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."
Phil:
With respect to your #9, here http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34660 is the latest in the pirate episode mentioned earlier. In this case, the US Navy is alleged to have set a trap for some poor innocent folks who were just minding their own business trying to earn a living at piracy.
The lone survivor of the pirates, Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, hired attorney Ron Kuby who, “…soon began putting together a legal team to defend the pirate. ‘I think in this particular case, there’s a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas,’ said Kuby. ‘This man [Muse] seemed to come onto the USS Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody and serious questions as to whether he can be prosecuted because of his age.’
“Your eyes do not deceive you. Kuby is indeed contending that the Bainbridge crew deceptively lured, and then unjustifiably ‘captured,’ an individual who was seeking only to negotiate, in good faith, a peaceful ‘truce’ — as though he, and not the American ship, had come under unprovoked assault. Moreover, adds Kuby, this poor Somali captive is only a youngster who could not possibly have understood the grievous nature of the crime he was committing.”
Note that Dr. Jackson quotes at least seven different people (counting himself) on what constitutes torture, deliberately picking some pretty idiosyncratic definitions. You can indeed make a bad argument for any position… but that by itself doesn’t prove a good argument for that position can’t exist.
Taking Inwood’s advice, we’d need to see if the “average reasonable man” would count the actions taken by the Bush administration as ‘severe’ or not. (After all, can handcuffing a prisoner to the ceiling for days on end until his ankles and feet swell to twice their normal circumference and his legs are covered with watery blisters… really be considered torture?) I’d think a great way to do that would be, say, a 12-person jury… but that’s just me.
What’s interesting is that it seems like the people who argue that the actions didn’t fit the legal definition of torture (quoted by Ozzie above) consistently misrepresent what happened (‘caterpillar in prison cell’ vs. ‘insects in confinement box’), minimize the impact (‘forced kneeling’, for example – no big deal for a few seconds; not so bad for a few minutes if you can move and shift around a little to keep blood flowing; but try kneeling without moving for ten minutes sometime… go ahead, give it a shot…), or deliberately confuse the issue (actions that would be battery if done involuntarily are no problem if done with consent, for example – SERE trainees volunteered, prisoners didn’t).
It reminds me of asking what the definition of “is” is. Oh, well.
>Note that Dr. Jackson quotes at least seven different people (counting himself) on what constitutes torture, deliberately picking some pretty idiosyncratic definitions.
*** I did an internet search. That was the “deliberate” thing I did. These are the things that real people and organizations stated as specific examples of “torture”. I can’t help it if the people who think it’s torture if you fail to notify a terrorist in advance that he’s about to be arrested are fools.
It just underscores what I’ve been saying: “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.”
>Taking Inwood’s advice, we’d need to see if the “average reasonable man” would count the actions taken by the Bush administration as ‘severe’ or not.
*** Of course, all this is in context (interrogating a terrorist vs. questioning your daughter’s boyfriend about their date last night.) “You know, what some people call “details,” and other people refer to as “just details.”
And then there’s the question of arbitrarily disqualifying people whose definitions of torture are too “idiosyncratic” because Raymond feels they aren’t “average” or “reasonable” enough. Who is Raymond to decide their opinions must be excluded? A lot of these people voted for Obama, so their opinions may just be the new “average”. Which means that “everything is torture” if done by the Bush administration, and just an example of “keeping one’s options open” if done by the Obama administration.
>I’d think a great way to do that would be, say, a 12-person jury… but that’s just me.
*** And in the absence of a court ruling on the matter (note: links to a cartoon do not count as “court rulings”), “what we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis”, where “the side with the most opinions (or Google hits) ‘wins’.” So, the question of what specific actions actually constitute torture under US law may in fact be settled legally as I suggested — but the issue hasn’t been put to a legal test. Only opinions are offered. “And yet, emphatic statements are still made about whether “X” is torture.”
