Home › Blogs › Lonestar Bill's blog ›

Diluting Torture, Racism -Unintended consequences of the left

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 12:49
in

As I watched news coverage of the speeches on security given by President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday, it occurred to me that by giving in to the left's assertion that waterboarding is torture, we again dilute the meaning of a powerful word, and withdraw it from future important debates.

The first time this thought crossed my mind was during the George Allen/Jim Webb senate campaign. George Allen, pointing to a Jim Webb campaign worker that had been assigned to follow the Allen campaign, said  "This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent... Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

The Webb campaign claimed that "Macaca" was a racial slur. The press immediately began to investigate and found that the word was indeed a racial slur. Used by francophone colonists in the Belgian Congo.(I'm not making this up). To refer to black natives. So, George Allen was a RACIST!!!! He used a racial sliur against one of his opponents' campaign workers.

The Webb campaign made the charge stick. George Allen had uttered a racial slur used by francophone colonists in the Belgian Congo against an American of Indian decent.

I thought then that people who had experienced real racism (and there is plenty of it in the U.S.) must have felt somewhat used. The Webb campaign had taken a legitimate and painful experience and cheapened it for political gain. They were equating what was obviously a nonsensical word that Allen had come up with on the spur of the moment, to other words too horrible to mention.

What the Webb campaign did was cheapen the word "racism". They used it to benefit themselves and in so doing took a little bit of the punch out of the word that describes suffering and injustice.

I have had the same thought during the "torture" debate recently. Most of us do not think of torture as being administered with a doctor standing by with a stopwatch and an instruction manual that tells them how far they can legally go. Again, a word has been cheapened for political gain. I heard Anderson Cooper make the case last night that North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, and North Korea had used the same torture methods  asthe United States. This is an obscenity, and I for one am sick of having the left usurp the language for their own benefit.

The unintended consequence is that they dilute the meaning of important words, and with them important issues and events.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

Dittos

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:22.

n/t

It isn't "the left" that says waterboarding is torture

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:38.

As I watched news coverage of the speeches given by President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney, it occurred to me that by giving in to the left's assertion that waterboarding is torture, we again dilute the meaning of a powerful word, and withdraw it from future important debates.

It isn't "the left" that says waterboarding is torture.

The top US brass called  waterboarding illegal in Vietnam 40 years ago. Soldiers were court-martialed for water boarding North Vietnamese prisoners.

The United States military justice system has prosecuted "waterboarding" as a form of torture since the Spanish-American war.

Retired JAGs call it torture.

Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

The Southern Baptist's top ethicist calls it torture.

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land, a leading Christian conservative who helped advance the Bush administration's agenda on a range of social issues, said Monday that the formerly sanctioned practice of waterboarding of suspected terrorists is torture and "violates everything we stand for."

Former Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge says waterboarding is torture.

"There's just no doubt in my mind — under any set of rules — waterboarding is torture," Tom Ridge said Friday in an interview with the Associated Press. Ridge had offered the same opinion earlier in the day to members of the American Bar Association at a homeland security conference.

"One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture," Ridge said in the interview. Ridge was secretary of the Homeland Security Department between 2003 and 2005. "And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is — and will always be — torture. That's a simple statement."

A Bush Administration advisor  and former SERE instructor said that waterboarding is torture. From The Indpendent, Nov 2007:

Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".

"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."

While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

Mr Nance said US troops were trained to withstand waterboarding, watched by a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a backup team. "When performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt," he added. "Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American."

Doctors agree that waterboarding is torture that inflicts permant psychological damage.

Jesse Ventura, former Navy SEAL, says waterboarding is torture.

John McCain says waterboarding is torture.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, so that I can sort of set the table right so you and I are on the same page, is waterboarding torture or enhanced interrogation technique? What word should we use on this?

MCCAIN: It's torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of the international agreement on torture, treaty of torture signed during the Reagan administration. It goes all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's not a new technique, and it is certainly torture.

Joseph Galloway, who Norman Schwarzkopf called  "The finest combat correspondent of our generation -- a soldier's reporter and a soldier's friend." says waterboarding is torture.

Excellent Assessment

Submitted by FlyingScot on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:43.

