The Case for Torturing Lt. Chase Nielsen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

The Bush Administration renamed all kinds of things in the hope that the laws magically would cease to apply.

Fortunately these conventions contain provisions on how to determine who and what is what, unfortunately Bush never wanted his legal ideas examined in a court which was unlawful in and of itself.

And which is interesting enough, in and of itself.

[/quote]

again I am stunned by your amazing powers of reasoning. Yep, you managed to sumup the whole last 8 years in one sentence - let’s rename it and the magical law fairies will make it all go away . . . sheesh - that’s your conclusion eh?

OOHH, an unanswerable, unprovable hypothesis that definitely beats any well-drafted and well-reasoned responses by the IrishSteel noob . . . Yep- you win, you mighty law-fairy-imagining clairvoyant you!

How can I beat the magical law-fairy hypothesis-i mean its water tight, I can’t possible disprove this one . …oh what will I ever do . . . .

Mrs.Buttersworth - i need your syrupy comfort . . .

Seriously . . . wow.I’ve known some whacked out paranoids in my day - but you guys . . .you are on a whole nother plane of reality . . .

42

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Interesting theory.

Let us see how that works out in the trial determining their status even those mercenaries are entitles to under the Geneva convention.

Which would maaayyybe make their indefinite detention not illegal but water boarding would still be against US law or at the very least worthy of an investigation as required by the UN convention against torture, ratified by the US senate 1990.

[/quote]

Oh you mean that one we have already discussed about where it defines torture as causing severe pain or suffering . . .yeah - still waiting your responses to all of those earlier posts . . .

43

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

That was sort of my point. In order to classify them as mercenaries, the US would have to prove that they are, in fact, mercenaries as defined by article 47 of the Geneva Convention.

Prove, you know, in a court.
[/quote]

Oh, ok - so where in the applicable law does it require a court trial to prove that someone is a mercenary? I don’t recall that section - - - - but hey, appeal to all the higher authorities you like. If you can’t understand and deal with these things for yourself, perhaps you should get used to the idea of praying for salvation as the terrorists bomb your a$$ into oblivion . . .

44

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
But they aren’t mercs, are they, because they don’t fulfill the condition put forth by 47.2.c, or at least, we can’t prove that they do.

If it were really that easy, Bush’s lawyers would have just classified them as mercenaries instead of the more ambiguous “enemy combatants”.

Oh really - you’re saying that they were not paid? Your saying that they were not motivated by private gain (whether temporal or heavenly)?

come one guys - come up with some real logic and some good arguments please - this is like beating 5 year children at shot putt (I would have used 6 years old but one beat me last year and I haven’t got over the shame yet - although I think he was juicing)

And stop draggin bush into this - seriously, I know you are fascinated with bush, but this paranoia is getting ridiculous.

I feel like the nagging old house wife - I just want you to talk to me!!

[/quote]

Are you saying they were paid? Can you prove it? Can you prove that they were…

“…promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party…”?

If this could be proven in court, you might have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and I didn’t drag Bush into this, I was trying to make the point that whatever else you think about his lawyers, they were not stupid, and they would have come up with the mercenary excuse if it had been tenable. Don’t assume I’m a liberal or that I’m into Bush-bashing just because I don’t want my country torturing other human beings.

45

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

That was sort of my point. In order to classify them as mercenaries, the US would have to prove that they are, in fact, mercenaries as defined by article 47 of the Geneva Convention.

Prove, you know, in a court.

Oh, ok - so where in the applicable law does it require a court trial to prove that someone is a mercenary? I don’t recall that section - - - - but hey, appeal to all the higher authorities you like. If you can’t understand and deal with these things for yourself, perhaps you should get used to the idea of praying for salvation as the terrorists bomb your a$$ into oblivion . . .[/quote]

I really hope you aren’t that stupid.

First, if we don’t have to prove that the subject is a mercenary, what’s to stop us from defining anyone and everyone we capture as a mercenary?

Second, I don’t pray.

Third, nice strawman.

EDIT: Sorry I called you stupid, but you are seem to be extremely resistant to a very simple concept. If there is no judicial oversight of the law, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, because the executive can start declaring prisoners this and that, and no one can challenge them.

46

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

Are you saying they were paid? Can you prove it? Can you prove that they were…

“…promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party…”?