As for “the people who argue that the actions didn’t fit the legal definition of torture,” that’s precisely the issue. “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.”
>consistently misrepresent what happened (‘caterpillar in prison cell’ vs. ‘insects in confinement box’)”
*** I did acknowledge that ” we need to determine “how big or woolly the caterpillar must be before it is considered ‘torture’”, so there!
Sedona: 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.”
Dr. Jackson says:
Lots of things are different than SERE training. The question is, by what legal definition does this ‘difference” become “torture”, vs. just “different”?
Eh? I didn’t say it was torture because it was ‘different from SERE’. That doesn’t even make sense. I’m saying that even right-wing torture enthusiast Steven Bradbury admits that SERE training can’t equated to actual, torturous waterboarding. They are drastically different things.
Oz
>SERE training can’t equated to actual, torturous waterboarding. They are drastically different things.
*** So, regarding the specific point that SERE and waterboarding are “different” — “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.”
And regarding the larger point of what constitutes “torture”: “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 we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis.”
Dr. Jackson –
When did I say they “must be excluded”? Pointing out that they are unrepresentative or unpersuasive – and thus don’t make a particularly good case for or against anything – doesn’t mean they can’t be heard. Go ahead, quote them if you like. I’ll still point out that they are… er… ‘outliers’, and don’t count for much in this debate.
Actually, we should soon have something intermediate between opinion and a court ruling – written by “people versed in the law”. “The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said… It should be noted that this report was written primarily during the Bush administration, who had been conducting the investigation for several years when Obama took office.”
But I’m still hoping for a court ruling or two.
>When did I say they “must be excluded”? Pointing out that they are unrepresentative or unpersuasive – and thus don’t make a particularly good case for or against anything – doesn’t mean they can’t be heard. Go ahead, quote them if you like. I’ll still point out that they are… er… ‘outliers’, and don’t count for much in this debate.
*** Okay. They won’t be excluded as unrepresentative because Raymond considers them to be ‘outliers’; just ignored (“don’t count for much”) as unrepresentative because Raymond considers them to be ‘outliers’. That certainly clears it up; and explains why the issue was raised by Raymond in the first place???
>we should soon have something intermediate between opinion and a court ruling – written by “people versed in the law”.
*** Your honor, I want to cite as case law a soon-to-be-leaked report by the DOJ that concludes that “no criminal charges are warranted” in the unfounded accusations that Bush Administration condoned “torture”. This will be a substitute for actual law on the issue regarding which specific actions constitute “torture”. And, if that’s not sufficient to settle the legal matter, “I’m still hoping for a court ruling or two” at some point in the future. Until then, “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.”
PS: I’m “hoping” for a nice bonus at Christmas this year. Since “hope” has now been elevated to something of substance, I guess this means the recession is officially over.
Wonder of wonders, the Yale Law Journal Note on interrogation law and policy by William Ranney Levi -link on powerlineblog,com – is a great read that deals with substance. After all the emoto-fodder on the subject – an intern coined the phrase- Levi’s journal note actually sheds light on the historicity of enhanced interrogation as well as the legality.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1389511 [click on SSRN if it doesn't open]
jb: I’m afraid we cannot accept your post as a useful contribution to this discussion.
It links to a legal abstract of a neutral third party actually schooled in relevant law. It does not link to a cartoon, or left-leaning website which uses a third party anonymous source to summarize selected points from a leaked document.
Obviously, you have no idea of the rigorous standards the “emotos” have established to label an action “torture”; specifically:
1. Would you want it done to you?
2. Did Bush do it?
3. Did Obama do it too, but that’s okay?
4. Was it done to make a captured terrorist confess that he is a captured terrorist, instead of something silly like extracting information from him about an upcoming attack?
5. How do you youself feel about the issue — do you personally think it’s “torture”?
Nice try. But we have standards here to uphold.
Ha ha, you got me with the first line, Phil! Seriously though, one of the reasons I saunter through your posts and the myriad comments is for my daily fix of sanity. Reading your rebuttals reminds me that there are pockets of rationality in a world run amok with emoto-fodder.
Emoto-answers:
1] No, I would not want to be tortured any more than I would want to have a bad hair day!
2] Bush is a conservative so his thoughts – by defacto- rise to the level of criminality.
3] Obama may do it, but he’ll do it with style…PLUS, he’ll say nice things that’ll make the torturee [and compatriots] feel good about America.
4] Huh? Of course it was all about getting captives to admit their terrorist bonafides….Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to torture them about an upcoming attack, duh….
5] I feel tortured about the torturous logic of the argument.
jb: I love the “emoto-fodder”. I’m going to use this term again and again.
By the way, don’t laugh at #4. There are folks who think the whole purpose of aggressive interrogation (aka “torture”) was to get the terrorists to “confess”. It’s a throwback to the idea that this is all a legal — not military — issue. And, since “torture” is synonymous with false confessions, it’s used to automatically denigrate being unkind to the bad guys.
In actuality, any information secured via any technique beyond serving mint tea and cookies can be checked and verified. But, as we say, that’s “just a detail”, instead of “a detail
just for fun:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31765
Ok,I am just gonna come out of the “heartless” closet and admit that I laughed at Ann Coulter’s piece [hat tip to LI Mike for linking to it]. Just last week, as I heard various outraged sputterings from the sputtering outraged about the Japanese soldiers who were executed for waterboarding our soldiers, things just didn’t add up [to put it mildly]. Ann Coulter adds things up and puts them in sizzling perspective.
Here’s a clip:
“To claim that the Japanese — architects of the Bataan Death March — were prosecuted for “waterboarding” would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.”
Yup…
Good grief
Much great stuff here. And more of the usual nonsense from Ray & Oz
Where to begin?
jb: Thanks for the citation to the YLJ. Excellent points. A must read, but don’t tell Oz or Ray.
LI Mike: Thanks for the Ann C article. The “Jap-executed-for-waterboarding-exactly-like-the-CIA-did-in-2002-&-ff” Urban Legend will, alas live on through repetition by MSNBC.
Let me give you both two cites to Andy McCarthy:
(1) The Justice Department’s Torture Hypocrisy
Investigate Bush lawyers’ torture analysis one day, cite it favorably the next.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=
PS Don’t tell crazed lefties about the Third Circuit’s Pierre case (I’m borrowing from AMc) involving a refugee under an order for deportation who fought removal under UNCAT, claiming that, due to various maladies, he would suffer excruciating pain and die if sent to a Haitian jail, where he would unquestionably be denied necessary medical care. The court held that “knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct” was “not enough for a finding of specific intent” to torture — the exactingly high mental state prescribed in UNCAT and the U.S. torture statute. To prove torture, it would be necessary for a prosecutor to show “the additional deliberate and conscious purpose of accomplishing” severe pain and suffering. Without an evil motive to torture the victim, there is no torture even if great pain and suffering result.
(2)The Torture Follies — Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse …
“But now there’s more. As Jan Crawford Greenburg reports at her ABC News blog, Legalities, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility — by playing partisan politics — has blown the critical filing deadline for referring Prof. Yoo for professional sanctions. Don’t get me wrong, this is a very good thing — as I’ve been arguing, there is no legal or ethical basis to pursue this cockamamie investigation.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmQ1MTI3Y2I2ZjQzMzU2MjVmYmM5YzY3NTU1MjkyNjc=
Let me also give you a cite to The Federalist Society Online Debate Series last week on the issue, including Andy McC:
http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/
Next, Ray #44 Here’s what Bybee said, acc to the NYT:
” ‘…The central question for lawyers was a narrow one; locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct.’
“Other administration lawyers agreed with those conclusions, Judge Bybee said.
“ ‘The legal question was and is difficult,;’ he said. ‘And the stakes for the country were significant no matter what our opinion. In that context, we gave our best, honest advice, based on our good-faith analysis of the law.’ ”
Get that?
PS: OPR, like the Civil Rights Division, is largely a bastion of the Left at DOJ, no matter if there is a Republican President.
OZ # 47: P has effectively answered your comment in his subsequent posts.
Just let me add two points: First, when you refer to a lawyer as having been a clerk for Justice Thomas, you have obviously just cut & pasted some nonsense from a Leftist site.
And, second if you want to play in the big leagues, you gotta give a citation to your reference to the SERE waterboarding. Google-ing “Steven Bradbury” produces a number of things like a 50 page memo in pdf form. It’s up to you to at least lead us to the context. BTW, doesn’t the use of the word “almost” kinda, sorta, weaken the argument of irrelevance?
But once again, as P has noted, you keep ignoring our point that the Bushies, at least up to 2004 or 05, when they stopped waterboarding, were operating from what I construe to be the following syllogism:
Torture is illegal
Waterboarding* is not torture.
QED, Waterboarding* was not illegal.
*Meaning the process used by the 21st Century CIA not those of either the Japanese in WW II or Torquemada.
Finally, here’s a new buzz word for all you torture mavens. (H/T Commentary.) NPR had a program on torture, & claimed that waterboarding, as practiced on the three high-level al-Qaeda detainees by the CIA, does produce “negative psychological repercussions”.
As noted by a commenter; “NPR = ‘negative psychological repercussions’ Coincidence?”
Inwood: It looks like “negative psychological repercussions” the torture-equivalent to “global climate change”.
When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible.
Inwood, a couple of your points seem relatively substantive, so I’ll give you some more ‘nonsense’ in reply.
Inwood says
————————————–
And, second if you want to play in the big leagues, you gotta give a citation to your reference to the SERE waterboarding. Google-ing “Steven Bradbury” produces a number of things like a 50 page memo in pdf form. It’s up to you to at least lead us to the context. BTW, doesn’t the use of the word “almost” kinda, sorta, weaken the argument of irrelevance?
—————————————
Fortunately, I see precious little evidence that IC is ‘the big leagues’. But anyhow, the source where I originally saw the quote is Time Magazine Online Swampland:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/05/more-interrogation-documents-and-the-fundamental-disservice/#more-12687
They are quoting this document:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/v-print/story/66895.html
Now, keep in mind, I only cite Bradbury’s words, not the opinions of the writers quoting him. If you feel that he is being misquoted or misrepresented, let me know and I will try to correct the record.
————————————
Bradbury:
Bradbury said the inspector general reported: “OMS 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.”
Mr. Inwood asks:
doesn’t the use of the word “almost” kinda, sorta, weaken the argument of irrelevance?
———————————-
Yes, it does. So? I think you’re grasping at straws.
Even I would not claim that SERE is *completely irrelevant* to a determination of whether waterboarding inflicts severe suffering. That would be a goofy and untenable position. I agree with the ‘almost’, and think it is an appropriate qualifier. How does that change the fundamental point?
————————————-
Just let me add two points: First, when you refer to a lawyer as having been a clerk for Justice Thomas, you have obviously just cut & pasted some nonsense from a Leftist site.
Well, I guess so, if Wikipedia is a ‘Leftist web site’. I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys think so.
I was using that factoid to emphasize my oft-repeated theme that it is *not only the Left* saying that SERE training is far different from what was inflicted on the detainees.
And it is *not only the Left* that believes torture was committed.
And there are plenty of lawyers on both sides of this argument, so I see no evidence that legal training predisposes one to either side.
To be continued…
Oz
“When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible.” [Dr. Phil]
Have you noticed the degree to which liberals pride themselves on being high context? Unfortunately, in practice, this means that they make extravagant assumptions about what is meant based upon personal projection. In my experience, most people are abysmal mind readers; those that pride themselves the most are the worst. From mind-reading, it is a small jump to criminalizing thoughts.
A great example of a low context comment being sifted through a high context communicator is the famous/infamous “…I want Obama to fail” comment by Limbaugh. I read and reread the transcript of that comment. Limbaugh very clearly laid the perameters of success – ie.[paraphrasing Limbaugh's comment] IF by success, you mean that Obama is able to enact his policies of socialism which I think are bad for America, then YES I want him to fail – and made a very simple statement that Obama’s political success would be a failure for this country. Yet, all over the country, there were outraged sputterings by the sputtering outraged that Limbaugh wanted his country to fail. They knew this, though he had clearly stated otherwise, because they just knew that’s what he really meant.
When it comes to communications regarding race, the scenario becomes even more precarious. Words have been given coded meanings by those who see racism under every rock. Arrogantly, they have given themselves the lofty privilege of rewriting the language. Since they live in an echo chamber, they make the assumption that their meaning is the widespread meaning. While languages do tend to morph over time, this ain’t how it’s done.
Frankly, it is not possible to debate mind readers.
>”… that believes torture was committed.”
*** “What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis.” If you “believe” something is true, it’s true. That’s the standard of proof needed to support your position. No need to actually understand the issue.
> And there are plenty of lawyers on both sides of this argument, so I see no evidence that legal training predisposes one to either side.
*** Comment 33: 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’.”
Why “link to a legal abstract of a neutral third party actually schooled in relevant law [when you can just cite] a cartoon, or left-leaning website which uses a third party anonymous source to summarize selected points from a leaked document.”
Inwood, as I read the Swampland report, and then the McClatchy thing (quoting Bradbury’s memo to the administration) it is blurry how much of the opinions expressed belong to Bradbury, and how much he is quoting the Inspector General’s report. The McClatchy article phrases things like this:
“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,” Bradbury wrote, borrowing from the IG report’s conclusion.
I find it reasonable to conclude that Mr. Bradbury is in accord the that opinion(that SERE is different from the interrogations), or else why would he say it like that, and turn it in to the Administration?
But it is theoretically possible to be uncertain about precisely what Bradbury believed, versus what the Inspector General told him. I am happy to point that out, in the interests of fairness. “Fairness”, I have been told in a different thread, is a juvenile Liberal preoccupation, but I am still rather attached to it.
I see no reason at all to cross Mr. Bradbury off the list of right-wingers who have expressed, or are expressing, the same points that I have made on this board.
It’s not just the Left, guys.
Oz
Dr. Jackson, you seem like a very repetitive fellow. In the last 70 comments, you have not seemed to express a single thought that was not just quoting or repeating yourself.
It is really almost hypnotizing, kind of like watching windshield wipers slapping back and forth on a rainy highway. You should try and think of some new things to say, or I may need to see my doctor about a prescription for Provigil.
Oz
Anyhow, although Inwood seems benighted, he is at least providing some new material. Let me produce more nonsense for him.
Inwood says:
Jan Crawford Greenburg reports at her ABC News blog, Legalities, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility — by playing partisan politics — has blown the critical filing deadline for referring Prof. Yoo for professional sanctions.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. The incompetence or politicization of bureaucrats has nothing to do with whether Yoo’s actions deserve professional sanctions. This seems irrelevant.
Inwood quotes Bybee:
“Other administration lawyers agreed with those conclusions, Judge Bybee said.
“ ‘The legal question was and is difficult,;
I agree with Bybee. All these questions are difficult. This also seems irrelevant. It was all over the political blogs and news sites a few days ago that he was expressing some regret or ambivalence about his role. Good for him, but it doesn’t make any difference. What’s your point?
Oz
>In the last 70 comments, you have not seemed to express a single thought that was not just quoting or repeating yourself.