The left has mastered  the art of the prefaced word or phrase in vieled attempts to slant the casual reader's outlook by the deft usage of certain words.

Things like "he cunningly reponded" or " the Congressman seemed unfazed and stoic in the light of the accusations...".

The master of this verbal shading style is of course, the New York Times, which always leans left. 

While the Right has mastered

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 13:48.

While the Right has mastered sticking its collective head up its rear to avoid any and all contact with the outside world.

Palin/Jindal 2012!

You sir, are an idiot, and

Submitted by Repack Rider on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 14:30.

Waterboarding is torture. 

It has been used for centuries by torturers who had the full panoply of hot irons and sharp pokers at their disposal.  There is even a cliche, "The Chinese Water Torture," whose meaning is that  you can be tortured by something as seemingly harmless as water.

The great thing about waterboarding from the torturer's standpoint is that it triggers involuntary reflexes and doesn't cause immediate unconsciousness, so willpower and passing out from pain can't deflect its effects.  Even more important, the victim can later be presented in court without a mark on him other than the brain damage, and idiots like you will claim he hasn't been tortured.

The idea that having a doctor standing by controls the use of these methods is chilling.  Why would a tracheotomy kit be necessary as an accessory, if death was not a possibility?

What court would accept a guilty plea obtained by waterboarding?  None.  Why not?  Because it is coercion.  Why should we accept "confessions" from "terrorists" obtained by methods the courts have always recognized as coercive and untrustworthy? 

I believe Jesse Ventura could torture a confession for the Tate/LaBianca killings out of Dick Cheney, and it wouldn't take long, but would it be true?

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions.  First, why would Spanish Inquisitors waterboard prisoners, when they had branding irons and fingernail pullers and melted lead, i.e. "real" torture implements, to torture their victims with?   Are you saying these guys didn't understand how to get Jews to accept the guilt for killing Christ, so they could then be executed?  They did, and waterboarding was one of their favorite methods.

Second, do you believe Jesus would waterboard anyone?  After all, He was tortured to death by men acting well within the law.  No one who claims to be a Christian would ever accept this atrocity. 

I am amazed that it is even worthy of debate, because there is no possible moral case to be made for torture in the United States of America.

None.

You sir, have no idea...

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:13.

...what real torture is.

Why don't you respond to the list I posted a few comments

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:21.

Why don't you respond to the list I posted a few comments further up the thread?

Here is the problem with you

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 14:47.

What court would accept a guilty plea obtained by waterboarding?  None.  Why not?  Because it is coercion.  Why should we accept "confessions" from "terrorists" obtained by methods the courts have always recognized as coercive and untrustworthy? 

At the time, no one was concerned with "convictions" from courts. These guys didn't knock over a liquor store, they KILLED 3,000 INNOCENT AMERICANS! And did billions of dollars in damage to our economy. We were not concerned about what a guilty plea would mean to some damn court. We had to know when and where the next attack would come.Your view is what caused 9/11. Instead of proactively protecting the country, Clinton acted as if it were a law enforcement issue.

You can take your WWJD crap down the road. You could find a thousand passages one way or another to support any point from the New Testament.

Apparently, so did Bush/Cheney

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:25.

Your view is what caused 9/11. Instead of proactively protecting the country, Clinton acted as if it were a law enforcement issue.

Bush/Cheney had eight months to get people strapped to the waterboard before 9/11; instead of proactively protecting the country, they acted as if it were a law enforcement issue.  Intelligence briefers were waved away with "That's enough. You've covered your ass now." 

What I want to know is, why did Dick Cheney stop caring about our safety?  They discontinued the 'enhanced interrogation' program well before the end of the last term.  By his reasoning, they should have been using it up until the day they left.  It was perfectly legal, nothing else would work, and there was no reason to think all danger of another attack had passed. 

I feel pretty safe in saying it is far from 'fact' that these methods were not torture, given the litany of examples cited above of others who hold a different opinion.  The poster above forgot to include lawyers for all four branches of the military and the FBI. 

However

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:40.

What I want to know is, why did Dick Cheney stop caring about our safety?  They discontinued the 'enhanced interrogation' program well before the end of the last term.  By his reasoning, they should have been using it up until the day they left.  It was perfectly legal, nothing else would work, and there was no reason to think all danger of another attack had passed. 

