Gitmo Doctors Hid Evidence of Torture

[LnGrrrR]

Look. The primary accepted idea behind the oath is "do no harm." That's why I asked if harm was done. It's just that ing simple.

It's not just "do no harm". It's also "prevent harm". Ya know, like if you know that a certain stress technique would cause a prisoner psychological torment but you don't mention it.

[Wild Cobra]

And I'm saying that if we put these prisoners into a situation where they can suffer severely, then we are still at fault.

What about the jails here in the USA where people bet beaten and raped by other prisoners?

You don't think former military members are credible? Interesting.

I only know that some are and some are not. I do not automatically assume credibility of anyone I don't personally know.

Why do you keep trying to insinuate that the charges are a "hang nail". As pointed out above, they involve broken bones, severe beatings, and psychological stressors.

I used that term in referring to the pain considered as torture, and again to remind the subjective nature of pain levels.

The author assumed the interrogations caused the broken bones. I pointed out that is not a certainty. We don't know how the injures occurred.

The US has even admitted to the psychological stressors (and yet, has stated they are not "severe", a wishy-washy word that means nothing legally. Of course, they knew this, which is why they used it.)

Again, subjective. Can you find a defining threshold that was violated?

[boutons_deux]

mental injury is also torture.

isolated confinement is tortured.

sleep deprivation, forced nakedness with no heating, 24-hour intense lighting, no bed, water hosing, no toilet, are all torture.

Prison guards raping and permitting raping are torture.

[clambake]

still no hangnail evidence?

[LnGrrrR]

What about the jails here in the USA where people bet beaten and raped by other prisoners?

Do you think that GTMO and other holding facilities house prisoners together, and provide them the ability to mingle daily?

I only know that some are and some are not. I do not automatically assume credibility of anyone I don't personally know.

You assume credibility all the time. You assume the credibility of the people writing the medical reports in the first place, for instance.

I used that term in referring to the pain considered as torture, and again to remind the subjective nature of pain levels.

And your implication is that the people who are claiming they were tortured are just exaggerating it. Pretty obvious. And yet, dozens of experts have confirmed that these tactics cause severe mental and physical pain.

The author assumed the interrogations caused the broken bones. I pointed out that is not a certainty. We don't know how the injures occurred.

Do you trust that the government/military would admit their own wrongdoing in a medical do ent?

Again, subjective. Can you find a defining threshold that was violated?

I already listed the definition of torture under the UN treaty we are signees to. If the US gov't is shown to have committed these injuries, then that threshold would be violated, agree?

[Wild Cobra]

LnGrrrR, you should give it a break until you can give the legal definition of the thresholds to what I am calling subjective.

[clambake]

look at this ing clown telling people what to do.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR, you should give it a break until you can give the legal definition of the thresholds to what I am calling subjective.

I already did.

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.

There's the legal definition of torture, as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture, of which United States is a signatory and has ratified.

From wiki:

Bybee signed that legal memorandum which defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" in ways that are regarded as torture by the current Justice Department,[23] Amnesty International,[24] Human Rights Watch,[25] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[26][27] intelligence officials,[28] military judges,[29] and American allies.[30] This memo has been the source of controversy and calls for his impeachment. Bybee is currently the subject of a war crimes investigation in Spain,[31] as well as the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.[30]

So, everyone in the known world describes the advanced interrogation techniques as torture, except we didn't, from 2001-2009.

I guess that makes it ok and legal.

For someone who doesn't appreciate authoritarianism, don't you think that not regarding the opinions of multiple experts on what "severe" pain is, in order to get information, is rather draconian and authoritarian?

[LnGrrrR]

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed the work of principal author John Yoo, now a law professor, and signatory Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, to determine whether the advice given "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."[32] In its 261 page final report, the Office for Professional Responsibility concluded that the legal opinions that justified waterboarding and other interrogation tactics on Al Qaeda suspects in American custody amounted to professional misconduct, and that Professor Yoo in particular "knowingly failed to provide a thorough, objective, and candid interpretation of the law," recommending referral to the Bar for disciplinary action.[33] However, career Justice department lawyer David Margolis[34] in a Memorandum dated January 5, 2010 countermanded the recommended referral.[35] While Margolis was careful to avoid "an endorsement of the legal work" which he said was "flawed" and "contained errors more than minor," he concluded that Yoo had merely exercised "poor judgment" which did not rise to the level of "professional misconduct" sufficient to authorize OPR to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities.[36]

Definitely sounds like torture is kosher with everyone.