When you've lost the language, debate is impossible.
As the Obama Administration moves beyond its first 100 days, the hyperventilation over "torture" continues at a fevered pace. Not only is sawing off a person's head with a rusty saw considered "torture," so is putting a caterpillar in their prison cell. There's no real discussion of types of actions, degrees of action, whether it's been declared legal/illegal in the U.S. vs. illegal per another country or institution, Geneva Convention restrictions for uniformed combatants vs. non-uniformed combatants vs. entities that never signed the Geneva Convention. You know, what some people call "details," and other people refer to as "just details."
When you've lost the language, debate is impossible. What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis. Torture — according to today's definition — is severe mental or physical stress (no actual lasting, or permanent, physical or mental harm is necessary). The concept of torture is not just synonymous with "enhanced interrogation techniques;" today anything that is identified as "enhanced" is automatically considered "torture." The two words are treated as if they are identical, even though they mean qualitatively different things.
We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn't, how its abstract terms ("severe," "intimidating," "coercive," "mental anguish," etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this.
But what's the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator's or website's) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn't want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it's really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we're after information, not an admission of guilt). In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something "severe," what exactly is the non-abstract definition of "severe"? Is "severe" a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?). Or is it simply what you yourself consider to be stressful, and therefore "severe"?
Like I said, though, actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people's style, not to mention interfering with blaming Bush for certain things that Obama is excused for doing. So, putting all the boring, technical stuff aside, I've compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes "torture."
You can use these as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
1. Torture is anything described as "harsh" (as in "harsh interrogation techniques"), "severe," "intimidating," or "coercive." That makes amputating a person's head with a rusty saw "torture." It also makes coming home at 3 in the morning with lipstick on your collar "torture" when you are harshly and severely treated by your wife who intimidates you with a rolling pin (or a threat of divorce), and coerces you into getting rid of your bimbo girlfriend.
2. Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.
3. Sawing off a person's head is torture if practiced by a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Sawing off a person's head is not torture if practiced by a terrorist not formally affiliated with a recognized state. Rather, it's just a really bad thing (particularly for the person whose head is being detached), but understandable in some quarters because the person being decapitated is either a Jew or American (or both).
4. Rendition is a form of torture if practiced by the Bush Administration. However, rendition is part of keeping one's options open when practiced by the Obama Administration.
5. "Supermax prison is torture and death." This was written by someone with first-hand experience and must therefore be true, since it is just like journalists who experienced waterboarding and therefore have first-hand knowledge to assert that it is torture. This opinion is also backed up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which said that moving Gitmo detainees – including many only suspected of crimes – to the country's most secure prison "is simply another form of torture . . .."
6. Loud music and sleep deprivation are torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Loud music and sleep deprivation when partying on a weekend at college is not torture. However, it isn't just any kind of loud music that constitutes torture. In one of the few, rare instances where the word "torture" is actually defined in concrete terms in an award winning documentary on torture (instead of simply repeating the phrase the Bush Administration practices torture), the specific "loud music" used to torture some random Arab guy picked up off the street named Abu Zubaydah was "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" which was "blasted at full volume for hours on end." So, now you know. Playing Aerosmith or Bing Crosby at full blast is not necessarily torture, but playing The Red Hot Chili Peppers really is — or tracks from Eminem's "Slim Shady" album.
7. Prolonged kneeling is a form of torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Amazingly enough, preventing people from prolonged kneeling to protest torture is also considered an action supportive of torture.
8. The use of mind altering drugs is a form of torture, unless used by liberals and college students in general, in which case it is a manifestation of the right to privacy and an exercise of basic freedom.
9. Arresting someone without prior notification that they are going to be arrested is a form of torture. "The torture process can begin at the moment of arrest . . . Taking someone by surprise is more jarring than if someone has time to physically and mentally prepare himself or herself for arrest." Legislation is needed immediately within the United States requiring all law enforcement agencies to notify suspected serial killers, drug dealers, child-rapists, and other criminals of an intent to arrest them within the next 24-48 hours to give them sufficient time to "mentally prepare" for their incarceration. Remember, like the terrorists at Gitmo, these people have not been convicted of anything. There's just a suspicion that they might have done something wrong, but no actual courtroom-quality "proof" of their guilt at the time of their impending arrest.
10. "Scenarios designed to convince a detainee" that their family may be harmed is torture. In other words, if Big Tony threatens to bust your nephew's kneecaps unless you pay him the "Ten Large" you still owe him from last month, Big Tony is not a loan shark. He is a torturer. Interestingly enough, no follow through action on this threat is required to constitute torture. Sticks and stones will certainly break one's bones, but words alone make you a torturer.
I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter. If not, remember the words of Mr. Spock from a Star Trek episode a long time ago. "In an insane world, only the sane are considered insane."
Not only is sawing off a person’s head with a rusty saw considered “torture,” so is putting a caterpillar in their prison cell.
No, you are misinformed. Sawing off a person’s head with a rusty saw may be torture under some circumstances, but is not the type of torture that we are concerned with when we discuss our government’s recent mistreatment of detainees. That use of torture is defined reasonably clearly in the UNCAT (UN Convention Against Torture) agreement that the US signed in 1988. It is defined as follows:
………………………………………….
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 UNCAT definition is the relevant one for this conversation, because 1) it covers acts by States (such as our government); and 2) the US agreed to abide by it.
Sawing off somebody’s head is usually considered ‘murder’, although in the vernacular sense of the word the victim would certainly feel tortured by the experience.
But that is all irrelevant to a discussion of the US Government’s recent violation of the UNCAT agreement and its own laws. We need to focus on the definition of torture as applied to official state actions in times of international conflict, and the UNCAT definition is widely and customarily used.
As you can see, the mistreatment of detainees meets all the criteria of torture:
1) We inflicted ‘severe pain or suffering’. I’ll come back to that one later, since it is really the only conceivable source of dispute.
2) It was committed for the purposes of obtaining information from the detainees
3) It was perpetrated by our ‘officials’ and with the acquiescence of our ‘public officials’ (ie, the Bush Admininstration)
4) It was not done as a form of legal sanction (ie, it was not punishment for a crime)
The issue with the ‘caterpillar’ is being misrepresented in this essay. Here is the relevant correct description:
http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/10430/2009-04-18.html
CIA interrogators were given legal authorization to slam an alleged “high-value” detainee’s head against a wall, place insects inside a “confinement box” to induce fear [in an individual who was apparently insect-phobic – Ozzie] , and force him to remain awake for 11 consecutive days,
In and of itself, the insect in the box does not sound terribly severe, although if an individual has a phobia, it could induce significant mental suffering. Not sure if, by itself, that is torture. Would like to leave that up to the Courts.