These methods were used on three count 'em three  individuals. The worst of the worst with the most information. I think our difference is that I think that if they gave up information that saved American lives (or our allies) that the correct thing was done. Period.They didn't say they would never use the program again. I think it is unfair to try to say that we can go back today and say "we didn't need to use these methods". I can absolutely assure you that if , God forbid, we had another attack  tomorrow anywhere close to scale of the one we had on 9/11, we would be having a totally different discussion.

Bush/Cheney had eight months to get people strapped to the waterboard before 9/11; instead of proactively protecting the country, they acted as if it were a law enforcement issue.  Intelligence briefers were waved away with "That's enough. You've covered your ass now." 

Not sure what that last sentence is referencing, but, here is the million dollar question:

If you were president in August of 2001 and you had a person in custody that you knew for certain had all of the details of 9/11 plans, and the only way he would give that information up was to waterboard him, would you have done it, or would you have let 9/11 happen? In other words, would it be better not to waterboard three terrorists, or let 3,000 innocent Americans die?

Question:  How do I know for

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:56.

Question:  How do I know for certain the person in custody has all of the details of the 9/11 plans?  Did I learn this through traditional interrogation methods?  If I did, why do I have reason to think I can't learn more through those methods?

And as a professional interrogator, if I know waterboarding produces unreliable/false information, how many ratholes do I have time to run down chasing bad information?

Last sentence referenced a CIA briefer's experience during an intelligence briefing.

Why do you think Bush/Cheney failed to proactively protect us?  Fortunately we no longer had to rely on that Clinton character but I'm still fuzzy as to why there was a different outcome eight months into the Bush term than there had been during the preceding seven years, after the FIRST attack on American soil.  (No point in dragging out the "Bush/Cheney prevented another attack" nonsense, because the first attack occurred in 1993.)

It was hypothetical and probably not a good question

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:09.

So I withdraw it.

But, on why did Bush/Cheney fail to protect us, I wouldn't get too giddy, the plan was launched right under the nose of the Clinton administration. Several bombings in the US and around the world had gone unanswered.Walls were intentionally put up between agencies even in the environment of a growing threat.Remember Jamie Gorelick?

And, the democrats have one big, undeniable problem. The Bush/Cheney program did protect us for 7 1/2 years. I hope we can say the same for Obama/Biden 4 years from now. I really do.

I don't have any reason to be giddy

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:57.

And actually, your hypothetical was as good as it gets in terms of posing that question.  A true ticking-time-bomb scenario.  And a fair question.

My response was an effort to point out some problems with unquestioningly accepting Dick Cheney's assertion that failing to use these methods inevitably makes us less safe, namely:

  • To assert that these methods were only used in the ticking-time-bomb cases, one has to ask how the interrogator came to know of the ticking-time-bomb.  Traditional interrogation methods? Evidence collection -- intercepted phone calls or seized computers?  Third-party informants?  All of those are traditional law-enforcement methods.  If you believe the scenario, you can't turn around and argue that traditional investigation methods don't work, because they obviously produced important information that you've acknowledged is reliable. 
  • If the traditional methods worked to produce knowledge of the ticking-time-bomb scenario, what reasoning supports a conclusion that only different methods will work to produce additional information?
  • If you don't have prior evidence to support a ticking-time-bomb scenario, the 'enhanced interrogation' is either a fishing expedition or designed to produce a false confession.  Cheney claims these methods weren't used for those purposes.

Yes, the Bush/Cheney program protected us for 7 1/2 years.  Bill Clinton's protected us for 7 years.  If, God forbid, we suffer another attack under Obama, I assume you won't be any more critical of him than you were of Bush when we experienced a second attack during his presidency?

And to answer your original question:  As maleficent has often said, if an interrogator truly believes they are facing a ticking-time-bomb scenario and no other method has any possibility of working better or faster, then yes, the interrogator should use the method if they are prepared to be accountable for the decision.  But we should not have a 'legal' or formalized torture program.  (You convinced me, malificent!)

My response was an effort to

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:18.

