| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2009 03:55:45 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to back up my basic premise about the debatability of the word "severe" I wasn't aware until I wiki'd waterboarding that the line in the 2002 memo says, "in order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe" and that waterboarding did not cause severe pain or suffering either physically or mentally. Exactly aligning with my contention that the problem is not self-evident but a matter of interpretation. |
I would venture to guess that the author of the memo had never been subjected to the technique, had probably never witnessed the technique in person, and had an agenda to pursue which calls into doubt the objectivity of that opinion. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 03:56:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess is based on the fact that people like Alberto Gonzalez, to get where there are, must be intelligent and it does not strike me as very intelligent to write his memo if there was direct, irrefutable contradiction. |
What does intelligence have to do with it? Bernie Madoff was certainly intelligent and knew all about finance. So? If Alberto Gonzalez ever stood trial for war crimes, his defense would be in a really tough spot since the U.S. has officially considered waterboarding to be torture in the past and has signed agreements declaring that torture is NEVER justified. What defense could he possibly use? |
Well, give it to me then. Show me the document. I'm fairly up-to-date on world affairs and I don't recall such a document ever being presented in the media. You'd think they'd be all over it.
You could also cite the instance where we prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. That would be fairly good too, although the older it is the less it may be relevant. |
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.
Waterboarding used to be a crime. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:01:14 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... although the older it is the less it may be relevant. |
Why? |
Because Shannon has stated in other posts that what is right at one time may not be right at another. I'm not stating my own opinion necessarily (that's directed to k10guy), but am plenty willing to use someone's words against them. :) |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:05:22 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... although the older it is the less it may be relevant. |
Why? |
Because Shannon has stated in other posts that what is right at one time may not be right at another. I'm not stating my own opinion necessarily (that's directed to k10guy), but am plenty willing to use someone's words against them. :) |
Yeah, well as the links in his last post show, that waterboarding falls into the category of torture within the guidelines of our current treaty and legal obligations seems pretty clear to me. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:08:03 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.
Waterboarding used to be a crime. |
The article 2 matters not because nobody is arguing that "torture" is forbidden. WHAT is torture is the salient question.
The Post article is not bad, although I'd say it may be better to just read the wiki on Waterboarding which cites many, if not all, the same instances but gives us more information. The court martials were generally followed by light sentences (a month in jail) which gives conflicting ideas of how it was viewed. The Japanese war crimes trial had differing techniques for "water torture" which I'm sure someone could dissect and say were different enough.
Remember I'm just being devil's advocate here. I just generally think most issues are complex and people who consider the other side of the argument to be as easily dismissed as "torture is torture" are often missing that fact. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:10:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yeah, well as the links in his last post show, that waterboarding falls into the category of torture within the guidelines of our current treaty and legal obligations seems pretty clear to me. |
Going forward, I think you have a pretty good summary of where we are. Most of the actual discussion (other than the internal one in the DoJ), however, occured after the fact and cannot simply be considered retroactive. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:11:55 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Remember I'm just being devil's advocate here. |
? |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:13:06 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Remember I'm just being devil's advocate here. |
? |
! |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:21:03 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The court martials were generally followed by light sentences (a month in jail) which gives conflicting ideas of how it was viewed. |
As in, before the latter parts of the Geneva Conventions or United Nations Convention Against Torture were adopted? Like I said, waterboarding has been considered torture by the U.S. itself, and torture cannot ever be justified per our current international obligations. Those two points are not really open for debate.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:32:54 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The court martials were generally followed by light sentences (a month in jail) which gives conflicting ideas of how it was viewed. |
As in, before the latter parts of the Geneva Conventions or United Nations Convention Against Torture were adopted? Like I said, waterboarding has been considered torture by the U.S. itself, and torture cannot ever be justified per our current international obligations. Those two points are not really open for debate. |
I mean conflicting in that the offenders were found guilty but not really punished. Maybe akin to being caught with a single marijuana joint in San Francisco. So it looks like, yes, the US thought it was illegal but, no, it didn't really think it was that bad.
