jcd11235 0
QuoteQuote
I totally disagree.
A memo from the Justice department saying that illegal activities are legal, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY make those activities legal.
Front line soldiers are no lawyers. It's one thing if you're talking about killing the prisoners. But the nuance between legal interrogation and unlawful torture? Just a bit past their pay grade. I think they can reasonably rely on the information they've given. If it's false, those supplying it are responsible.
When we were given a class on the topic in basic training (US Army, 1993), it was made clear that it was our responsibility to understand what constituted an illegal order. If given such an order, we were legally obligated to not follow it; following orders was not a valid defense, and we could be held fully responsible for any illegal actions we might take if we did obey such an order.
It was also made clear that we were legally obligated to obey all legal orders. Furthermore, if we disobeyed a legal order because we thought it was illegal, or, if we obeyed an illegal order because we believed it to be legal, we could be held legally responsible for our actions/inactions.
It was neither explicitly stated nor implied that being able to tell the difference was "above our pay grade." Exactly the opposite was implied; the call was not above anyone's pay grade, from E1 to O10.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
So during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
rushmc 18
QuoteSo during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
It was waterboarding
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteSo during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
It was waterboarding
I bet I could get you to give a fucking straight answer within no time whatsoever in an interrogation hut.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteIf water boarding is torture, why is it OK to do that to some of our military as part of their training?
As I wrote before:
One of the resident SERE experts around here can fill in the history more fully and correct any innacuracies. The SERE training methods were largely derived from tactics used or believed used by North Koreans and Soviets. The training manual was intended as training doctrine to enable US soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines to develop skills to resist torture by our enemies ... it was *not* intended as an instruction manual for what we should do.
Some of the evidence and documentation of torture has been collected and provided by the US military.
The military services have been unequivocal in their objection to the use of torture.
To avoid the strawman "comfy green cushion" or "Coke & a smile" suggestions, torture is prohibited by
(1) US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force”
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.”and
“The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.”
(2) Techniques deemed prohibited by US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file).
More on military opposition to use of torture, including ”enhanced interrogation.”
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteIf I recall correctly, when that happened, Senator McCain was pretty clear in his opinion that it was torture and needed to stop.
Yes, that is correct.
Sen McCain has also said:
the use of torture and “enhanced interrogation” has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad.
“So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.”
“What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.”
More from Sen McCain:
“I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer.
“Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively [i.e., no torture - nerdgirl], and he didn’t think they need to do anything else.
“My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.”
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteHonestly, I'm a fan of the South African model. You hold a big forum for "truth and reconciliation" or something, and move on.
Concur.
Suggested the same thing here last year:
Is it time to be thinking about a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung? Until it’s dealt with effectively, it will be an impediment to advancing US foreign policy from a realist perspective. There are lots of additional normative arguments … but I resist arguing from normatives. Burying one’s metaphorical head in the sand is not helpful.
There is some small percentage that will never acknowledge there’s anything wrong with torturing other humans (from across the planet).
There is another portion who are fundamentally good, smart people, who nonetheless will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation … some will have very heart-felt reasons for their protests … some will just be partisanly stubborn … and some will be like those who vehemently objected to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS ruling, etc., who now recognize the wisdom in that ruling. That’s the portion in which I am most interested.
If the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ one might personally disagree with that directive – how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media?
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
QuoteSo Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, et al, got waterboarded? I kinda doubt it.
As far as I am aware, none of them were.
In January 2008, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell (Vice Admiral, USN (ret)), acknowledged during Congressional testomony “'If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture.' McConnell said the legal test for torture should be ‘pretty simple. Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?'"
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
jcd11235 0
QuoteSo during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
It was illegal prior to Bush entering the White House. Why should one believe that changed?
Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture: The term "torture" means any act by which 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 US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture: In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) 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; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) 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.
Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2) “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
From the US Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unless you can show where the Constitution calls for torture, then water boarding, like other forms of torture, was illegal during the bush administration.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Thanks for giving me a real answer to my question.
rushmc, take note.
rushmc, take note.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Quote
This is very simple. Torture was and is illegal. No memo, no matter who approved it, can change that.
IF, and only if what was done was torture. It was not. And whether or not you argree with me does not matter. Cause the courts do agree with me. THAT is why Obama says he will not go after anybody. As if his admin could do legally anyway. After all, he is in the executive branch of our gov, not the judicial branch.
Marc, you are wrong, you know you are wrong, we know you are wrong, and you should leave the weaseling to others because you are no good at it.
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
QuoteQuote
Front line soldiers are no lawyers. It's one thing if you're talking about killing the prisoners. But the nuance between legal interrogation and unlawful torture? Just a bit past their pay grade. I think they can reasonably rely on the information they've given. If it's false, those supplying it are responsible.
When we were given a class on the topic in basic training (US Army, 1993), it was made clear that it was our responsibility to understand what constituted an illegal order. If given such an order, we were legally obligated to not follow it; following orders was not a valid defense, and we could be held fully responsible for any illegal actions we might take if we did obey such an order.