My response was an effort to point out some problems with unquestioningly accepting Dick Cheney's assertion that failing to use these methods inevitably makes us less safe, namely:

Hey, i've been calling for a full investigation ever since Obama released parts of the four memos out of what has to be millions of documents. So really we are being asked to take Obama's word that enhanced interrogation did NOT work. As opposed to Cheney's assertion that it did.

Right now, you have Cheney with more credibility because he has said "these methods were needed and they worked, and they saved lives, please release all the memos".

Obama is saying "they tortured, it didn't work, wasn't needed, take my word for it". He felt it was important to release documents showing the Bush administartion in a bad light, but will not release anything that may vindicate the decisions bush made.

As far as blaming Obama for anothe attack-I'm going to assume there will not be another one, at least not on the scale of 9/11. If there is it would depend on the circumstances as to whether i would blame him or not.

Thanks for the answer to the question, it was not an attempt to trap you, I just like your opinions.

I do not agree with you and malificent on leaving an interrigator twisting in the wind.

Have you read Lone Survivor? Marcus Luttrell had a choice, kill unarmed enemies or put himself and his men in danger. Be prosecuted or be killed. Heckuva choice. Now if he had been able to get through to the base for guidence and they had said "you make the call but you alone suffer the consequences" I think that would have been horrible. We need to stand behind our people.

I know you've said before

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 18:21.

I know you've said before that you support a full investigation, as do I.  I am as interested as anyone else in learning what is in the memos Cheney wants to have released and agree that right now there is very little information available.  The release of the OLC memos was in response to a FOIA request.  Cheney has submitted his own request and I won't cheerlead for Obama if he fails to release at least a redacted version of the memos Cheney requests.

Don't worry about trapping me.  It's a fair question for anyone opposing the program.  I resisted even malificent's reasoning for a long time, believing that we are ultimately better served by resisting the slippery-slope of these techniques.  As I pointed out below, many of them (although not waterboarding) were used on an American citizen who was imprisoned without charge for more than three years.  If in 60 years we've gone from prosecutng Japanese soldiers for waterboarding, to adopting it as our own, I worry a lot  about where we'll be 60 years from now if we don't expose all of this to sunlight and public debate.

The back-and-forth below about the subjectivity of defining various techniques as torture is why I don't think leaving it to an individual to decide how far they will go is necessarily leaving them to twist in the wind.  At this point I seriously wonder if the Abu Ghraib soldiers were left to twist in the wind, painted as bad apples, when we don't know the nature of their orders.  If we get to see the orders, will we all be able to agree on whether or not they went beyond orders?  Maybe, maybe not.  Their job was to soften the prisoners for later interrogation and perhaps they were given too little guidance or too much discretion in carrying out that task.  At any rate, they're the only people to date who have been investigated and prosecuted for actions taken in this program.  If nothing else, maybe their conduct shows how easy it is for some people to slip beyond established boundaries in an atmosphere of sanctioned brutality.

I'm not familiar with Lone Survivor but the ethical dilemma you describe is apt.  No argument from me that we need to stand behind our people, but we need to stand behind them at all levels.  I'm appalled at the prospect we may have prosecuted and imprisoned the Abu Ghraib soldiers for the same conduct that we now have tremendous resistance to accountability for with respect to the people who approved and justified the techniques, simply because they served at the highest levels of government or in the case of CIA interrogators, had greater access to legal protections.

As always

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 20:00.

A pleasure to exchange views with you, With two kids (can we calls them kids?) in the military I would highly reccomend Lone Survivor. It is a true story and it does point out a true life moral dilemma. Our guys in the field actually considering the front page headlines as a result of their actions. And it got them killed.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3JF1WLS8O4NHK

I would love your opinion of the book.

Mancow says it's torture:

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:29.

Mancow says it's torture: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-L...

waterboarding and the rule of law

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:40.

I personally believe most instances of waterboarding are probably torture.  But, when it comes to matters of law and justice, my personal opinion don't matter.  I don't care if John McCain, Mancow, 100 generals, 100 nuns, and Jesus Christ himself all declare that waterboarding is torture.  Does the law say waterboarding is torture?

Well, if it doesn't, then

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:45.