However, I am struck again by the writer’s need to minimize it by using the phrase ‘caterpillar in their prison cell’. This is a disingenuous description, in line with this writer’s previous use of the phrase ‘splashing water on a person’s face’ to describe waterboarding.
I can only conclude that the writer is uncomfortable defending the *reality* of what occurred, and must therefore misrepresent it (because the minimized version is easier to defend and ridicule).
Contrary to this writer’s apparent perception, there is not really that much ‘opinion’ involved. A rapidly growing number of commentators, including many prominent conservatives and military officials, have read the plain language of UNCAT and our own statutes, and come to the conclusion that we did in fact illegally torture the detainees.
In the end, the courts could conceivably rule otherwise, if they get the chance (I hope they get that chance). And I’ll have to live with that, if all of the facts are presented and fairly weighed. I am happy to concede that some of these issues can be ‘close calls’. After all, there are much, much worse forms of torture than what we practiced here. But it is my prediction that a reasonable court of law would find that we violated the statutes and agreements on torture. I’ve yet to hear anything here that would convince me otherwise.
Ozzie
“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot,” – John McCain, October 2007.
From prominent conservative Jonah Goldberg:
——————————————
“I’ve always been on the fence about whether waterboarding constituted torture. But if the reports are true that the CIA used it scores of times in a single month on a single prisoner, than I think the threshhold has been met. Debating wether it was worth it still seems open to debate, depending on the facts. But I think waterboarding someone 183 times in a month does amount to torture no matter how you slice it.”
The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined. I am not an attorney, and so there could be shades of meaning in the term that I am not educated about.
For example, statutes concerning first degree murder contain words like ‘particularly heinous’, and ‘malice’. These terms (I think) are better understood by legally-trained minds than laymen like myself. It is possible that I simply don’t understand the precise legal meaning of the word ‘severe’. However, I am certainly not alone. Many others, including prominent conservatives, apparently have a similar misunderstanding.
Just to get it ‘on the record’ (so to speak), here are excerpts from the Red Cross investigation of the treatment of detainees. Notice how far this is from this writer’s glib comments about ‘putting caterpillars in cells’ and so on.
……………………………………………..
During the four months…when not kept in the prolonged stress standing position [with his hands shackled to the ceiling], his ankle shackles were allegedly kept attached by a one meter long chain to a pin fixed in the corner of the room where he was held.
…on several occasions the diaper was not replaced so he had to urinate and defecate on himself while shackled in the prolonged stress standing position. Indeed, in addition to Mr. Bin Attash, three other detainees specified that they had to defecate and urinate on themselves and remain standing in their own bodily fluids.
“Beating by use of a collar”, that “was placed around their necks and used by their interrogators to slam them against the walls.”
Mr. Abu Zubaydah commented that when the collar was first used on him in his third place of detention, he was slammed directly against a hard concrete wall. He was then placed in a tall box for several hours
Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face…
Prolonged nudity…periods ranging from several weeks to several months…
Sleep deprivation…through use of forced stress positions, hosed down with cold water…
Threats of ill-treatment to … his family…
Deprivation…of solid food from 3 days to 1 month…
In each case, the person to be suffocated was strapped to a tilting bed and a cloth was placed over the face…Water was then poured continuously onto the cloth, saturating it and blocking off any air so that the person could not breathe. This form of suffocation induced a feeling of panic and the acute impression that the person was about to die. In at least one case, this was accompanied by incontinence of urine.
In all three cases this caused considerable pain, particularly for Mr. Abu Zubaydah who had undergone surgery just three months earlier…Zubaydah reports: “…the pressure of the straps on my wounds caused severed pain. I vomited…I struggled without success to breathe. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine under stress.”
…during the two weeks he was shackled in the prolonged stress standing position with his hands chained above his head, his artificial leg was sometimes removed by the interrogators to increase the stress and fatigue of the position.
…alleged that…he was threatened with sodomy, and with the arrest and rape of his family.
Conclusions:
…they were subjected to systematic physical and/or psychological ill-treatment. This regime was clearly designed to undermine human dignity and to create a sense of futility by inducing, in many cases, severe physical and mental pain and suffering…
………………………………………..
So, does that all constitute ‘severe’ suffering? I invite any and all fair-minded readers to ponder it and draw their own conclusions. (Remember, the UNCAT definition includes mental suffering).
The Red Cross investigators clearly felt it was brutal mistreatment. I agree.
None of this, of course, should be construed as sympathy for people like KSM. He is a brutal fanatic. My objections to torture are based in the law as I understand it, and many other practical and philosophical considerations I’ve presented elsewhere.
Oz
—————————-
In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
He was convicted of waterboarding and other offenses and sentenced to 15 years hard labor
———————————–
>is not the type of torture that we are concerned with when we discuss our government’s recent mistreatment of detainees.
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves.”
>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 …
*** “In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something ‘severe,’ what exactly is the non-abstract definition of ‘severe’? “
>Sawing off somebody’s head is usually considered ‘murder’, although in the vernacular sense of the word the victim would certainly feel tortured by the experience.
*** “Sawing off a person’s head is torture if practiced by a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Sawing off a person’s head is not torture if practiced a terrorist not formally affiliated with a recognized state. Rather, it’s just a really bad thing (particularly for the person whose head is being detached), but understandable in some quarters because the person being decapitated is either a Jew or American (or both).”
>Contrary to this writer’s apparent perception, there is not really that much ‘opinion’ involved. A rapidly growing number of commentators, including many prominent conservatives and military officials, have read the plain language of UNCAT and our own statutes, and come to the conclusion that we did in fact illegally torture the detainees.
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it’s really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we’re after information, not an admission of guilt). … “In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something ‘severe,’ what exactly is the non-abstract definition of ‘severe’? “
>But it is my prediction that a reasonable court of law would find that we violated the statutes and agreements on torture. I’ve yet to hear anything here that would convince me otherwise.”
*** “We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn’t, how its abstract terms (“severe,” “intimidating,” “coercive,” “mental anguish,” etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this. But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. “
>John McCain
>Jonah Goldberg:
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. … It does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
10 examples of “torture” were listed, from caterpillars to loud music to kneeling to arrest without prior notification. When everything is “torture”, nothing is torture.
When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible. What you have instead is an ability to state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
>The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.
*** And yet, emphatic statements are still made about whether “X” is torture:
“We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn’t, how its abstract terms (“severe,” “intimidating,” “coercive,” “mental anguish,” etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this.