If this could be proven in court, you might have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and I didn’t drag Bush into this, I was trying to make the point that whatever else you think about his lawyers, they were not stupid, and they would have come up with the mercenary excuse if it had been tenable. Don’t assume I’m a liberal or that I’m into Bush-bashing just because I don’t want my country torturing other human beings.[/quote]

OK - let’s leave aside the whole argument regarding Iranian support of the insurgency and Al Qaeda (Iran being the signatory party of the GC). Let focus directly on the income of the Iraqi insurgents themselves, which I believe to be the point of your post.

"A classified U.S. report estimates the sources of Iraqi insurgents’ revenue:

About $100 million annually comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid by foreign governments to save hundreds of kidnap victims.

Counterfeiting, corrupt charities and other crimes make up the balance.

The New York Times"

Let’s average these sources of income at 100 million per year (I have seen classified reports placing this figure much higher - but we will tailor it to Iraq directly) - divided by the average estimates of the number of insurgents of 10,000 = $10,000 per year - the average soldier in Iraq/Afghan/Iran earns $70 to $100 a month - you can finish the math on that.

Then there is the whole - death for Allah, promises of 70 virgins (how much is 70 virgins worth?) and untold wealth upon your death . . . constitutes a promise of payment in my book.

I’m not making a case for Bush’s lawyers and couldn’t give a flying rats a$$ what they thought or didn’t think - I make my arguments based on my own rational thought - not regurgitated lines fed to me from someone else.

Oh, yeah - I couldn’t possibly be right until a court says I am . . . sheesh, sad

Anyhoo . . .

47

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

I really hope you aren’t that stupid.

First, if we don’t have to prove that the subject is a mercenary, what’s to stop us from defining anyone and everyone we capture as a mercenary?

Second, I don’t pray.

Third, nice strawman.

EDIT: Sorry I called you stupid, but you are seem to be extremely resistant to a very simple concept. If there is no judicial oversight of the law, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, because the executive can start declaring prisoners this and that, and no one can challenge them.[/quote]

Actually - I guess I am that stupid. I am very resistant to outside influences . . . regardless of how simple they are made to appear . . . unless they involve tequila . . . tequila makes me base jump . . . and snort red pepper flakes . . .

Can we? can we really call every foreign fighter we capture who is not in a uniform and does not belong to the military of a signatory party a mercenary? purty please? I’ll stick a cherry on it for you!

I didn’t say you did pray - I only intimated that you might want to consider practicing up . . .

Seems to me the only hang-up in your mind for calling them mercenaries was the pay thing - and I thought I answered that one quite well.

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - must be a duck . . .well maybe not, I once went out with this girl whose laugh- i kid you not - came out as a quack . . .come to think of it, she did kind of waddle too . . . hmmm

48

[quote]miroku333 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

information was obtained, and it was my understanding that it was a piece at a time, not all at once after the 168th session of “childhood pranks”.
If I were in the same position, I could only reason that when I had no more information - I would be of no further use to my captors and would thus be executed. So the fear of possible death by waterboarding would be less than my fear of certain death by a pistol aimed at the base of my skull.

though I may have been broken more quickly by other methods, for example the being placed in a small metal box and subjected to the Barney theme song played at a high volume for extended periods of time - oh for the sweet release of death!
:wink:
[/quote]

oh - i’m much easier to break . . .one bottle of rum and I’ll tell you all sorts of state secrets like just long my schlong really is, were I buried the bodies of the hijackers from Libya, how long I can hold my breath while under 2 women at the same time . . .

Yeah, I never liked the gun at the base of skull thing, so now when threatening myself I point it at my left nut . . .it’s much more cowardly than the right one . . . (see what I did there?)

49

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
…
Let’s average these sources of income at 100 million per year (I have seen classified reports placing this figure much higher - but we will tailor it to Iraq directly) - divided by the average estimates of the number of insurgents of 10,000 = $10,000 per year - the average soldier in Iraq/Afghan/Iran earns $70 to $100 a month - you can finish the math on that.

Then there is the whole - death for Allah, promises of 70 virgins (how much is 70 virgins worth?) and untold wealth upon your death . . . constitutes a promise of payment in my book.
[/quote]

You are making a lot of assumptions about how that money is distributed. Also, the combatant would have to have been from a non-involved country, and captured in Iraq or Afghanistan in order to be a mercenary. You would also have to look at the pay of native Iraqi or Taliban militiamen.