But the wiki article seems to find other instances where it was used as part of some regular practice. "On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.[78] The article described the practice as "fairly common".[78] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army." So it looks like it was "fairly common", but bad enough to get you kicked out of the army (but apparently not given jail time).
Message edited by author 2009-05-22 16:33:20. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:36:48 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This will go down interesting paths ;D
Of course, a christian using that line made me choke back a bit of a laugh ;D |
Whenever you see me speak of morality in a relative manner you can make the intelligent assumption that I am merely speaking the language of my opponent. I'm assuming you are capable of such things. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:42:57 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I mean conflicting in that the offenders were found guilty but not really punished. |
As noted, that was before the convention against torture. Also, heads of state who authorize or encourage torture as an official policy aren't likely to get the same punishment as an individual wacko. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:49:32 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I mean conflicting in that the offenders were found guilty but not really punished. |
As noted, that was before the convention against torture. Also, heads of state who authorize or encourage torture as an official policy aren't likely to get the same punishment as an individual wacko. |
But going back to the idea that all I'm showing is the issue is complex, do you think the link between the convention against torture and the idea that waterboarding was done in the past and at times lightly punished makes for an obvious and straightforward case that only the idiot would deny?
I think the conclusion, based on its own merits, that waterboarding is torture is perfectly reasonable. I do not think the conclusion that everybody who disagrees is not putting any thought into the problem is reasonable. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. Cheney's highlight of his VP was when he shot someone. Gonzalez was likely a "yes man", BUT I will give them all the benefit of the doubt that they believed their actions were legal and imperative. We all here disagree, but the case is not as easily made as 'torture is torture'.
Message edited by author 2009-05-22 16:50:14. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:52:43 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You could also cite the instance where we prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. That would be fairly good too, although the older it is the less it may be relevant. |
Whenever you see me speak of morality in a relative manner you can make the intelligent assumption that I am merely speaking the language of my opponent. |
You fail. First, you didn't not suggest or even imply that this was not your own opinion. Second, the argument that what's taboo then may be OK now is moot since the conventions clearly state that torture is forbidden now. If you're trying to draw some sort of parallel between allowing gay marriage (eliminating discrimination) and allowing torture (eliminating human rights), then you fail on many levels. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 04:58:47 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You could also cite the instance where we prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. That would be fairly good too, although the older it is the less it may be relevant. |
Whenever you see me speak of morality in a relative manner you can make the intelligent assumption that I am merely speaking the language of my opponent. |
You fail. First, you didn't not suggest or even imply that this was not your own opinion. Second, the argument that what's taboo then may be OK now is moot since the conventions clearly state that torture is forbidden now. If you're trying to draw some sort of parallel between allowing gay marriage (eliminating discrimination) and allowing torture (eliminating human rights), then you fail on many levels. |
Shannon, that reply really lets down your debating prowess.
Since when do I need to declare whether I'm speaking out of personal conviction or just showing the fallacy of my opponent's reasoning? You are a big boy and I put you past requiring that handicap. I'll slow down if you want me to though. :P
And of course in the issue of torture "now" seems to be quite pertinent since from 2002 to 2008 our US government apparently held that Waterboarding was not torture. This fact is irrefutable although it IS disagreeable. So 1945 Waterboarding would not enjoy the same legal protection as 2004 Waterboarding.
I'm not bringing gay marriage up at all. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:04:59 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
do you think the link between the convention against torture and the idea that waterboarding was done in the past and at times lightly punished makes for an obvious and straightforward case that only the idiot would deny?