Well, if it doesn't, then we've wrongly conducted international and domestic prosecutions for similar techniques.  And, yes, I saw that you limited your question strictly to waterboarding in an effort to ignore the totality of the techniques, but the Texas sheriff was prosecuted and convicted for the waterboarding alone.

the Texas sheriff and waterboarding

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:56.

The Texas sheriff was prosecuted and convicted for the crime of violating the victim's civil rights.  He was not prosecuted for the crime of torture.  We didn't even have laws against torture until the 1990's, and the Texas sheriff committed his crimes back in 1983.

So in this respect, the question remains unanswered: Does the law declare waterboarding to be torture?

I stand corrected, then.  So

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:17.

I stand corrected, then.  So I'll settle for investigating and prosecuting as warranted on the basis of Jose Padilla's treatment.  He is an American citizen, so his civil rights could very well have been violated.  You'll join me in caling for an investigation into the methods used against him?  We won't even have to worry about the timing of the law on waterboarding in his case.  Here's an account of his treatment, which included sleep and sensory deprivation, stress positions, administration of drugs, exposure to temperature extremes, etc.:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html

Padilla and treason

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:35.

I will say that I am most upset about the case of Jose Padilla, because he is a citizen.  However, Padilla's case raises a different question: if a person commits an act of war against his own country, does he even retain civil rights at all?  This is also different from the Texas case because the crime for which the victim was accused of committing, for which the sheriff believed it necessary to use waterboarding to extract a confession, presumably wasn't considered an act of war.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question.  If I could be persuaded that Padilla's actions were simple criminal acts, and not acts of war, then he is no different legally speaking from any other criminal and it would be absolutely a violation of his rights to waterboard him, torture or not.  But I am not convinced that is the case.

Why didn't we waterboard Aldrich Ames?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:46.

Why didn't we waterboard Aldrich Ames? Timothy McVeigh? Robert Hanssen? Terry Nichols?

strawman alert

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:30.

Nobody has ever suggested using waterboarding merely as a form of punishment.  So that's a strawman.

I said nothing about punishment

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 23:14.

Who knows what deeply laid plots and co-conspirators skated becasue we didn't torture these guys to get every last drop of actionable intelligence out of them.

chem, based on reading your

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 15:55.

chem,

based on reading your posts on the subject, it is highly unlikely that you'd believe the law declaring waterboarding to be torture even if said law were tattooed on the your forehead.

something about horses and water comes to mind . . .

waterboarding and torture

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:02.

I've read the law on torture.  Have you?  It does not mention waterboarding by name.  That is not to say that waterboarding is legally permitted, just that those who believe waterboarding to be an illegal form of torture must prove that the technique of waterboarding falls within the legal definition of torture.

I don't like waterboarding, you know.  I wish it could be abolished from the face of the earth.  But my love of the rule of law is stronger than my hatred of waterboarding.  I don't care how many times a CIA interrogator waterboarded someone, if the law does not declare that act to be torture, then legally speaking, he didn't torture anyone.  Whether his actions were morally permissible or not is an entirely different question.

And, frankly, I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I somehow approve of waterboarding.

Please provide a list of all

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:09.

Please provide a list of all relevant statutes you think are necessary to make a determination that waterboarding is not torture.

 

US torture statute

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:21.

It would seem to me that the only relevant statute would be the one making torture a crime.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html

I am not saying waterboarding is legally torture, I am not saying it isn't.  I'm asking those who are making the claim to prove it by reference to the law.

I'll use your

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:39.

I'll use your statute:

Section 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter -
(1) "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 (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

(3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

I stand by my original supposition that were the above statute tattooed on you forehead, you would not recognize it as torture. Any first year law student could see that the act of simulating a person's drowning falls under, wait for it, "the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering". Ding ding ding! Bob! tell them what they've won. . .

 

Yes the law says waterboarding is torture.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:20.

Yes the law says waterboarding is torture - it inflicts "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".

Here are the words of a former SERE instructor:

the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment

 

"severe physical or mental pain or suffering"

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:23.

Yes the law says waterboarding is torture - it inflicts "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".

Again I don't care what SERE instructors say.  What is the legal standard for "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and how does waterboarding meet that standard?