The latter does not constitute material compensation. By definition it is not material.

Neither am I and so do I. I was trying to make the point that if it were that easy, perhaps the people who were paid to handle this sort of thing would have thought of it.

Are you a lawyer? I’m not. Perhaps that makes the opinions of lawyers relevant.

I see. So let’s completely discard the rule of law and do whatever is “right”. What the hell are we torturing people for, then? If we do that, there’s nothing left of America worth preserving, and the only motive left is, what, revenge?

50

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

I really hope you aren’t that stupid.

First, if we don’t have to prove that the subject is a mercenary, what’s to stop us from defining anyone and everyone we capture as a mercenary?

Second, I don’t pray.

Third, nice strawman.

EDIT: Sorry I called you stupid, but you are seem to be extremely resistant to a very simple concept. If there is no judicial oversight of the law, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, because the executive can start declaring prisoners this and that, and no one can challenge them.

Actually - I guess I am that stupid. I am very resistant to outside influences . . . regardless of how simple they are made to appear . . . unless they involve tequila . . . tequila makes me base jump . . . and snort red pepper flakes . . .

Can we? can we really call every foreign fighter we capture who is not in a uniform and does not belong to the military of a signatory party a mercenary? purty please? I’ll stick a cherry on it for you!

I didn’t say you did pray - I only intimated that you might want to consider practicing up . . .

Seems to me the only hang-up in your mind for calling them mercenaries was the pay thing - and I thought I answered that one quite well.

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - must be a duck . . .well maybe not, I once went out with this girl whose laugh- i kid you not - came out as a quack . . .come to think of it, she did kind of waddle too . . . hmmm[/quote]

OK. I’m not sorry. You really are an idiot.

If we just call them mercenaries, do whatever we like, and are never required to prove it to anyone, they’ve won: they’ve destroyed everything that made American great.

You know what, I hope you get exactly what you want. I hope the executive disbands the judiciary and just does “the right thing”. Then we can be just like Pakistan.

I’m done.

51

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

You are making a lot of assumptions about how that money is distributed. Also, the combatant would have to have been from a non-involved country, and captured in Iraq or Afghanistan in order to be a mercenary. You would also have to look at the pay of native Iraqi or Taliban militiamen.

The latter does not constitute material compensation. By definition it is not material.

Neither am I and so do I. I was trying to make the point that if it were that easy, perhaps the people who were paid to handle this sort of thing would have thought of it.

Are you a lawyer? I’m not. Perhaps that makes the opinions of lawyers relevant.

I see. So let’s completely discard the rule of law and do whatever is “right”. What the hell are we torturing people for, then? If we do that, there’s nothing left of America worth preserving, and the only motive left is, what, revenge?[/quote]

OK- yeah - until we get the payroll logs for AQ and the other insurgent bands - I guess I do have to make the assumption that the money they get through their criminal enterprises somehow constitutes pay in equal amounts for all the members - unless they don’t believe in equal pay for equal work/risk . . . is there a union for terrorists? LMAO - that would put them out of business in not time . . . Umm - read the definition again - i believe you missed something . . . Yeah, I saw this Taliban militia guy driving a Maserati in Miami the other day . . .

Does not constitute material pay - you don’t consider an inducement of a promised future payment (regardless of the place, timing or actual delivery of said promised payment) to be considered material payment - even a court of law could get that one right . . .

Oh, ok -so because they didn’t use my reasoning for the Iraqi invasion and they didn’t use my reasoning for the classification of mercenaries - I couldn’t possibly be right - because (now let me see if I can get this one right)

  1. government lawyers always pick the easiest methods
  2. Me explanation is so great its very very easy to understand
  3. The government lawyers did not pick my line of reasoning
  4. Therefore mine is not the easiest
  5. Since mine only appears to be the easiest when it is in fact not (thanks to the government lawyers) -it must therefore be classified as incorrect . . . wow - I never knew . . .

Am I lawyer? - nope - both my parents were humans.

LMAO - so by merely reading, understanding and applying common sense to the GC, and mocking your call for a court to explain something to me that I can well understand for myself . . . I am advocating the abandonment of the rule of law - I have single-handedly destroyed America by calling a merc a merc - wow. . .