I think the conclusion, based on its own merits, that waterboarding is torture is perfectly reasonable. |
With that "logic" (and I use the word in bold quotes), lynching, child prostitution and human slavery should be OK since they were only lightly punished at some time in the past. Torture is illegal, period. The U.S. has declared waterboarding to be a form of torture and prosecuted the technique as a war crime, therefore people who employ waterboarding are practicing torture. Yes, I believe it's an obvious and straightforward case that only the idiot would deny, which is why the parties at issue went to so much trouble to render prisoners (also illegal), destroy evidence (against court orders), and generally deny everything. If those responsible were tried in an international war crimes tribunal, they would be in serious trouble. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:12:09 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Torture is illegal, period. |
Now are you speaking my language? :)
Originally posted by Scalvert:
The U.S. has declared waterboarding to be a form of torture and prosecuted the technique as a war crime, therefore people who employ waterboarding are practicing torture. |
And yet the US has also declared it was legal. Quoting Nancy Pelosi, "The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used." She is also quoted as saying she was told the Bush team "had concluded that the techniques were legal."
So I guess we can't use declarations of the US to solve the issue because they are conflicting. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:14:07 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And of course in the issue of torture "now" seems to be quite pertinent since from 2002 to 2008 our US government apparently held that Waterboarding was not torture. This fact is irrefutable although it IS disagreeable. So 1945 Waterboarding would not enjoy the same legal protection as 2004 Waterboarding. |
The U.S. doesn't get to set the definitions (as if the president could suddenly decide that forcing people to work against their will was not slavery). From 2002-2008, a few individuals tried to rationalize the very same waterboarding techniques employed by the Khmer Rouge as something other than torture. The Supreme Court did not agree. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:15:20 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Torture is illegal, period. |
Now are you speaking my language? :) |
I'm speaking the language of the conventions that our country swore to abide by. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:16:17 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The U.S. doesn't get to set the definitions. |
Amen! I'm sure we'll be seeing that quote at some point in the future.
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with this.
You'd make a pretty good Universalist if you'd just let your hair down...
Message edited by author 2009-05-22 17:18:27. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:23:56 PM · #71 |
However, the US obviously needs to define how to follow the Geneva convention. The convention doesn't have a laundry list of "this is torture" and "this isn't torture". Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether pumping The Best of Ethel Merman into your cell 24/7 constitutes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." (the actual UN definition of torture).
Nobody between 2002 and 2008 was saying, "to hell with the UN, we'll torture if we want". (well, I can't promise Cheney never said that, but it was likely private.) They were saying, "we should follow the UN convention, but we need to know where the line is so we can get as close as we can." Apparently they felt Waterboarding was close but not over the line. Apparently we now disagree and apparently we all think the previous decision was "wrong".
Message edited by author 2009-05-22 17:25:21. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:29:36 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The U.S. doesn't get to set the definitions. |
Amen! I'm sure we'll be seeing that quote at some point in the future.
Personally, I wholeheartedly agree with this. |
Indeed. You'll probably see it repeated the next time someone wants the U.S. (or the bible) to define marriage...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'd make a pretty good Universalist if you'd just let your hair down... |
?!? The convention standards (absolutes) were defined by mutual agreements of a particular time and culture (relative). They would never have been signed in 1400 AD. or in the midst of a World War. You might make a pretty good debater if you'd take off the blinders. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:30:29 PM · #73 |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:37:09 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
?!? The convention standards (absolutes) were defined by mutual agreements of a particular time and culture (relative). |
This is where, I think, you are missing the nuance of the opposition argument. "Severe" in no stretch of the imagination is an "absolute". It is a qualifier. An adjective. And it is where the Bush administration found their wiggle room. |
|
|
|
05/22/2009 05:41:03 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, the US obviously needs to define how to follow the Geneva convention. The convention doesn't have a laundry list of "this is torture" and "this isn't torture".... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is where, I think, you are missing the nuance of the opposition argument. "Severe" in no stretch of the imagination is an "absolute". It is a qualifier. An adjective. And it is where the Bush administration found their wiggle room. |
Weak. I defy anyone to explain 'causing a prisoner to believe he is about to die' during the waterboarding as anything other than severe mental pain and suffering, if not outright physical torture. "There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD."
Message edited by author 2009-05-22 17:42:01. |
|