“But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it’s really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we’re after information, not an admission of guilt). In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something “severe,” what exactly is the non-abstract definition of “severe”? Is “severe” a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?). Or is it simply what you yourself consider to be stressful, and therefore “severe”?”
>It is possible that I simply don’t understand the precise legal meaning of the word ‘severe’. However, I am certainly not alone. Many others, including prominent conservatives, apparently have a similar misunderstanding.
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves.
>So, does that all constitute ‘severe’ suffering? I invite any and all fair-minded readers to ponder it and draw their own conclusions.
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves.
>In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian.
>The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
*** “Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.”
Dr. Jackson, you might want to take your computer in to a fix-it guy. I think it’s stuck or something. Keeps repeating certain phrases, seemingly at random.
Astonishingly, I can only conclude that you are referring to me when you reference people using “[their] own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject” [of torture].
I am using the UNCAT definition of torture, an agreement signed by the US in 1988. I didn’t make it up, nor did it come from some ‘website’.
Please present a better one if you don’t like that one. How would you define torture, or the word ‘severe’, Dr. Jackson?
Oz
Conservative Rod Dreher, on National Review Online:
—————————————–
“One thing that nobody should ever be permitted to say again, after reading these memos: “The United States didn’t torture.”
——————————————
“Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.”
Yes, that is a correct statement. I recognize that you were saying it in an ironical sense, but you’ve actually stated a simple truth.
As I’ve previously indicated, the simple act of waterboarding may not always be torture, in every context. First of all, legalistically it is not because the soldiers are willing participants and there is no attempt to gain info, etc etc.
And from a practical standpoint, it is not either. The soldiers are voluntary participants, and they know they are entirely safe. Also, look at the entire context (re-read the Red Cross report). The detainees were also beaten, sexually humiliated, starved, isolated, crammed in boxes, shackled to the ceiling for days in stress positions, and involuntarily waterboarded dozens (hundreds) of times. They legitimately feared for their very lives every minute of that. This is far, far different than a brief exposure to waterboarding as a part of training.
Still and all, I have read several accounts by soldiers who went through even this limited waterboarding, who found it intensely traumatic. Not all of them, but quite a few.
Oz
America’s Pastor, Rick Warren, another conservative::
——————————————-
“Well, and you know what – some of the stuff I saw looking at Guantanamo looks like clearly it was torture. To me, if you torture someone, you put yourself no better than the enemy. We must maintain the moral highground. You have no right to condemn the immoral actions of others if we’re doing the same thing. And we should expect that others will torture our people if we’re torturing them.”
—-Rick Warren
Ozzie said:
>The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.
Dr. Jackson replied:
*** And yet, emphatic statements are still made about whether “X” is torture:*****
Yes, that is also true. I have examined the definitions of torture, looked at the Red Cross report, listened to commentators across the political spectrum, discussed the issue with others, and I *strongly* believe the empirical evidence supports a conclusion that we illegally tortured the detainees.
However, I am also grown-up enough to admit that some of these are in fact debatable issues. That is why I am here debating them, after all. Some aspects of this are complex and thorny, and people of good faith can disagree.
Nonetheless, you are correct. The empirical evidence, the reports, the language of the statutes–all of these have caused me to be quite convinced. And it is not an exaggeration to say that I am ‘emphatic’ in my opposition to America’s becoming a torturing nation.
Oz
—————————————-
Conservative George Will:
“On the other hand, four things are clear. First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture….”
I think maybe the irony was lost on you – you see, Dr. Jackson was repeating himself to emphasize that you merely acted out the exact accusations he was making in his original article. It appears you aren’t any better at identifying sarcasm than you are torture. I trust you’ll run out of talking points about the same time Dr. Jackson runs out of self-quotations. Should make for an interesting discussion!
Ozzie Comment #5 “I am using the UNCAT definition of torture, an agreement signed by the US in 1988.”
> Ozzie Comment #2: “The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.”
>How would you define torture, or the word ‘severe’, Dr. Jackson?
*** When everything is “torture”, nothing is torture.
When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible. What you have instead is an ability to state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
>I have read several accounts by soldiers who went through even this limited waterboarding, who found it intensely traumatic.
*** “But what’s the fun in that when we can … decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. … It does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
Patrick: Bingo.
By the way, just for the purpose of clarity: although I believe the evidence supports a conclusion that the US illegally tortured detainees (and I hope someone is held accountable), the issue of whether the mistreatment rises to the level of ‘torture’ is not vitally important to me.
I am opposed to any form of brutal mistreatment of prisoners under our control. It is unwise, and beneath us as a nation. It damages our standing in the world (with both allies and enemies), unnecessarily radicalizes even more enemies, will predictably lead to worse treatment for our boys if they are captured, and rapidly gets out of control due to aspects of human nature. I’ve seen no evidence that it is crucially necessary. It’s a bad idea.
Oz
————————
Torture the terrorist b*st*rds.
–Mountain Man
No, no, Patrick, I grasped Dr. Jackson’s intent. Sarcasm is quite familiar to me. I employ it enthusiastically myself.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Jackson, I have plainly refuted each point in your essay. Your response has been to repeat blocks of text, randomly embolden a sentence here and there, and make sniggering noises behind your hand.
I am familiar with these responses. Soon, you will no doubt begin sputtering with purple-faced, inarticulate rage, referring to me as ‘stupid’, a ‘lightweight’, and any other schoolyard taunt you can originate.
Your epithets are as predictable as they are unimaginative.
I front-loaded this thread with all of my most useful points, anticipating that under your care, this thread will rapidly devolve into rather spiteful name-calling (all on your side, not mine).
And eventually you will sigh loudly, and continue trying to construct your Grand Unified Theory of what is wrong with the Leftist intellect.
Good luck with that, Dr. Jackson. Unless you can come up with a substantive rejoinder to any of my substantive points, I believe that, as you are fond of saying, ‘my work here is through.’
Oz
——————————–
Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor now serving as director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used “some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive”, waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: “Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils”.
Nevertheless, McCarthy in the same article admits that “waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture” and that “[t]here shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture”.
>Although I believe the evidence supports a conclusion that the US illegally tortured detainees …
*** “We could actually have people versed in the law debate this. But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves.”
> … (and I hope someone is held accountable) …
*** “Actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people’s style, not to mention interfering with blaming Bush for certain things that Obama is excused for doing.”
> … the issue of whether the mistreatment rises to the level of ‘torture’ is not vitally important to me.
