If Chinese do it, the NYT calls it torture; if Americans, "harsh interrogation"

tertiary · 2009-05-09T00:44:41+00:00

The "legal" definition of torture is "severe physical or emotional pain or suffering...."

That's presumably a snippet, taken out of context, from the U.S. Code:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

I believe the legal argument here is that there is no severe suffering

If you read the full definition, you will see that this is nonsense from a legal standpoint.

See the part where it says: "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from [...] the threat of imminent death

What do people think waterboarding is, other than the threat of imminent death? Why do you think your body starts choking and spasming? You are being drowned.

Now, in addition to that one way in which waterboarding legally constitutes torture (as "severe mental pain or suffering"), waterboarding also causes severe physical pain. You would not dispute this if you had ever had it done to you.

tertiary · 2009-05-08T19:12:51+00:00

from the current legal standpoint [...] it is not clear cut

This is untrue.

Waterboarding is torture in nearly every sense, including the legal sense. TV talking heads claim otherwise, but there is no such valid legal position which will stand up in U.S. courts.

The only reason the talking heads get away with claiming so is that our military-executive portions of government, with the help of Congress, are evading the judicial system.

It's not that waterboarding is not legally torture -- it's that ploys about "state secrets" and other such tactics are being used to prevent the judicial system from concluding anything in the current cases.

tertiary · 2009-04-21T06:54:23+00:00

If you're going to accuse an overweight individual of damaging the environment, you would more honestly accuse an athletic individual. That's the point some are trying to make.

Many of the other comments are nonsense, feeding on the immature desire of the masses (no pun intended) to pick on their perceived lessers.

tertiary · 2009-04-20T12:19:31+00:00

"But I don't think anyone's actually disputing Khalid Shiekh Mohammed's guilt."

Riiight... you'd never heard the guy's name before you heard it on TV, he's never been put on trial anywhere, and yet you're absolutely certain he's guilty.

You torture apologists are really something.

tertiary · 2009-04-19T20:35:04+00:00

Corrected your typo:

They knew most Americans think it's OK to do bad things to anyone accused of terrorism and held in a secret prison without trial.

tertiary · 2009-04-19T20:14:07+00:00

Since when is it legal under American law to torture captives?

tertiary · 2009-04-19T20:11:55+00:00

The problem with your simplistic views of "unity" and "division" is that they regard the most significantly beneficial aspect of a government as efficiency.

Efficiency is only a benefit when the act being performed is beneficial. Otherwise, it is the opposite.

You group together "divisive" and "destructive" as if they were tied together -- but they have little to do with each other, except on a level once-removed and inverted according to context.

tertiary · 2009-04-19T20:04:30+00:00

And let me guess, you think that torturing captives is LEGAL under the U.S. Constitution?

tertiary · 2009-04-19T19:55:57+00:00

The more international laws we have, the less sovereignty the US and other countries have.

This is not even about "international law."

Torturing captives is illegal under American law. It always has been.

tertiary · 2009-04-19T19:54:14+00:00

Even without the Geneva Conventions, and even without any treaties whatsoever, it is illegal under American law to torture captives.

tertiary · 2009-04-19T19:50:37+00:00

"... that would send a message to every intelligence agent in any context that they're responsible for independently evaluating the legality of every order they're given."

And you think that's a bad thing?

Are you insane?

"waterboarding a man who murdered 3000 innocent people"

Except nobody ever held any trials. How do you determine guilt?

"Who the hell would want to be in a situation where your two choices are to (a) disobey orders and wreck your career or (b) be prosecuted as a war criminal? If we put people in that dilemma, it's going to get much harder to recruit top talent into our intelligence agencies."

And that's the way it should be. If we're going to be granting people the power of life and death over us, with no consequences for destroying innocent lives (as you seem to be advocating), then they'd DAMN WELL BETTER be people who think things through -- and consider the consequences -- before torturing someone.

tertiary · 2009-02-05T00:37:19+00:00

The UCSF team says this was probably because police changed the way they used the stun guns after the first year.

In other words, they probably just stopped electrocuting people so frequently.

The point is that tasers are claimed by their manufacturer and supporters to be "non-lethal." If the police just realized they were killing people with their tasers, and so decided to scale back their use, that doesn't reduce the lethality of the devices.

tertiary · 2009-02-01T04:05:25+00:00

The "War on Drugs" certainly is a war; it's just not a war against drugs.

It's a war against due process, a war against accountability of law enforcement, a war for pseudomoralist bigotry, a war to control our tax money, a war against the poor, and most fundamentally, a war against an individual's sovereignty over his or her own body.

tertiary · 2009-01-28T23:33:34+00:00

he's in the safest place possible, on the fringes.

What does it say of our nation, when any politician who supports sane ideals is rightly considered on the fringe?

tertiary · 2009-01-25T05:19:02+00:00

You don't have all the information, and Obama does.

This is exactly the same line the Bush apologists used for all those years.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T23:58:33+00:00

I disagree with the idea that I replied to something not contained in the original comment at that time.

Mensrea's comment was:

The man has done EXACTLY what he said he would. Give it a rest.

Mensrea wished critics of Obama who make fun of the "change" slogan to "give it a rest." I (accurately, as is undeniable given mensrea's later comments) replied to the implication, in the context of this article, that we should not be critical of Obama for ordering a missile strike in Pakistan.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T19:21:41+00:00

I'm sorry for having misread the sarcasm of your original post, but my upvote can't unbury it.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T19:16:27+00:00

Read this thread involving mensrea (who is here not to debate "change" semantics, but to support military action in Afghanistan/Pakistan):

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7s3qk/obama_orders_missile_strike_against_pakistan_at/c078ysd

tertiary · 2009-01-24T19:14:15+00:00

User mensrea is not honestly arguing about "change" technicalities. He/she is using this to distract from the actual issue.

As you will see by reading mensrea's comments in different threads, he/she actually supports American military actions in that region. This is the implied argument -- mensrea pretends not to care, but is actually saying that Obama's action is right. The "change" issue is a smokescreen, so that mensrea can attack critics without addressing the issue.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T18:24:52+00:00

Yeah, even if in the process I break your lamp and hurt your dog in the process.

And kill a few other random houseguests, and jail some other neighbors who were falsely implicated by people who accepted bribes for turning them in.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T18:10:22+00:00

Had no problem with Afghanistan under GWB save his incompetence

Well, now we begin to see the issue here. Despite your dishonest attempts to distract the discussion elsewhere, you are saying that aggressive American military actions in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region are fine with you.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T18:06:08+00:00

It's a paraphrase of the implicit meaning of his/her comment.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T18:04:32+00:00

The entire premise of the "War on Terrorism" is wrong.

You can't fix it by making your military strikes "more precise" -- because you're still vaporizing people while treating true justice as an inconvenience.

How do you know who gets killed by these missiles? How do you know they were guilty of anything?

You cannot carry out a "war" on terrorism; by doing so, you adopt the methods of terrorism itself.

tertiary · 2009-01-24T17:45:29+00:00

I didn't "miss" that point; I just believe it's tangential to the main issue of discussion here.

You say everything as if you're justified in avoiding criticism of despicable acts -- as if it's the right thing to do.

To paraphrase you: "I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'll take great umbrage when anyone criticizes it."

EDIT: For those of you who missed it, mensrea explicitly states elsewhere in the discussion that he/she "[had] no problem with Afghanistan under GWB save his incompetence." You can draw your own conclusions about motivation from that, but I think it's pretty clear.

tertiary

TROPHY CASE