It was also made clear that we were legally obligated to obey all legal orders. Furthermore, if we disobeyed a legal order because we thought it was illegal, or, if we obeyed an illegal order because we believed it to be legal, we could be held legally responsible for our actions/inactions.
It was neither explicitly stated nor implied that being able to tell the difference was "above our pay grade." Exactly the opposite was implied; the call was not above anyone's pay grade, from E1 to O10.
After reading this, I think I'd be even more confused if I were in that situation. If you can get slammed for disobeying a legal order, seems like when in doubt, you're obeying the order. It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.
jcd11235 0
QuoteAfter reading this, I think I'd be even more confused if I were in that situation. If you can get slammed for disobeying a legal order, seems like when in doubt, you're obeying the order. It's not like I can call the SCOTUS to confirm if the Army assessment is constitutional or not.
The instructors of the class readily acknowledged that that it was pretty much a no win situation for troops that are put in such a position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Such is the responsibility of a soldier, even a lowly private.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
It did went I went in in the mid 70's. By law they only had to give you 2 hrs. sleep a day. And the lock in sock parties for the fuckups were are real riot.QuoteQuote… basic training includes sleep deprivation, right?
It didn't include sleep deprivation when I went through basic training 16 years ago.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuote
I think the best way to determine if something is "torture" is to take an American soldier who has been tortured as a POW, let him see what's going on, and ask him what he thinks.
.
I'd consider the guys who were responsible for these things perfectly qualified to determine whether they are torture...after they've been subjected to comparable treatment.
Blues,
Dave
Thats the thing though. Even if you go through simmilar treatment during training, it is just that, training and you know it. You know that the guys doing it to you have been through it, you know that occasionally men die during training but you also know that they do not intend to kill you. As a real prisoner in a secret prison you know nothing of the sort. that is the difference.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuoteQuote...training for some of our military...
I think the best way to determine if something is "torture" is to take an American soldier who has been tortured as a POW, let him see what's going on, and ask him what he thinks.
If I recall correctly, when that happened, Senator McCain was pretty clear in his opinion that it was torture and needed to stop.
Note that I still think the guys relying on official DOJ interpretation should not be the scapegoats here.
Amen to that....
IF anyone is going to get screwed over it needs to start at the top who gave the directives and justified that shit in the first place.
So you endorse mass murder using airliners on innocent Muslims but don't approve of waterboarding them... HMmmmm
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
rushmc 18
QuoteThanks for giving me a real answer to my question.
rushmc, take note.
For one, I dont give a shit about anything the UN says posts or anything. It is a corupt organization that is quite franky worthless and expensive.
Second, the rest is full in the interpitation and third, it was not a criminal investigation.
My answer still stands, it was waterboarding.
If is the kind of torture you want to imply here then reporters would not have allowed it to be done to them
Note taken?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
It was waterboarding
I bet I could get you to give a fucking straight answer within no time whatsoever in an interrogation hut.
I can only imagine your interrogation hut. Leather and feather whips. All kind of battery powered torture devices. Nylon binding, chains or ropes hanging from the ceiling.
Kind of gives me a Chris Mathews tingling sensation up and down my leg. Your right, I may not have been able to hold back
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote...training for some of our military...
I think the best way to determine if something is "torture" is to take an American soldier who has been tortured as a POW, let him see what's going on, and ask him what he thinks.
If I recall correctly, when that happened, Senator McCain was pretty clear in his opinion that it was torture and needed to stop.
Note that I still think the guys relying on official DOJ interpretation should not be the scapegoats here.
Amen to that....
IF anyone is going to get screwed over it needs to start at the top who gave the directives and justified that shit in the first place.
So you endorse mass murder using airliners on innocent Muslims but don't approve of waterboarding them... HMmmmm
War is mass murder by design.... killing the enemy..what what.
Kill the enemy till they get tired of it.. and wish to live in peace..... and I am not seeing that from a whole lot of guys named muhammed.
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo during the Bush administration, was waterboarding legal or illegal?
It was waterboarding
I bet I could get you to give a fucking straight answer within no time whatsoever in an interrogation hut.
I can only imagine your interrogation hut. Leather and feather whips. All kind of battery powered torture devices. Nylon binding, chains or ropes hanging from the ceiling.
Kind of gives me a Chris Mathews tingling sensation up and down my leg. Your right, I may not have been able to hold back
Another "values voter" heard from.
I am sure that is how YOU guys visualize CIA torture
jcd11235 0
QuoteI dont give a shit about anything the UN says posts or anything. It is a corupt organization that is quite franky worthless and expensive.
So, by extension, you don't give a shit about the Constitution. Fair enough, that's certainly your prerogative. However, such an attitude undermines your interpretation of the law regarding torture, which includes water boarding.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Some US troops are subjected to "water-boarding" as part of their training. Wonder if the Commander in Chief weighed that as part of his decision?
Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004
Front line soldiers are no lawyers. It's one thing if you're talking about killing the prisoners. But the nuance between legal interrogation and unlawful torture? Just a bit past their pay grade. I think they can reasonably rely on the information they've given. If it's false, those supplying it are responsible.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites