Reply With Quote
We're training detainees to resist waterboarding.
I started a new thread on the narrow topic of whether or not the waterboarding, conducted during interrogations of al Qaeda terrorists or Taliban militia, cons utes torture because the other one is so polluted...
Holder on Waterboarding — Proving It's Not Torture While Insisting It Is
At Human Events, Connie Hair excerpts some on Eric Holder's, er, interesting testimony on waterboarding (among other things) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, thanks to some terrific questioning by Committee Republicans:
The Attorney General may perhaps want to take a look at the brief his Justice Department filed about three weeks ago in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Torture is a specific intent crime — both the Justice Department and the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have explained that a person cannot commit it unless he has the intent, motive and purpose to torture (i.e., inflict severe pain on) the victim. The question is not, as Holder claimed, whether it was "logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person"? With a general intent crime, the adage is that people are deemed to intend the natural, logical consequences of their actions. But that's not enough for specific intent crimes like torture. As Holder's Justice Department put it (bold italics are mine):
In any event, the actions you take to waterboard are essentially the same whether the one inflicting the treatment is a miltary interrogation-resistance trainer or a CIA interrogator. (I am not saying all waterboarding is the same, nor am I denying that some waterboarding — such as sadistically practiced by the Japanese in WWII — rises to the level or torture. I am talking here only about these two situations: U.S. military trainer and CIA interrogator.) If Holder is correct that the military trainer does not commit torture because it is not his intent to inflict severe pain but to "equip" our military to deal with what he calls "illegal acts," then the CIA interrogator cannot be guilty of torture either since his intent is not to inflict severe pain but to collect life-saving information.
We're training detainees to resist waterboarding.
Why don't you read the whole thing before you spout off.
It speaks to intent and, makes a compelling argument.
Nah, it doesn't.
Just more excuse making and ass covering.
Tell me Yoni, did you ever find out why SERE started their training in the first place?
You and Attorney General Holder appear to have considerable difficulty applying the logic of his answer regarding trainers waterboarding SEALs to interrogators waterboarding detainees. My guess is that the source of the difficulty is political rather than intellectual.
McCarthy goes on to say that Holder's Justice Department argued in a brief it recently filed in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that torture is a specific intent crime -- one that cannot be committed unless a person has the intent, motive and purpose to torture (i.e., inflict severe pain on) the victim. Thus, according to McCarthy, Holder contradicted his own Department (as well the Third Circuit case it cited) when he claimed yesterday that the torture issue depends on whether the logical result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person. As McCarthy puts it:
Putting aside questions of purpose (which I think is how Holder was really trying to differentiate the trainer and the interrogator), the intent of the military trainer is the same as that of the interrogator who inflicts the identical procedure on a terrorist. The idea behind the training is to inflict exactly the same level of pain and distress on trainees as they would experience if they were captured and subjected to the same treatment. Thus, the trainer's purpose is to train (a lawful purpose), not to obtain information (also a lawful purpose). But the trainer's intent is to inflict the same pain and distress as an interrogator using the same procedure would inflict in order to obtain information.
You and Holder might counter that the "logical result" in terms of pain and distress is different when waterboarding occurs in a non-voluntary context. (Rep. Gohmert's question effectively assumed that this was not the case, but this assumption can be challenged). But such an argument would be unpersuasive. First, as noted, the "logical result" standard does not apply to the crime of torture.
Second, it is not logical to believe that identical procedures will have significantly different short term or long term effects on the victim, at least not in any respect that should matter to determining whether the procedures cons ute torture. Terrorists will be more upset, after the fact, about their waterboarding experience than trainees. However, that's only because trainees have gained a benefit (training) whereas terrorists have gained none and, if the waterboarding worked, have ratted out fellow terrorists.
Surely, the Attorney General of the United States does not believe that the anguish associated with giving up information about terrorism converts an interrogation technique into torture.
Your turn.
Trainees are not prisoners.
Your turn.
No, really, if you want to debate this, give my posts a fair reading and an intelligent rebuttal. Otherwise, I consider you conceding the argument and we'll move on.
Doesn't matter. Same process.
You are stealing from powerlineblog again.
Your turn.
Matters.
They're lawyers making valid arguments. If you don't want to take them on...that's fine.
I understand why you'd feel inadequate to the challenge.
Not according to Holder.
If you want to debate this, admit you don't write any of this yourself and just edit blogs to make it look like you wrote them in a feeble attempt to make yourself look like not such an idiot.
Otherwise, I consider you conceding the argument and we'll move on.
Here, re-read this part and tell me where it fails:
The Attorney General may perhaps want to take a look at the brief his Justice Department filed about three weeks ago in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Torture is a specific intent crime — both the Justice Department and the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have explained that a person cannot commit it unless he has the intent, motive and purpose to torture (i.e., inflict severe pain on) the victim. The question is not, as Holder claimed, whether it was "logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person"? With a general intent crime, the adage is that people are deemed to intend the natural, logical consequences of their actions. But that's not enough for specific intent crimes like torture. As Holder's Justice Department put it (bold italics are mine):
I admit I don't write much of this myself and just edit blogs and repost them becuase a) you're more likely to read the content since you google and search for it and b) I don't want to spend an afternoon re-writing what is already said perfectly
So, I don't concede. Respond to the points made now.
And, I don't care if you steal a lawyers words. Just show me where this argument is countered.
If the detainees were applying for refugee status in the US to avoid being tortured by the US, the arguments listed above might be relevant.
I'm sorry, misunderstood your statement.
On what do you base that?
You do concede. You didn't say you did it in an attempt to make yourself look like less of an idiot
So now you admit you didn't even read this.
Because that's not my intent.
Look, if you don't want to argue this, fine. Why do you constantly distract from the argument?
Just because the case Holder was referring to was about Haitian refugees claiming they'd be tortured if returned doesn't change the "specific intent" argument of his citation.
I answered hastily and, on a second reading, realized I had read wrong.So now you admit you didn't even read this.
Why do you retreat to sop ric idiocy when you can't respond to a legitimate challenge to your understanding of a situation?
Of course it is. Always has been.
Why do you constantly plagiarize and lie?Look, if you don't want to argue this, fine. Why do you constantly distract from the argument?
Sure it does.Just because the case Holder was referring to was about Haitian refugees claiming they'd be tortured if returned doesn't change the "specific intent" argument of his citation.
How? Because if you disagree with that, we've been torturing SERE attendees as well.
Trainees are not detainees.
As posted below...
the intent of the military trainer is the same as that of the interrogator who inflicts the identical procedure on a terrorist. The idea behind the training is to inflict exactly the same level of pain and distress on trainees as they would experience if they were captured and subjected to the same treatment. Thus, the trainer's purpose is to train (a lawful purpose), not to obtain information (also a lawful purpose). But the trainer's intent is to inflict the same pain and distress as an interrogator using the same procedure would inflict in order to obtain information.
[T]he "logical result" standard does not apply to the crime of torture.
[I]t is not logical to believe that identical procedures will have significantly different short term or long term effects on the victim, at least not in any respect that should matter to determining whether the procedures cons ute torture. Terrorists will be more upset, after the fact, about their waterboarding experience than trainees. However, that's only because trainees have gained a benefit (training) whereas terrorists have gained none and, if the waterboarding worked, have ratted out fellow terrorists.
Are you suggesting the anguish associated with giving up information about terrorism converts an interrogation technique into torture.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