So you won't be happy untill someone sets up a biometric

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:41.

So you won't be happy untill someone sets up a biometric standard and those numbers are written into the law?

Fortunately, our legal system is run by more sensible people. For example, there is the centuries old concept of battery, which somehow manages to function without someone writing out pages and pages of detailed rules about what constitutes "harm".

 

 

definition of torture

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:26.

So you won't be happy untill someone sets up a biometric standard and those numbers are written into the law?

No, Nando, all I ask is a definition that is specific, that doesn't rely merely on the opinions of SERE instructors, generals, or Mancow.

Fortunately, our legal system is run by more sensible people. For example, there is the centuries old concept of battery, which somehow manages to function without someone writing out pages and pages of detailed rules about what constitutes "harm".

Oh really?  You do not even need to prove "harm" to prove the charge of battery.  Even something as relatively straightforward as battery is more complex than it looks - felony vs. misdemeanor battery, exceptions when "battery" really isn't battery, etc.  That's why we have law dictionaries, case law, legal codes, and the like.  I don't think it's too much to ask for the crime of torture.

Could you provide a cited case for this contention?

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 20:08.

I mean, has there been any reported legal decision in the U.S. courts defining waterboarding as illegal?

If so, why aren't the folks administring it as part of SERE being court martialed under the UCMJ? 

You know, in my business judges like to see cases supportive of legal arguments. Otherwise your case gets tossed. So I make sure to include authority in a brief.  That's how I make enough money doing the business of law to owe the IRS money every April.

 

Ironman, lay off fumes. that

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 21:42.

Ironman, lay off fumes. that SERE argument is so utterly laughable that it warms my leftist heart when I hear it because it proves the Right has clearly scraped the bottom of the barrel.

Purpose of the SERE training is to give soldiers a taste of what to expect from nations that torture in the off chance that they are captured and held.  It is a training exercise. Just because the Army has war games where they game out certain scenarios does not mean the military has license to know institute marshall law on an American city whenever it wants and for whatever purpose.

i guess by your logic, it does.

Well, Molly

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 05/23/2009 - 07:13.

I presume you think that we ought to torture our own military personnel. Since the well being of our soldiers is supposedly what we are concerned about, why didn;t Congress ban the use of waterboarding in SERE? Every argument raised against using it at Gitmo argues it should never have been used on our own troops.

It is probable we've waterboarded tens of thousands of our own servicemen. We waterboarded three terrorists. What are people so irate about? 

And as for giving our troops "a taste of what they are in for if captured" , when it comes for A-Q that is far worse than waterboarding.

Can you devise a form of simulated beheading?

 

Umm, chem, generally the

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 16:44.

Umm, chem, generally the standard is what a "reasonable person" would assume.  so would a reasonable person feel suffering? assuming you are a reasoble person. imaging being waterboarded and voila, you have your answer. see how easy that was?

statutory language and definitions

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:22.

The standard is not "suffering".  Otherwise every time mom slaps her bratty kid is an instance of "torture".  The standard is, instead, "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".  The key question appears to be, what constitutes "severe"?  Again there is a legal standard for this, not just the opinions of SERE instructors or Mancow.  In the so-called "torture memos" (have you read them, BTW?) the authors make the claim that "severe pain" constitutes pain that is "extreme in intensity and difficult to endure" which is a common dictionary definition of "severe".   So waterboarding is of course "extreme in intensity", but "difficult to endure" depends on how long it is applied.  One second?  Not difficult.  One hour?  Definitely difficult.  So they made a judgment call - 40 seconds, which is what is used in SERE training.  And it's not "severe mental pain or suffering" because, according to the statutory language, "severe mental pain or suffering" requires long-term psychological damage, which waterboarding does not do, as evidenced from the results of SERE training.

So if they are wrong, explain why they are wrong. 

Or, you can use the "reasonable person" standard.  But at that point you must admit that we then have an extremely subjective definition of "torture".  Maybe a mom slapping her bratty kid really is torture!  That's a pretty slippery slope and you essentially hand over the definition of torture to judges.  I would prefer to avoid the slippery slope if at all possible and decide issues like torture legislatively, rather than leaving it up to judges.  Wouldn't you?

