DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Why This Tolerance for Torture?"
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 93, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/24/2009 12:31:12 AM · #1
Originally posted by RayEthier:

One could argue that the terms "relative" and "absolute" could in certain instances be interchangeable, depending on whose viewpoint we take into consideration. To the DOJ members, the term is "relative" as the waterboarding is an activity that is happening to someone else. However, were these same individuals being subjected to this form of torture, it could very well be that they would view the activity as being one that falls in the realm of "absolutes".

I can certainly appreciate the fact that you are playing the part of the Devil's Advocate Doc, but from my perspective there truly is no justification for torture or any kind, particularly when we consider that the benefits gained from such activity are of limited value. Yes there have been instances where people being tortured have confessed to a myriad of heinous activities, but did they indeed commit these acts or merely confess to end their suffering.

Ray


Really I agree with you Ray. I guess I just see how people will basically do what they want and support it with their own logic. I agree that waterboarding is torture, but perhaps we could also agree that imprisonment without charge may also be torture. If not physical, I'd say mental. I think I'd be apt to take my own life if I was being held under such conditions.
05/23/2009 10:38:47 PM · #2
Originally posted by SDW:

Here is a good article written by Michael C. Dorf. Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University. This article is from 2002. It covers the complex issues and whether the Guantanamo detainees are or should be covered under the Geneva Conventions. You may find it a very good read.

Fast forward to now and here is a great article written Wednesday, April 22, 2009 by Michael C. Dorf on the very subject being debated in this thread. I would suggest people on both sides of this debate to read both articles beginning with the 2002.


I have read both of the articles and the first is really not germane to the issue being discussed here, whereas the second does indeed address the issue of Torture, but only as it relates to the culpability of the legislators. It is also rather intriguing to note that the protections afforded the prisoners are only valid if they are being detained on American soil.

There is one comment that did grab my attention and is perhaps indicative on just how we as a society really ought to view these undertakings, and it is this one:

"One need only imagine how the U.S. would justifiably react were a foreign power to subject Americans to any of the techniques described in the memos. Such a scenario illustrates the point that the memos authorized methods of interrogation that are repugnant to civilized nations."


Ray
05/23/2009 10:20:13 PM · #3
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I agree, but you never speak to whether "severe" is or is not an "absolute".

Which irrelevant to the issue -- if waterboarding is "torture" (as I believe you admitted a few posts ago) then it by definition falls within the definition of "severe" as used in the context of the document; whether it is a "relative" or "absolute" term seems completely ungermane to the question at hand.


Y. [/quote]

One could argue that the terms "relative" and "absolute" could in certain instances be interchangeable, depending on whose viewpoint we take into consideration. To the DOJ members, the term is "relative" as the waterboarding is an activity that is happening to someone else. However, were these same individuals being subjected to this form of torture, it could very well be that they would view the activity as being one that falls in the realm of "absolutes".

I can certainly appreciate the fact that you are playing the part of the Devil's Advocate Doc, but from my perspective there truly is no justification for torture or any kind, particularly when we consider that the benefits gained from such activity are of limited value. Yes there have been instances where people being tortured have confessed to a myriad of heinous activities, but did they indeed commit these acts or merely confess to end their suffering.

Ray

05/23/2009 09:23:54 PM · #4
DJ Reverses Stance On Waterboarding In 6 Seconds

All Things Considered, May 23, 2009 ยท Conservative radio talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to try waterboarding Friday to prove it is not torture. Problem: After being waterboarded for about six seconds, he declared the technique "absolute torture."
05/23/2009 08:13:41 PM · #5
Originally posted by SDW:

Here is a good article written by Michael C. Dorf. Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University. This article is from 2002. It covers the complex issues and whether the Guantanamo detainees are or should be covered under the Geneva Conventions. You may find it a very good read.

Fast forward to now and here is a great article written Wednesday, April 22, 2009 by Michael C. Dorf on the very subject being debated in this thread. I would suggest people on both sides of this debate to read both articles beginning with the 2002.


thanks for posting... very interesting read.
05/23/2009 02:32:44 AM · #6
Here is a good article written by Michael C. Dorf. Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University. This article is from 2002. It covers the complex issues and whether the Guantanamo detainees are or should be covered under the Geneva Conventions. You may find it a very good read.

Fast forward to now and here is a great article written Wednesday, April 22, 2009 by Michael C. Dorf on the very subject being debated in this thread. I would suggest people on both sides of this debate to read both articles beginning with the 2002.

Message edited by author 2009-05-23 02:34:35.
05/22/2009 10:26:57 PM · #7
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

.
. 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.


Things indeed are complex, and to quote "torture is torture" without making reference to the other salient parts of the argument does not truly address the issue.

Ray
05/22/2009 08:32:04 PM · #8
What the heck are you babbling about? Forcing a prisoner to face imminent death is a traumatic mental experience, and therefore defined as torture by mutual agreement in several international conventions. This is not a circular argument. Discussions of severity are pointless exercises based upon the opinion of an apparently incompetent legal counsel. Severity does not circumvent Article 17 of the third Geneva Convention: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." As someone "fairly up-to-date on world affairs" who's been pointed to that convention several times now, would you care to argue whether waterboarding, forced nudity or attack dogs are unpleasant?

