
Moving on…
How is a distinction that the UN makes between “torture” and “not torture” a technicality? If you throw this “technicality” :rolleyes: out, any punishment becomes torture and the debate becomes meaningless. You can’t cherrypick what’s important and what’s not in order to make bad arguments work. Being arrested publicly in a legal way is **not **equivalent to being covered in feces or forced to masturbate.
Forced masturbation has other aspects to it beyond humiliation.
Because the UN was defining it relative to their purposes.
From the perspective of the guy being tortured it makes no difference to his suffering if it’s incidental or not. My position is based on the level of suffering that is required to be “torture” and to that end I’ve compared certain actions with others. You can’t exclude some based on the fact that that they weren’t condemned as torture in a UN declaration.
But I’ll tell you what. You agree that being perp-walked is a level of humiliation comparable to defecation and we’ll take it from there. Don’t just hide behind aspects that are not relevant to this part of the issue.
Forgot to respond to this…
I am not sure what the lawyers and Executive and such could be charged with. Professional misconduct (and subsequent sanctions from their state Bar) seems to be on the table at the least. Can you be busted for torture if you did not actually torture someone but directed those working for you to go torture? I dunno…
We do have the Judges’ Trial from Nuremberg as precedent going after those in the legal profession that enabled, among other things, torture: