Actually, it's not irrelevant. Intent is important to determining criminality.
Nope. Other than using some (but, not many) of the same words, the acts described in the State Department release are not remotely related to the EITs.
How are they the same?
Torture is torture. Why someone tortures doesn't change the torture.
Some are exactly the same. Too bad for your team.Nope. Other than using some (but, not many) of the same words, the acts described in the State Department release are not remotely related to the EITs.
How are they different? Intent doesn't change a method.How are they the same?
Stress positions are stress positions.
Near drowning is near drowning.
I'm glad they took a stand against torture.
i feel like some people here took the show 24 too seriously
justifies torture how?
Who was tortured?
Yeah, me too.
I don't recall a scene from 24 where Jack Bauer was bound by written rules of interrogation that had been developed, vetted, and legally justified, surrounded by lawyers to make sure he didn't exceed his authority, and medical staff to insure the safety of the interrogated.
If this were true, the United Nations wouldn't have included the phrase "...for the purpose of..." after defining the acts that might cons ute torture. They would have just ended with a definition of the acts that cons ute torture.
IF A does Z "...for the purpose of..." Y.
That's intent.
Then, when the United States adds a signing reservation that changes the wording to "...specifically intended..." you change the intent but, whether or not it's torture still depends on an intent.
This is one of the distinction Bybee explored and interpreted to the satisfaction of almost everyone, except you and a few other Bush haters.
Torture isn't just torture, it has specific elements just like any other crime. I'm not going to fault the administration, under the cir stance in which they found themselves on September 11, 2001, for defining the bright line and developing techniques that walk right up to it. I'm satisfied they made a good faith effort to not cross the line while still achieving their immediate goal of obtaining information that ended up thwarting further terrorist attacks and led to the location of Osama bin Laden.
And, according to Bybee (and the convention itself) the UN Convention make a distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishments.
In Bybee's legal opinion, which you're certainly welcome to challenge, he argues the UN only specifically outlaws torture while only discouraging the rest.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-13-2014 at 10:34 AM.
The echo chamber memo is not law.
Just another thing you can't understand.
Torture is torture. Bush administration said so.
Saying it over and over won't change the convention or the law.
Seems legit...
Right, that was ultimately Bybee and Woo's problem. No matter what they wrote, it didn't change the convention or the law.
Torture is torture and what the CIA did was torture.
So, even though the convention makes intent an element of torture and even though the United States added a reservation in 1994 changing the element of intent, you're sticking with "torture is torture?"
I guess there's no need to discuss further if you're not at least willing to respond when you're shown to be wrong on such a fundamental aspect of the argument.
I just went by what the Bush administration itself said.
They called those methods used during interrogation as torture, and Sri Lanka's situation was much more imminently dangerous with thousands more deaths than that of the US.
Too bad I'm not wrong.
Why would you rely on an administration you inherently distrust? Why not rely on the law and convention?
Let's talk about what they say, not the Bush administration's opinion of a completely different cir stance.
Well, again, saying something doesn't make it so.
You said intent wasn't an element of torture and I demonstrated where in the very do ent you hold up that it is an element of torture.
In most places in the universe, that makes you wrong.
I said it was irrelevant to the conversation, but since you brought it up Sri Lanka was doing those things for the same reason we were. The US condemned them all the same.
And the situation there was much worse than ours.
Both tortured in the course of interrogations to get information about terra groups and attacks.
That makes them wrong.
We obviously disagree.
However, on my side, I have an unchallenged legal opinion saying what was done didn't cons ute torture.
You? You have a bunch of Bush haters with their panties in a wad.
I'd say my argument is a bit more legitimate than yours.
And, you can quit bringing up Sri Lanka -- there's no comparison.
It was abandoned. It's a loser by default.
Since your side already forfieted, my side won.You? You have a bunch of Bush haters with their panties in a wad.
I'd say my argument is a bit more legitimate than yours.
You're right -- in Sri Lanka there actually was in danger of imminent attack after suffering tens of thousands of deaths on its own soil in an area the roughly size of Indiana.And, you can quit bringing up Sri Lanka -- there's no comparison.
And the Bush administration rightly condemned their torture, just as the US torture should be condemned.
They gave up torture because they knew it didn't work and they knew they had gone too far. Now all you really have on your side are the dead enders who were lying from the start and never stopped.
I'm not sure it was.
I'm not sure what you mean by "forfieted." Jay Bybee stands by the findings of his memorandum; Attorney General Ashcroft reaffirmed the techniques described in them and OLC Chief Steven Bradbury updated the protocols with a memo of his own -- that generally followed the model of the Bybee memo. It appears the Bradbury memos are still in effect today.
Well, you're correct in one sense - the extrajudicial killings are right out of Barack Obama's playbook...it's just that Sri Lanka doesn't have drones or fire missiles to toss around.
But on your specific point, there's no indication in the report that the torture methods used by Sri Lanka are the same as the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques designed by the CIA and vetted by the U. S. Department of Justice.
I condemn their torture too. Feel better?
And, yet, the CIA's use of EITs did result in actionable intelligence that thwarted significant terrorist plots and led to the location of Osama bin Laden.
If torture doesn't work, the EITs must not be torture because, they worked.
And, speaking of dead; no one died during the application of EITs; no one even sustained lasting injury. Another distinction from actual torture, whose employers rarely concern themselves with the health or well-being of those subjected to it and often leave their victims dead or maimed for life.
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-14-2014 at 12:08 PM.
I notice you don't post this in the thread where it is addressed...
Here, I'll cut and paste from there, perhaps you can be cajoled into actually responding to the facts...
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7725249
You're welcome.
Except they didn't. Real interrogators already knew this. the CIA amateurs already knew this. They directed each other to lie about the effectiveness and you bought it.
How does anyone know? It's not like those subjected the torture can say anything about it.And, speaking of dead; no one died during the application of EITs; no one even sustained lasting injury. Another distinction from actual torture, whose employers rarely concern themselves with the health or well-being of those subjected to it and often leave their victims dead or maimed for life.
One died of hypothermia and they had contingency plans for guys like Zubaydah in case they did die.
You can't even get one fact right, yoni.
So, conjecture.
Not even the Democrats are claiming anyone died from the EITs.
And, President Obama himself, admitted the EITs obtained actionable intelligence. He just argued the information could have been obtained by other methods. And, of course, the head of the program has already stated, the other ways weren't working on these terrorists.
Keeping a guy in a cold room is an EIT.
A guy died from hypothermia after being subjected to an EIT.
You don't know your facts. This is just like net neutrality.
Since they had to waterboard guys hundreds of times, that didn't work either.And, President Obama himself, admitted the EITs obtained actionable intelligence. He just argued the information could have been obtained by other methods. And, of course, the head of the program has already stated, the other ways weren't working on these terrorists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