I am the all-powerful destroyer of republics, fear me Kim Jong Ill!! I come armed with a passionate hatred of all things non-common-sense-ical and a sharp wit and three, no, two bottles of rum . . .ok only one and a half - but that’s Tom’s fault - I can only understand him when I am blind drunk . . . .

52

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

Yeah, I never liked the gun at the base of skull thing, so now when threatening myself I point it at my left nut . . .it’s much more cowardly than the right one . . . (see what I did there?)[/quote]

haha, brilliant.

I have to say, you are a relentless bastard, and can paint some very disturbing mental images. (that’s a compliment)
I’m in over my head on this topic, but damn if it hasn’t been entertaining!

53

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:

OK. I’m not sorry. You really are an idiot.

If we just call them mercenaries, do whatever we like, and are never required to prove it to anyone, they’ve won: they’ve destroyed everything that made American great.

You know what, I hope you get exactly what you want. I hope the executive disbands the judiciary and just does “the right thing”. Then we can be just like Pakistan.

I’m done.[/quote]

Thank you - to be consider an idiot by such a one who employs the logic and reasoning which you do - why I take that to be a high compliment indeed.

Oh yeah - because I called for us to able to do whatever strikes our fancy - yes I did. I can remember the exact line I used to it was . . . something about . . . wait a tic - you’re exaggerating for effect again!

Yep - by making us deal with them effectively - they have won. So when we finally kick their a$$e$ for good - they will have achieved ultimate victory!! All because I effectively argued for the limited application of one type of interrogation technique in a specified scenario under the applicable guidelines and safety protocols and for the classification of terrorists as mercenaries so that they can be dealt with accordingly - yeah - that did it - I caused the collapse of Western Civilization by defending it from its gravest threat . . . I am a monster!

Oh wait - it was because I mocked the need for a court to define a mercenary . . .that was it - Ummm, aren’t courts there to enforce the penalties of the law, not to interpret it? - perhaps you like an activist court, I don’t.

I assume that treaties, contracts, et al are able to be read and understood by the common person and then acted upon accordingly. I assume that one should be able to read the definition of both a combatant and a mercenary and be able to distinguish between the two. I assume that people have the right to read and understand things for themselves. I assume that people are to be free to act as individuals and bear the rights and responsibilities of that freedom. i assume that the courts are the last refuge of the liberal mind as it runs in shrieking terror from the common sense of the free man . . .

So - because I personally mock the need for courts deciding for me what constitutes a mercenary - I am now the advocate of the executive branch disbanding the judiciary branch? Really - wow. and I was accused of jumping to conclusions . . . .

54

[quote]miroku333 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Yeah, I never liked the gun at the base of skull thing, so now when threatening myself I point it at my left nut . . .it’s much more cowardly than the right one . . . (see what I did there?)

haha, brilliant.

I have to say, you are a relentless bastard, and can paint some very disturbing mental images. (that’s a compliment)
I’m in over my head on this topic, but damn if it hasn’t been entertaining![/quote]

does that (being in over your head) constitute discussion-boarding of you on my part?

You’re not a mercenary, are you?

thanks - just keeping the insanity in check as best i can . . and I speak only of my own . . .

55

EDIT: Took some stuff out.

I don’t feel like arguing with you anymore. I am not a liberal, I am not hiding behind some higher authority because I’m afraid to reason for myself. I am humble enough to recognize that I am not infallible. You, apparently, are not.

You truly do not understand the purpose of the judiciary. You may understand the GC one way, and you may think it’s common sense, but if the interpretation of the individual is all that matters, whose interpretation do we use?

So, yes, you advocated abandoning the rule of law.

Also, you do not have a “sharp wit”. “Childish sense of humor” would be a better phrase. Though the whole syrup thing did make me LOL.

56

Everybody has the right to torture and everybody has the right to pay the penalty for torture, however if you are torturing for your country with the approval of your country even if it’s underhanded approval then YOUR country should not be the ones penalizing you.

57

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
EDIT: Took some stuff out.

I don’t feel like arguing with you anymore. I am not a liberal, I am not hiding behind some higher authority because I’m afraid to reason for myself. I am humble enough to recognize that I am not infallible. You, apparently, are not.