Here is "tough guy" who lasted 6 seconds

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:29.

Here is guy who thought he was tough but lasted 6 seconds.

You mom-spanking-the-kid analogy is insulting to the intelligence of the reader. I remind you again that somehow the law has gotten along without a precise definition of "harm" in the case of battery for a millenia or so.

Good thing you went into computational chemistry and not law.

what's your argument?

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:37.

Fine, Nando, so who should decide whether an interrogation technique is "severe"?  Do we take a poll?  Do we convene a council of generals?  A council of academics?  Do we leave it up to judges?  Do we have a plebiscite?  Do we leave it up to partisan politics - whatever party is in charge decides what's torture and what's not?  Do we leave it up to Mancow?  I know!  Let's leave it up to demagogues!  That's worked so well the past 6 years hasn't it?

I'm arguing in favor of a rational decision-making process.  What are you arguing for?  Leaving it up to the mob?  It seems to me that you just want to bitch about my argument and not offer anything concrete.

I repeat:

So if they are wrong, explain why they are wrong.

 

6 second rule

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 17:39.

Here is guy who thought he was tough but lasted 6 seconds.

So is your argument then that waterboarding is torture only if it lasts longer than 6 seconds?

If it is so awful that a tought guy conservative radio host

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 19:20.

If it is so awful that a tough guy conservative radio host who set up the experiment and knows with biblical certainty that his minions are not going to let him die would rather endure the public humiliation of admitting he was wrong rather than suffer through a 7th second - yes, that is pretty good evidence that it is torture.

Every airedale get something really similar

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 19:26.

...only that there is no membrane to cover the mouth and nose.

They stuff a waterhose in your mouth until you puke.  You HAVE to puke.  They won't stop until you do.

It's a part of survival training, and no USN airman can be an airman without that survival training certification.

So, be proud of your US Navy.

They are way tougher than NextRightNando.

Can we go on to something else now? 

Nando-Mancow 6-second rule

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 19:40.

Fine, so waterboarding for less than 6 seconds is not torture, but waterboarding for 6 seconds or longer is torture.  Agreed?  Can we call this the Nando Six-Second Rule?  And in the future, if we want to determine if enhanced interrogation technique X constitutes torture or not, all we should do is see if Mancow can endure it for at least 6 seconds.  Maybe we should call it "Nando's Mancow 6-second Rule".  Is this the standard you are endorsing?

Well I am flattered, but I think we can get buy

Submitted by NextRightNando on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 21:36.

Well I am flattered, but I think we can get by just fine with the tried and tested "reasonable person" standard.

chem, careful with all the

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 20:12.

chem, careful with all the strawmen you are building up around yourself. The term "reasonable person" is a legal term of art. Which means it has not been pull out of my ass but rather evolved through centuries of jurisprudence starting with English common law. As a rule, the standard of care is defined by that of what a "reasonable person" would believe.

The reasonable standard is often used in negligence cases as in did this person exercise the standard of care of "reasonable person."  It is a standard that negate extreme sensitivity or excessive callousness.

You want to split hairs fine but the law doesn't really work that way. Were your local police department to waterboard board you for any length of time, you and the ACLU would have a field day.

Look, i know you think you've found the gray area where torture can be justified but you haven't. And I say this as someone who feels his law degree was a waste of time and resources.

To end up where you do, arguing for the whether a person who feels as if he is drowning for 5 or 10 seconds defines, means that you have pretty much abandoned any pretense to the foundational political philosophies of western culture and have gone all the way down the rabbit hole.

enjoy. but america will not come with you.

 

Yes

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 20:25.

And certainly no attorney would argue down to a matter of seconds what is and isn't torture?

LOL

Having hired many attorneys, I can tell you that you can always find one to argue your point with varying degrees of success. And at the level this issue would be litigated, all bets are off. Or are you saying no lawyer would touch this case in defense of Bush/Cheney? And if so, do you know who I would bet on?

Actually,...

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 20:30.

...the term "reasonable person" means "in absence of negligence."

While that may seem odd, "negligence" has a much different meaning in civil law than under common usage.  All duty of care torts fall under the heading of negligence. 

indeed.

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/22/2009 - 21:44.

indeed.