Message edited by author 2009-05-22 20:34:09.
05/22/2009 07:38:38 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:

I agree, but you never speak to whether "severe" is or is not an "absolute".

Which irrelevant to the issue -- if waterboarding is "torture" (as I believe you admitted a few posts ago) then it by definition falls within the definition of "severe" as used in the context of the document; whether it is a "relative" or "absolute" term seems completely ungermane to the question at hand.
[/quote]

You gotta be kidding with that argument Paul! Why is waterboarding torture? Because it is severe. Why is it severe? Because it is torture.

Whether "severe" is "absolute" is the whole entire argument. If it is absolute, then the definition is without variability and the application of the definition resolves the problem easily. If it is not absolute then we can at least see why there are two sides to the issue (and we are free to decide which side we fall on). The Bybee memo, if anything, obviously indicates the DoJ felt it was not absolute and went to pains to say such techniques did not qualify as severe (and just in case they did qualify as severe we can claim self-defense anyway).

Message edited by author 2009-05-22 19:40:10.
05/22/2009 07:31:02 PM · #10
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:


Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think it's "weak" to point out "severe" is not an "absolute". Do you deny this?

If real and repeated simulations of imminent death don't qualify as severe mental pain and suffering, then nothing does. That's about as basic as it gets.


I agree, but you never speak to whether "severe" is or is not an "absolute".

Which irrelevant to the issue -- if waterboarding is "torture" (as I believe you admitted a few posts ago) then it by definition falls within the definition of "severe" as used in the context of the document; whether it is a "relative" or "absolute" term seems completely ungermane to the question at hand.

Isn't diverting the discussion into irrelevant and esoteric side topics to avoid admiting defeat on an actual point of contention a "weak" debating technique as well? Perhaps you do it so frequently you don't even notice it any more ...

Just because a cadre of the President's lawyers write a document saying that something is legal doesn't really make it so ...
05/22/2009 07:29:57 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

IF there indeed is a link between the evangelical movement and willingness to allow torture, I think Matthew has hit on it. Torture does become more palatable if one can describe things (or people) in terms of "evil" rather than seeing them as merely another view.


Are you denying evil?
05/22/2009 06:15:44 PM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do so love roasting you over the spit when you slip up. ;)

And I enjoy walking on the moon. Our opportunities are similar. ;-P


ROFL. Always a pleasure. Until next time, enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.
05/22/2009 06:06:02 PM · #13
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do so love roasting you over the spit when you slip up. ;)

And I enjoy walking on the moon. Our opportunities are similar. ;-P
05/22/2009 06:01:53 PM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:


Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think it's "weak" to point out "severe" is not an "absolute". Do you deny this?

If real and repeated simulations of imminent death don't qualify as severe mental pain and suffering, then nothing does. That's about as basic as it gets.


I agree, but you never speak to whether "severe" is or is not an "absolute".

I do so love roasting you over the spit when you slip up. ;)

This article seems to indicate Bybee really regrets having signed the memo (which he didn't write). Amid Outcry on Memo, Signer's Private Regret


This is a great quote for us Rant regulars: "What I understand that to mean is, any lawyer, when he or she is writing about something very complicated, very layered, sometimes you can get it all out there and if you're not careful, you end up in a place you never intended to go. I think for someone like Jay, who's a formalist and a textualist, that's a particular danger."


Message edited by author 2009-05-22 18:05:36.
05/22/2009 06:00:29 PM · #15
Is this DrAchoo vs Scalvert XXV or XXVI? I've lost count.
05/22/2009 05:54:45 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Read the Bybee memo. It exactly takes up your challenge although you and I think they failed.

I'd like to see Jay Bybee try that line of reasoning to defend himself in a war crimes tribunal. Bybee: "even if an interrogation method might violate Section 2340A, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability." That alone pretty much demonstrates his utter incompetence as a direct and explicit violation of the convention: "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."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think it's "weak" to point out "severe" is not an "absolute". Do you deny this?

If real and repeated simulations of imminent death don't qualify as severe mental pain and suffering, then nothing does. That's about as basic as it gets.
05/22/2009 05:46:39 PM · #17
Good information for everybody. You can see the PDF text of the memo here.

The salient portion is probably section B. "Severe Pain or Suffering" on page 5 where they try to do exactly what Shannon challenges. This is their argument for why techniques such as Waterboarding do not rise to the level of torture. (We here disagree.)
05/22/2009 05:42:07 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

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"....

Weak. I challenge 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."


Read the Bybee memo. It exactly takes up your challenge although you and I think they failed.

I don't think it's "weak" to point out "severe" is not an "absolute". Do you deny this?

Message edited by author 2009-05-22 17:42:55.
05/22/2009 05:41:03 PM · #19
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.
05/22/2009 05:37:09 PM · #20
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 05:30:29 PM · #21
Mancow waterboarded.
05/22/2009 05:29:36 PM · #22
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 05:23:56 PM · #23
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 05:16:17 PM · #24
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 05:15:20 PM · #25
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.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:26:12 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:26:12 PM EDT.