You truly do not understand the purpose of the judiciary. You may understand the GC one way, and you may think it’s common sense, but if the interpretation of the individual is all that matters, whose interpretation do we use?

So, yes, you advocated abandoning the rule of law.

Also, you do not have a “sharp wit”. “Childish sense of humor” would be a better phrase. Though the whole syrup thing did make me LOL.[/quote]

Sorry if I was overly offensive - never my intention.

I took this discussion to be one where we can air out our own explanations for or against the topic, our rationales and methods of understanding it, what conclusions we would draw on our own, etc. Thus it struck me as bizarre that you would appeal to a court for the final word on something about which we were discussing our individual thinking. If that is your final voice of authority - well so be it (but I will still attack it as evading making a personal call)

I did not think we were out to attack/defend an administration - that is up to them to do (as obviously they did not even approach this topic as I have). I took this as you attack the action based on your views and opinions and I counter with mine. At some point, this delved into people demanding that I explain what other people did, or decisions that were made by other people, etc.

I attempted to explain those as best I could from my limited direct contact - but always sought to bring it back to what I believe and what I understand. I cannot speak for other people. But if you want to know what I think constitutes torture, what I think is allowable under the applicable laws, the reasoning that I use to define and delineate this issue, my perspectives on history - I am more than happy to present my perspective and to counter any argument or objection raised to it.

I was raised in a healthy environment of rigorous discussion on all topics and love the challenge posed by other people as it makes me examine my own beliefs and conclusions to see if error has crept in unawares.

I fear no discussion, question or jab. I think such debates as this are healthy and good for the public and for every nation. I am thrilled that some of you disagree with me and are willing to directly challenge me - its cathartic and healthy. i love that there is differences of opinion and I heartily believe that they should be vigorously and thoroughly discussed and examined

Do I resort to the injection of some immature joking and juvenile silliness - yes, because I learned long ago, swallowing some bitter truths is aided by a little levity. I never mean to be hurtful in these discussion, but sometimes I cut very very close, so I try to diffuse the emotion with some humor - if that is not up to your personal standard of wit - I’m fine with that too.

I still disagree with you that I am abandoning the rule of law - I am telling you what I would do were I in the position of authority to determine such things. I am explaining the positions I would take and the actions I would use were I in that role. That’s why I keep bringing the discussion back to what we think and what we believe - all of this ethereal stuff about what other think does not strengthen your ability to reason and determine for yourself - it abdicates this to other “more qualified” individuals. That I do protest and strongly so . . .

And on a final note - I am more than willing to admit that I am fallible - truly I am, and I have definitely been wrong on some occasions - do I espouse my opinions strongly and with great conviction? - oh hell yeah - as I hope all of us would do. But do not take strong conviction as being the air of superiority or infallibility - I maintain a strong defense so I can know for certain that that which does overcome it is stronger still.

The measure of a man is what it takes to defeat him . . . I will not be defeated by small or weak things.

Have a warriors heart! - do we not battle the inhuman iron on a daily basis? do we not seek that which is difficult to overcome so that we may prove ourselves to be true men? Do we not seek opponents we fear - so that by defeating them we can laugh at fear itself? DO we not seek to improve ourselves in every way?

A weak mind will never support a strong body!

So humbly, I do ask, from one warrior to another - if I have offended you wrongly - please forgive me and the passion for excellence which drove me to blindly commit such an oversight!

58

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

I took this discussion to be one where we can air out our own explanations for or against the topic, our rationales and methods of understanding it, what conclusions we would draw on our own, etc. Thus it struck me as bizarre that you would appeal to a court for the final word on something about which we were discussing our individual thinking. If that is your final voice of authority - well so be it (but I will still attack it as evading making a personal call)

[/quote]

Ah. That makes a lot more sense. That explains why you didn’t want to talk about Bush - you were arguing in the theoretical world, and I was attempting to apply that to the real world, which made you sound like an egomaniac.

For the record, I would not appeal to the courts to determine my own opinion, and I agree that it would be a very weak-minded thing to do.

I take back what I said about you, you’re not an idiot, we just weren’t on the same page. I still think some of your humor was perhaps counter-productive, but the syrup bit really did make me laugh.