Ozzie Comment 1— “We need to focus on the definition of torture as applied to official state actions …”
Ozzie Comment 1 — “As you can see, the mistreatment of detainees meets all the criteria of torture”
Ozzie Comment 1 — “… and come to the conclusion that we did in fact illegally torture the detainees.”
Ozzie Comment 1 — “… waterboarding someone 183 times in a month does amount to torture”
Ozzie Comment 2 — “My objections to torture …”
Ozzie Comment 5 — “I am using the UNCAT definition of torture …”
Ozzie Comment 10 — “Although I believe the evidence supports a conclusion that the US illegally tortured detainees …”
Yep. No focus on “torture” detected here!
> As far as I can tell, Dr. Jackson, I have plainly refuted each point in your essay.
*** “I’ve compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes “torture.” You can use these as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
Yes, I focused on torture, repeatedly, and with great intensity. In my reading of the evidence, we illegally tortured detainees. This is very unwise.
I also oppose brutal mistreatment that does not rise to the level of torture.
Do you find something unclear or contradictory about that? Why?
Why not respond to my substantive points about the definition of ‘torture’, ‘severity’, and so on?
I’d be interested in hearing your definition of torture, and your definition of what constitutes ‘severe’ mental suffering, as stated in UNCAT.
Oz
If I may say so, Dr. Jackson, it appears that you are merely reproducing my very persuasive arguments in all of your posts, and then inserting repetitive non-sequiturs between them.
I don’t usually offer advice to my opponents, but I should point out that this is probably a tactical error.
Oz
Ozzie comment 10: “… the issue of whether the mistreatment rises to the level of ‘torture’ is not vitally important to me.
Ozzie comment 12: “Yes, I focused on torture, repeatedly, and with great intensity.”
Ozzie Comment 12: “Why not respond to my substantive points about the definition of ‘torture’, ‘severity’, and so on?”
Ozzie Comment 2: “The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.”
>I’d be interested in hearing your definition of torture, and your definition of what constitutes ‘severe’ mental suffering, as stated in UNCAT.
*** “What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis,” [like asking someone to just state “your” opinion to contrast it with their opinion].
“Actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people’s style So, putting all the boring, technical stuff aside, I’ve compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes “torture.”
1. Torture is anything described as “harsh” (as in “harsh interrogation techniques”), “severe,” “intimidating,” or “coercive.” That makes amputating a person’s head with a rusty saw “torture.” It also makes coming home at 3 in the morning with lipstick on your collar “torture” when you are harshly and severely treated by your wife who intimidates you with a rolling pin (or a threat of divorce), and coerces you into getting rid of your bimbo girlfriend.
2. Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.
3. Sawing off a person’s head is torture if practiced by a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Sawing off a person’s head is not torture if practiced a terrorist not formally affiliated with a recognized state. Rather, it’s just a really bad thing (particularly for the person whose head is being detached), but understandable in some quarters because the person being decapitated is either a Jew or American (or both).
4. Rendition is a form of torture if practiced by the Bush Administration. However, rendition is part of keeping one’s options open when practiced by the Obama Administration.
5. “Supermax prison is torture and death.” This was written by someone with first-hand experience and must therefore be true, since it is just like journalists who experienced waterboarding and therefore have first-hand knowledge to assert that it is torture. This opinion is also backed up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which said that moving Gitmo detainees – including many only suspected of crimes – to the country’s most secure prison “is simply another form of torture . . ..”
6. Loud music and sleep deprivation are torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Loud music and sleep deprivation when partying on a weekend at college is not torture. However, it isn’t just any kind of loud music that constitutes torture. In one of the few, rare instances where the word “torture” is actually defined in concrete terms in an award winning documentary on torture (instead of simply repeating the phrase the Bush Administration practices torture, the specific “loud music” used to torture some random Arab guy picked up off the street named Abu Zubaydah was “The Red Hot Chili Peppers” which was “blasted at full volume for hours on end.” So, now you know. Playing Aerosmith or Bing Crosby at full blast is not necessarily torture, but playing The Red Hot Chili Peppers really is — or tracks from Eminem’s “Slim Shady” album.
7. Prolonged kneeling is a form of torture when practiced on captured terrorists. Amazingly enough, preventing people from prolonged kneeling to protest torture is also considered an action supportive of torture.
8. The use of mind altering drugs is a form of torture, unless used by liberals and college students in general, in which case it is a manifestation of the right to privacy and an exercise of basic freedom.
9. Arresting someone without prior notification that they are going to be arrested is a form of torture. “The torture process can begin at the moment of arrest . . . Taking someone by surprise is more jarring than if someone has time to physically and mentally prepare himself or herself for arrest.” Legislation is needed immediately within the United States requiring all law enforcement agencies to notify suspected serial killers, drug dealers, child-rapists, and other criminals of an intent to arrest them within the next 24-48 hours to give them sufficient time to “mentally prepare” for their incarceration. Remember, like the terrorists at Gitmo, these people have not been convicted of anything. There’s just a suspicion that they might have done something wrong, but no actual courtroom-quality “proof” of their guilt at the time of their impending arrest.
10. “Scenarios designed to convince a detainee” that their family may be harmed is torture. In other words, if Big Tony threatens to bust your nephew’s kneecaps unless you pay him the “Ten Large” you still owe him from last month, Big Tony is not a loan shark. He is a torturer. Interestingly enough, no follow through action on this threat is required to constitute torture. Sticks and stones will certainly break one’s bones, but words alone make you a torturer.
I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter. If not, remember the words of Mr. Spock from a Star Trek episode a long time ago. “In an insane world, only the sane are considered insane.”
<b/When everything is “torture”, nothing is “torture”. “You can use [the above] as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
The coding didn’t work propely on my final paragraph above:
When everything is “torture”, nothing is “torture”. “You can use [the above] as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
I had to do a double-take there.
Yikes. It appears as though you have simply reproduced about half of your original essay in your last post. I confess to being baffled as to the purpose of that. I think everyone could read it fine the first time or two.
Dr. Jackson, the ‘cut ‘n paste’ feature of your word processor simply reproduces text in a different location. I’m afraid it does not add any particular strength or persuasiveness to that text. And I have to say, just being honest here, it does not improve the humor much either. The repetition is just not helping.
I do, however, cheerfully endorse your habit of cut ‘n pasting *my* quotes and arguments in your posts. I like to see them promulgated as widely as possible, and it spruces up your posts a great deal.
Oz
>I do, however, cheerfully endorse your habit of cut ‘n pasting *my* quotes and arguments in your posts.
*** “When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible.”
Dr. Jackson, is all this perseverative ‘cut ‘n pasting’ of your own words within the same thread called ‘real analysis’? I’m afraid I must have misunderstood the terminology.
I think I’ll stick with my ‘emoting’ and ‘feeling’ and such. It requires less pointing and clicking.
Oz
Dr. Jackson thrusts as follows:
*** “When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible.”
Ah, yes, brilliant! We’ve come *full circle*, haven’t we? Touche!
(Of course, I appear to have rounded the bases, twice, and you’ve merely hunched over home plate in a defensive crouch.)
Still nothing substantive to add, Dr. Jackson?
(And please, no more cut ‘n pastes from your original post. It’s not wearing very well. It’s like Vogon poetry.)
Oz
>Still nothing substantive to add, Dr. Jackson?
*** “[T]he hyperventilation over “torture” continues at a fevered pace. … What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis. Torture — according to today’s definition — is severe mental or physical stress (no actual lasting, or permanent, physical or mental harm is necessary). The concept of torture is not just synonymous with “enhanced interrogation techniques;” today anything that is identified as “enhanced” is automatically considered “torture.” The two words are treated as if they are identical, even though they mean qualitatively different things.
We could talk about a legal definition of torture — whom it applies to, whom it doesn’t, how its abstract terms (“severe,” “intimidating,” “coercive,” “mental anguish,” etc.) are actually defined in a legal and practical sense, and what entities have the authority to make these determinations regarding the actions of American officials. We could actually have people versed in the law debate this.
But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decide that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. …
I’ve compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes “torture.”
You can use these as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
That all you got, Dr. Jackson? Very well then.
[Ozzie sails off into the sunset]
(for the moment, at least)
Oz
>That all you got, Dr. Jackson?
*** Here’s a link to an article where I discuss how people substitute their own opinions about torture for an analysis of the subject and its complexities: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/05/05/tortured-logic/
it does not improve the humor much either.
Only from your perspective, I can assure you. Irony, unfortunately, being lost on the ironic, after all.
Patrick: It is amazing, isn’t it, that every “response’ from Ozzie (including his non-satirical satirical admission of emoting rather than thinking) was addressed in the original article.
My philosophy is, why write something new when the issue has already been addressed in the original article? But I am grateful for the illustration of my points.
Say Phil,
The National Council for the Recognition of Anger and Prejudice (NCRAP) defines torture thusly:
Torture may be defined as any act that the receiving participant perceives as cruel, harsh, unusual, bizarre, unfriendly, caustic, antagonistic, rude, impolite, unpleasant, debasing, degrading, dehumanizing, disincentivizing, uninspiring, ill-humored or disagreeable.
The International Center for the Acceptance and Non-torture of Terrorists (ICANT) has said in written declarations that all terrorists, excepting those with masochistic preferences, universally find “squirtgunning” (the shooting of detainees with hand-held pneumatically-powered water cannons) to fit the above definition.
So, as you can see, squirting detainess with water is torture. What do you have to say to that?!?! Well?!?!?!
P
Great essay, great writing, great points, but who are you to be questioning a great smear?
As someone has noted about Liberal hysteria:
“It’s not so much about the cause, it’s about feeling superior to political opponents.”
And you’re handling this non-serious babbling by a non-serious person, Oz, in a serious manner.
That’s treating him with too much importance.
Put me down as against torture & against shredding the Constitution!
And against poverty, racism, injustice.
And in favor of L-O-V-E.
Just depends, as Slick Willie might say, on your definition of these things.
And, Oz has gotta stay au courant on the latest formulation. In the MSM, it’s now “harsh interrogation techniques”. With such a vague formulation the Bush, er, Regime is certainly guilty. Of something. Off with their heads.
Good grief. This is the umpteenth thread about Torture & we have one guy who thinks that he has found the Rosetta Stone of Torture law that none of us knew about.
Judging from the comments here & elsewhere, the simplistic idea of the impenetrable Left is that The Bush Regime was guilty of “torture” in the interrogation of prisoners. And that aliens from Klingon who have never set foot on Earth are entitled to provisions of Constitutional Law not found in the Constitution itself or SCOTUS cases. And that all “civilized” people agree with them.
And yes, such commenters are entitled to their own opinion, to their own urban legends, & to their own idea of what the law shoudda been, but not to their own facts or their own version of what the law, or its “penumbras” and “emanations”, was or is now. And the idea that only those who agree with these commenters are “civilized” & that all civilized people agree with these commenters is Pauline Kael Factor 101.
But using, as they do, such phrases as “violations of the Geneva Conventions”, “The U.S. Constitution”, “common law”, “international law”, “the Ten Commandments”, “the Koran”, or The Karma Sutra”(OOPS, forget that last one), is simply an attempt to give a legal veneer to such feeeeelings, O, O, feeeeelings that “the U.S. was engaging in the interrogation of prisoners in a manner which they don’t like”.
Here’s one for them: The New Yorker has a recent article
“Hellhole – The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture?”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
The author states (& these words are used as a caption to a drawing of an obviously distressed, naked, bent over man) “POWs have reported that the simple experience of isolation is as much of an ordeal as any physical abuse they have suffered”
Is isolation torture? Yes, but only if it is under the authority of the administration, OOPS, Regime of a leader with an (R) following his Name.
Oh, but the BDS folks, apparently thinking themselves safe from further attacks by, what used to be called terrorists, know torture when they see it. Now the loony Left sites have alerted the great BDS unthinkers to the UNCAT I “definition” of “torture” & the, shall we say, “things not quite ‘torture’, but not quite nice” in UNCAT Art XVI.
But, as you’ve noted, UNCAT I doesn’t define torture except by synonym, “severe pain or suffering”. And that phrase means? Well we know what it means, er, um, you know…. And these folks have no idea of how the US, in its express reservation when agreeing to CAT, viewed Art XVI as recapitulating the “cruel and unusual” clause in the U.S. Constitution, the SCOTUS interpretations of which clause are “meandering”.
And they ignore the Bush “Regime’s” argument that The CIA’s use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, because it was a “procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards” that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese which they equate (hey, I think- don’t torture me by making me read him again – Oz forgot the Spanish Inquisition).
I would only add that for some superficial saps, life is always moot court or Nancy Grace where experts handle what appears to be a serial killer by mouthing Bumper Sticker pious incantations of their idea of the Constitution or a law, rule or reg. My Bumper sticker answer here: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. And, UNCAT has not given the squeamish a blank check to declare every discomforting thing as torture.
And, the fact that many conservatives say that they are against “torture” & against WW II Japanese methods & The Spanish Inquisition cannot be conflated into a statement that “Even Conservatives are against Waterboarding as used by the Bush Regime.”
As you’ve noted, these impressionable, emotional folks want to engage in, er, enchanting, emotional, breathless wonderment about life’s realities; they want, unaccountably, to “define torture up”, to paraphrase Charles Krauthammer’s memorable phrase. Thus, for them, “Torture = harsh”, “Torture = rough”, “Torture = stern”, or even “Torture = things we don’t do, my dears”. I suggest that they meet & hash this out in their Church/Synagogue/Mosque’s Peace & Social Justice committee & pass ever so many resolutions incorporating their feelings.
And as you also have noted, in the case of our enemies, we Define Torture Down, to paraphrase Daniel Moynihan’s memorable phrase. What happened to Daniel Pearl was not Torture, you see. Anyway, who are you to judge? You know, Root Causes. Who are you to say that these poor Middle Easterners aren’t justified at some level in this capitalist world of Big Oil, justified, that is, in striking out for their idea of justice? It’s very complex & confusing; Poverty causes beheading.
This a case for one of those Unthink Tanks like The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, which espouses, among other Big Things, “The Twelve Steps (really) to Restore Checks and Balances”, which they apparently feel the Bush Regime shredded (but which The Obama Administration see as a re-naming opportunity):
“Executive Privilege. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret legal opinions. Warrantless wiretapping. Indefinite detention. Suspension of habeas corpus. America’s system of checks and balances is eroding, upsetting the delicate balance of power set forth in the Constitution. Twelve Steps to Restore Checks and Balances proposes specific reforms designed to keep the nation secure and free, as the Constitution’s framers intended.’
They forgot to mention secret sharp-shooting at scurvy pirates without court order, but I’m sure they’ll add that.
And “Extraordinary Rendition”. Great. Let’s out Bill Clinton in the dock on that while we’re at it.
I’m reminded of a rancorous citizens’ meeting I attended in Forest Hills (NY) HS at the time of the Son of Sam killings. (The late 1970s.) Speakers included an articulate PD rep as well as all our politicians except for our US Senators. We didn’t know if this was one nut or a series of copycat nuts. We just knew that (& no criticism, for they were working night & day on this) the police were not stopping the killings. Someone had just been killed on the street on which I walked home from the subway about 1 hour after I’d passed the spot. For me it was personal. Anyway, there was one older guy who said that he was a Holocaust survivor & that we couldn’t use Nazi or jackboot tactics on suspects. I think it fair to say that the audience was not in agreement even though I suspect that many there were Holocaust survivors or had relatives who were.
Another lawyers’ bumper sticker: Hard cases make bad law.
Hey, put me down as against Nazi jackboot stuff.
But that’s Crim Law 101. As many have noted, if we have to Mirandize every prisoner of war on the foreign battlefield & videotape captures, we are not fighting wars as wars.
P
BTW, ya gotta learn the template:
We as a people are not better than any other people, which is why The One went on his Apology Tour.
We embraced the legality of torture (anything which produces, you know, results) before we embraced the illegality of torture, proving that we, as a people and a country are not better than any others. Further apologies needed.
All others embraced the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to torture (& don’t ask them to define “torture”), so that those of us who preen, with absolute certainty, about our moral deficiencies never have to face reality.
Does that mean that now by our own embrace of the illegality of torture that we are on a higher moral plain than any of these other countries? That we, as a people and a country, are better than them?
We are now on “a darkling plain”.
Hey if JFK were to ask Arthur Krock to write his senior thesis today would it be entitled:
“While America Litigated”?
Or,
“While America Preened”?
Patrick: If squirting with water is torture, then showering is a form of torture. I’d suggest that we abandon waterboarding and just force Gitmo prisoners to shower to make them talk. It will probably be a life changing experience for them.
Inwood: I read a great comment recently that solves the entire issue. Give prisoners captured on the battlefield or in their terror hideouts five seconds to talk. If they don’t, then shoot them. They may end up dead, but at least they won’t be tortured; and once word of the policy gets around, it will help stimulate further cooperation.
But, a word of caution. If we do treat these people unkindly, we run a real risk that terrorists may start to target innocent civilians, or abuse and behead captured American soldiers, rather than embrace the Geneva Convention like they do now. What? The terrorists do this anyway, and have been doing this long before we started the non-defunct war on terrorism? Well, I guess this means that they’ll kill more innocent people, and chop off a prisoner’s head twice, because we played loud music and didn’t warn them before we arrested them. So, “torture” is definitely out. No caterpillars or kneeling, damnit. And per Patrick’s link, showers are definitely out too.
P
The BDS folks here & elsewhere have constructed the following syllogism:
Torture is outlawed.
Waterboarding is Torture
QED Waterboarding is outlawed.
They have used this syllogism at several levels, moral & legal.
I would agree with them that, legally, Obama & his Administration are working from the above syllogism, or an alternative premise: every interrogation technique used by the Bushies was illegal & none will be used in the new Administration.
I do understand that Obama is now President & that legally I have to live with that result.
Now, they also have to understand that the Bushies, based on a legal opinion, worked from the following syllogism:
Torture is outlawed.
Waterboarding & other EIT we plan to use are not Torture.
QED Neither waterboarding or other EITs we plan to use are outlawed.
OK,
Now, we do not have Bills of Attainder or ex-post facto laws, so they have to live with the fact that Bush & his minions are not guilty of law breaking since what they did was not illegal ‘til Obama made it so.
Also, I question the Groucho Marks’ method of criticizing the Bush Administration’s actions: “Whatever it is I’m against it”. And, we are not a banana republic where the new administration has to dispose of the members of the old administration because it fears a re-taking coup.
But there is a solution going forward. The One has not made it perfectly clear that he’s completely in sync with MoveOn on the meaning of the phrase du jour, “harsh interrogation techniques”. So, if the goal of good compassionate people is to completely eliminate “torture” or any “harsh interrogation techniques” rather than vengeance or BDS, we now have a Dem Congress & President, & let’s forget vague violations of “the Geneva Conventions”, “The U.S. Constitution”, “common law”, “international law”, “the Ten Commandments”, “the Koran”, or The Karma Sutra”(OOPS, forget that last one).
QED, go thou & get the Congress &/or The Administration to adopt an encompassing, laundry-list law, rule, or reg or have the President as Commander In Chief say “revise the Army Torture (OOPS) Manual”. This law or manual would then specifically say “as used herein, ‘torture’ shall mean any technique which produces answers by prisoners, including, without limitation, harsh techniques [feel free to add to your heart’s content], waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, making prisoners eat infidel food, & telling prisoners that the Koran is all B*lls**t”.