On the topic of torture of the detainees: legal reasoning aside, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

59

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

I took this discussion to be one where we can air out our own explanations for or against the topic, our rationales and methods of understanding it, what conclusions we would draw on our own, etc. Thus it struck me as bizarre that you would appeal to a court for the final word on something about which we were discussing our individual thinking. If that is your final voice of authority - well so be it (but I will still attack it as evading making a personal call)

Ah. That makes a lot more sense. That explains why you didn’t want to talk about Bush - you were arguing in the theoretical world, and I was attempting to apply that to the real world, which made you sound like an egomaniac.

For the record, I would not appeal to the courts to determine my own opinion, and I agree that it would be a very weak-minded thing to do.

I take back what I said about you, you’re not an idiot, we just weren’t on the same page. I still think some of your humor was perhaps counter-productive, but the syrup bit really did make me laugh.

On the topic of torture of the detainees: legal reasoning aside, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

LOL - what me sound like an egomaniac? Never!

OK, thanks for that. Although I chaffed a little bit at that “theoretical” categorization (but it has a point of accuracy) - let me see if this helps explain my approach even better - what would you do if you were the one to make the final call on this - how would you call it and why would you do so (imagine - you as a judge, would you wear the funny wig like the UK does?). That is how I approach the discussion and how I try to frame my responses - thus appealing out to other authorities avoids that final call - does that make sense? I think we have reached an understanding now.

Yep - we definitely disagree and guess what? That’s ok and I’ll still buy you a drink and call you my friend!

60

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s up doc (see what i did there?)

it would seem, if one were to actually read the documentation that were available to one for reading that one would discover that one had missed a very obvious statement and a very very important fact that one should not have missed. It would be a good thing to not miss such important facts - it would behoove one to be thorough when attempting to reply to the irishsteel about things one should not have deigned to discuss in the original instance.

The statement - maximum of 20 seconds - big difference between 20 seconds and “until I was almost unconscious.”
[/quote]

Man, are you always like this? It’s actually pretty counterproductive and takes the fun out of discussing things with you.

Before you said it wasn’t waterboarding at all (cloth and poured water) but was instead fully dunking the head. Now you’re saying that it wasn’t waterboarding because it likely lasted more than 20 seconds (which you have no proof of)

Have people drowned in less than 20 seconds? I’ve been choked out in less than 20 seconds because I was already in a stressed state. 20 seconds of a mock drowning is 20 seconds too long.

DODD 2310 (from 2006) explicitly calls waterboarding “torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”

This quote is from Cully Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs:

"The field manual explicitly prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. To make this more imaginable and understandable to our soldiers – and I use that in a joint context – we have included in the field manual specific prohibitions.

There’s eight of them.

Interrogators may not force a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts of pose in a sexual manner. They cannot use hoods or place sacks over a detainee’s head or use duct tape over his eyes. They cannot beat or electrically shock or burn him or inflict other forms of physical pain, any form of physical pain. They may not use water boarding. They may not use hypothermia or treatment which will lead to heat injury. They will not perform mock executions. They may not deprive detainees of the necessary food, water and medical care. And they may not use dogs in any aspect of interrogations."

If the DOD thinks waterboarding is “torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” now, then waterboarding was “torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” then. Nothing about the technique itself has changed.

If waterboarding (and yes water boarding, not water torture) was deemed “torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” enough to be used as testimony of war crimes in WWII, yet in 2003 it was okay, what changed? The only thing that changed was that the executive branch decided they wanted the tech on the table so they hired some lawyer weenie to craft a doc that says “we can legally do this” and they then went to town.

I don’t think we need to apologize, and surely don’t think anyone needs to be “held accountable” we just need to recognize that there is a place we, as a nation, should not go.

Feel free to back that claim up. You know, the way adults do.

Perhaps we can just pull up the Gitmo interrogation videos to prove that the exact guidelines were followed. Oh yeah…they were suspiciously destroyed. You’re right though, humans are fantastic at following the letter of the law when in emotionally charged situations.

I’m not automatically assuming our interrogators are going to abuse their power, but I am being realistic about human nature. Shit happens. Take Abu Ghraib for example. Good people fucked up. And, don’t think for a second this is about who the shit happened to, it is about who the shit came from. We’re better than that.

zzzzzzzzz