Hint: Can it be that these Hon worthies know that if the Sears Tower, or The Statute of Liberty is flattened by a kamikaze attack in which 11 bombers get their 72 virgins but their 12th co-conspirator is still sitting in Gitmo getting fat on all the goodies the PC yentas say he must be fed, they, Congress & The One, might be blamed by the voters for not connecting the dots & preventing such attack?
Even then someone like The Hon. Rockefeller will, after a new attack, claim that he/she had a letter in his/her desk saying that for sure it was not a good idea to use terms like “harsh techniques” or “any form of waterboarding”, because he/she knew that it coudda, woudda lead to the recent new attack which we coudda, shoudda, woudda, prevented if only, you know, they’d listened to him/her….
Obama said in his inaugural speech that we must “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” That’s why “scrappleface” has a satire entitled “War On Terror’ Ends, Obama Starts ‘Case Against Terror’ ”. Some of us don’t think this L*ft/L*b*r**L (I don’t dare say the words) approach is a good one with respect to the “our safety” part.
Oz
Hey, maybe you wanted to be a lawyer but studying & actually reading things like law, rules, & regs, nevermind cases, is, you know, hard, & then writing, you know, legal papers, much less something which makes sense at any level, is, um, like, confusing & so you’ve decided to be a troll & try to pontificate on Conservative blogs.
And being unable to, you know, add anything of legal substance about a topic on which you know nothing, you respond to a complex point simply by bromides, cant, anecdotes, hectoring, name calling, applying generalized opinions of the chattering class to specific events, & questioning your opponents’ belief in our laws. Hey, questioning our belief in our laws. Is that the mirror image of someone on the Right questioning your patriotism? As you’d say “just a thought”, only this time it’s really a thought.
Well, in many instances, blog peer review is, you know, harder & in fact you’re being reviewed by thy betters. (BTW, that latter phrase is from Shakespeare. just want to elevate the tone here.)
Inwood: You are injecting actual analysis into a comment section that has been ozzified up to this point with opinions and feelings instead of actual thought. Are you trying to be provocative, or just unaware that for important issues like what actually constitutes “torture”, the side with the most opinions (or Google hits) ‘wins’.
Let me add the words of Heather MacDonald:
Let me end with the words of Heather MacDonald:
“In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.”
Inwood. You may have to spell it out for Ozzie that you are an actual lawyer, and that in a discussion of violating the “law”, understanding what the law is from a legal perspective actually counts for something. It’s not just what you personally feel, or ‘another opinion’ where all opinions are equal, and the side with the most opinions prevails.
P
You got me in between posts.
Re Google hits, it’s quality not quantity!
BTW,
You’re a prophet.
The One has said something about restarting military commissions for trying detainees. It’s, you know, kinda, sorta, something like, you know, his constant & strident comments about Warmongers & Torturers during the campaign were, you know, meant to fool the loony left & the terminally compassionate.
Or maybe he really stupidly thought that some other countries would take these poor, er, pawns off our hands. Please tell me that he was a liar, not stupid.
Inwood
PS See this:
From the Althouse blog
I made a bet that Obama would not close Guantanamo.
Here’s my bet. And here’s the sleight of hand that will keep Guantanamo open:
House Democrats are refusing to pay for President Barack Obama’s plan to relocate prisoners from the Guantanamo detention facility where enemy combatants are being held.
Obama has signed an executive order to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early next year. But the Pentagon has yet to come up with a plan on where to put the 240 or so prisoners. Between 50-100 are likely to be sent to the United States.
No lawmaker wants the accused terrorists in their (sic) backyard.
House Democrats unveiled a $94.4 billion war funding bill Monday and it had no money for the relocation plan.
Ha ha. I’m on to you people.
Dr. Jackson –
Say, what do you mean when you talk about “torture”, Dr. Jackson? Can you provide a legal definition? (Could there be such a thing?)
Inwood: I appreciate the plug for my past Obama predictions, but the truth is, anybody can figure out that the O-man lies — whether it’s about Gitmo, tax cuts, not intending to socialize the US economy, etc. — so there’s nothing really significan here (other than common sense) in predicting these outcomes.
>Dr. Jackson? Can you provide a legal definition [for torture]?
*** We could actually have people versed in the law debate this. [Note to file: I am not a lawyer]. But what’s the fun in that when we can just apply our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject … In other words, why ask questions like: if torture involves something “severe,” what exactly is the non-abstract definition of “severe”? Is “severe” a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?). Or is it simply what you yourself consider to be stressful, and therefore “severe”? Like I said, though, actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people’s style, not to mention interfering with blaming Bush for certain things that Obama is excused for doing.
> (Could there be such a thing?)
Ozzie Comment #2: “The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.”
>Say, what do you mean when you talk about “torture”
*** When everything is “torture”, nothing is “torture”.
“I’ve compiled a list of opinions (since real analysis is so passé these days) about what constitutes “torture.” … “You can use [the list] as a practical guide to condemn people you disagree with politically by pretending to take a moral high road that bears almost no resemblance to the real world in which you live. But, it does let you state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.”
Torture the terrorist b*st*rds.
I’m a barbarian, you see.
Patrick M
Been out all day after writing my stuff & then came home to watch, on the Telly, the NYY lose to the Red Sox. Pure torture & two days in a row, not to mention three previous days of torture within a short period.
Anyway I like your acronyms & I like the stuff in your NCRAP & I will add it to my proposed laundry-list statute/regulation, with attribution, of course. I would, channeling Hobbs, also add “nasty” & “brutish”, just to elevate the discourse & I will change “NCRAP” to “NAZI”, “The National Association of Zero Interrogations.”
Re your water scenario, you’re treading on “watersports” here. Some might find your water spouting, er, titillating. Be more careful when writing or you may wind up on a porno site.☺
Mountain Man
Since you support torture, perhaps you’ve seen this chain e-mail going around (warning: not for the sensitive or faint hearted). I don’t know if it’s true & Snopes hasn’t touched it yet, but here goes the version I got:
“T. B. Bechtel, a City Councillor from Newcastle, was asked on a local live radio talk show just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.
“His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
“HIS STATEMENT:
“ ‘If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner’s testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say, Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.’
“I [the sender, not me] can only add ‘Amen!’ ”
Besides being a lawyer, I come from a family of electricians. In this country, “Black” would be “positive” & “White”, negative, but I digress.
I replied to each of the guys who sent me this chain e-mail as follows:
“X
“Sounds like most Urban Legends, too good to be true.
“But, after the recent famous unsuccessful pirate episode, the FBI was there on the boat taking fingerprints & DNA samples. (I’m just glad that three sets of fingerprints/DNA are of dead pirates rather than live ones.) If this, um, shocking incident you describe below occurs & the ACLU complains about it, will female FBI agents be allowed to take fingerprints or DNA from the vic’s testicles?
“Just askin.
“[Inwood]”
Raymond
Apparently you see yourself as a modern day Diogenes.
But you can’t ask us mere mortals to define “torture” in a legal sense.
In the non-totalitarian world, drafters of criminal codes define the crimes they are trying to prevent or, failing prevention, to provide proper punishment for violations thereof.
Philosophically this is stated as “Everything is allowed which is not expressly forbidden.”
So Phil or the Bushies do not have to define torture; the would-be “preventers” & accusers do.
As my legal draftsmanship text puts it about what kind of definitions to use in legal documents: “should he (it’s an old text) choose the method of synonym, analysis, synthesis, or denotation? If denotation, should he make the definition exhaustive or partial?
There is also a legal concept of “void for vagueness”. A long time ago, I worked with the then GC of the ACLU on an appellate brief arguing this concept & I would advise you that this concept itself is somewhat vague, but I digress. Let me tell you what I wrote in the “Summary of Argument section of the brief:
“A statute which either forbids or requires the performance of an act in terms which are so vague that the average reasonable man is forced to guess its meaning, interpretation, & application is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and violates due process of law.”
(Confession: I’m sure that I basically copied that from some lawyers’ form book.)
With all due respect to the drafters of UNCAT, I think that they have left the “average reasonable man” (OOPS, person) in a state of “chassis” as O’Casey would say. So Bush’s lawyers may be called many things but not dishonest when they found this “new & improved”, er, watersport to be Kosher.
And all who disagree, like the New Yorker author who seems to see “isolation” as “torture”, can solve the problem going forward (ignoring the ex-post-facto BDSers), by using my suggested statute or regulation as, er, enhanced by Pat Mulligan to show that prisoners should be treated better than the homeless in America.
You see Inwood, this is exactly what I meant by the phrase: “We could actually have people versed in the law debate this. But what’s the fun in that …”
Just how are Raymonmd and Ozzie supposed to make their points when you treat this like a serious topic?
So, Dr. Jackson, how ’bout you invite some “people versed in the law” to “debate this”? (Who’d qualify, in your estimation? Would one of the guys who wrote the ‘torture memos’ count?)
NOTICE TO THE WORLD:
I HEARBY INVITE “PEOPLE VERSED IN THE LAW” TO “DEBATE THIS”.
All you have to do is move beyond abstract terms like “severe,” “intimidating,” “coercive,” “mental anguish,” etc. and define them in “a legal and practical sense”. Specifically, questions like: “if torture involves something “severe,” what exactly is the non-abstract definition of “severe”? Is “severe” a quantified state (and if so, quantified by whom?).”
Having done this, all you then need to do is cite the relevant U.S. case law that has decided these issues so we know exactly how loud the music must be before it is considered “torture”, how big or woolly the caterpillar must be before it is considered “torture”, how far in advance we need to notify suspected terrorists before we arrest them — “You know, what some people call ‘details,’ and other people refer to as ‘just details’.”
Please state your credentials clearly in any response, with ways to validate this information, so your legal opinion can be added to the discussion as Raymond has reiterated.
This will then allow us to discuss “torture” as a legal/criminal issue, instead of “apply[ing] our own (or some commentator’s or website’s) standards to the subject, and decid[ing] that something is torture if we wouldn’t want that done to ourselves. Or, think that it’s really not a nice thing to do to someone who wants to kill innocent people, because torture produces unreliable confessions (even if we’re after information, not an admission of guilt).”
But, again a word of caution: “actually treating this subject like a real topic puts a crimp in a lot of people’s style, not to mention interfering with blaming Bush for certain things that Obama is excused for doing.”
PS: Quoting “friends” of someone who say things about a person that the person him/herself will not comment on publicly is not “the law”, or an individual’s “credentials”.
But it is exactly the kind of substituting personal opinions and agendas in the guise of analysis that I have been writing about.
Speaking of Lawyers, I couldn’t resist returning with another choice quote from Steven Bradbury. He was a Bushie, and authored some of the infamous torture memos. Oh, and of course, he’s a lawyer. So presumably he’s ‘versed in the law’.
Dr. Jackson states, with apparently sarcastic intent:
2. Waterboarding is torture as practiced by the U.S. against terrorists. It is not torture if practiced by the U.S. against American soldiers in training.
——————————————–
“Individuals undergoing SERE training are *OBVIOUSLY* in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program,” wrote Steven Bradbury, the author of two of the 2005 Justice Department memos. (CAPS courtesy of Ozzie)
Steven Bradbury, attorney and author of torture memos, past clerk for Clarence Thomas, continues:
“The waterboard technique . . . was different from the technique described in the DOJ opinion and used in the SERE training . . . At the SERE school . . . the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator . . . applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. . . . OMS [The CIA Office of Medical Services] contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologist/interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, *AS THE SERE WATERBOARD EXPERIENCE IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE SUBSEQUENT AGENCY USAGE AS TO MAKE IT ALMOST IRRELEVANT.”*
(CAPS helpfully added by Ozzie)
—————————————-
That looks like a pretty authoritative smack-down of your pet argument, Dr. Jackson, doesn’t it? If not, please provide some of your famous ‘real analysis’ refuting Mr. Bradbury.
Or, just cut ‘n paste some of your essay. Maybe that will help.
Oz
“Individuals undergoing SERE training are *OBVIOUSLY* in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation.
*** Apparently we just need to put Gitmo detainees through repeated SERE training.
10 examples of “torture” were listed, from caterpillars to loud music to kneeling to arrest without prior notification. When everything is “torture”, nothing is torture.
When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible. What you have instead is an ability to state things emphatically that require nothing more substantive than your (or some commentator or official somewhere) assessment to support your opinion.
Ozzie: The question of defining ‘severe’ mental or physical pain or suffering [i.e. what constitutes "torture"] is indeed a thorny one. I have not yet seen a reference where it is clearly defined.
*** And yet, emphatic statements are still made about whether “X” is torture.
Just a quick observation about comment 47. I noticed that the opinion was expressed that SERE training is “different” than waterboarding terrorists. I didn’t see it legally defined as “torture”.
Lots of things are different than SERE training. The question is, by what legal definition does this ‘difference” become “torture”, vs. just “different”?
This is “you know, what some people call ‘details,’ and other people refer to as ‘just details’.”