*** Comment 26: “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.”
Inwood characterizes the Administration’s reasoning
Torture is illegal
Waterboarding* is not torture.
QED, Waterboarding* was not illegal.
*Meaning the process used by the 21st Century CIA not those of either the Japanese in WW II or Torquemada.
I also don’t know what this syllogism is supposed to add to the discussion. I think I may be missing your point.
Yes of course, that DOES seem to be what they believed. Naturally, the point is that the second sentence seems in error. Waterboarding DOES seem to meet the commonly used definitions of torture, especially when combined with all of the other rather brutal mistreatment outlined in the Red Cross report I quote at the beginning of this thread.
I’ve given my reasons why sentence #2 is incorrect, many times—not opinions, but facts.
I’ve also quoted many thoughtful commentators (including numerous conservatives) who agree that our treatment of the detainees meets the definition of torture.
I see nothing in your post (or Dr. Jackson’s) that even begins to refute my points, or those of the conservative commentators I’ve quoted.
It’s not just the Left, guys.
Oz
Inwood points out:
*Meaning the process used by the 21st Century CIA not those of either the Japanese in WW II or Torquemada.
Nobody said they were the same. I assume the Japanese were much more brutal than the CIA, and Torquemada? Didn’t he burn people alive and stuff?
Torture exists on a continuum, like anything else. Just because our waterboarding is not the most barbaric torture once can imagine, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t fit a reasonable definition of torture.
Why is it that you guys either 1) intentionally mischaracterize the detainee treatment so as to grossly minimize or ridicule it (‘fraternity hazing’, ‘putting caterpillars in a cell’), or 2) compare it with the most heinous tortures imaginable to minimize it?
Why not just provide a definition of torture, and/or define the word ‘severe physical/mental suffering’ and explain why our treatment of the detainees doesn’t apply to it.
Oz
I do have to concede, Dr. Jackson, that contrary to my prediction, you’ve not yet erupted in sputtering rage and began calling me names, like ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, and ‘lightweight’, like you have in every other discussion.
It appears that, if you do not have juvenile name-calling to rely on, you are pretty much out of ammunition. Hence the deadening and soul-destroying repetition of your previous comments.
Are you sure you are not a Performance Artist, Dr. Jackson? One way to interpret your perseverative cut ‘n pasting is to view it as an ironical commentary on the process of torture, causing the reader to come to terms with his own latent anxieties about the repetitive waterboardings and loud music inflicted by our CIA on the detainees, constructing a compelling portrait of anguish in the negative space of electronic commentary.
Ah, probably not. I think you’re just out of ammo.
Oz
>I see nothing in your post (or Dr. Jackson’s) that even begins to refute my points …
“In a debate, the people you speak directly to will never change their minds, no matter what you say. Your real focus is the people listening to the conversation who have nothing invested in either position, and will decide which of you makes the better case.”
> … or those of the conservative commentators I’ve quoted.
“What we have instead are opinions [whether they are “Liberal,” “moderate” or supposedly “Conservative” doesn’t matter] disguised as analysis.”
“When everything is torture, nothing is torture”.
> Inwood says “Waterboarding is not torture.” Ozzie says: “I’ve given my reasons why [what Inwood says] is incorrect, many times”. But Ozzie also says [Comment #49]: “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.
>I do have to concede, Dr. Jackson, that contrary to my prediction, you’ve not yet erupted in sputtering rage and began calling me names, like ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, and ‘lightweight’
*** “Ideas are stupid, not people. But truly stupid people will fail to see this distinction.”
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/07/words-to-live-by/
>One way to interpret your perseverative cut ‘n pasting is to view it as an ironical commentary
*** “Irony is lost on the ironic.” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/07/words-to-live-by/
Ozzie –
It’s almost as if they thought that the “average reasonable… person” would conclude those actions were torture if they were accurately presented.
>It’s almost as if they thought that the “average reasonable… person” would conclude those actions were torture if they were accurately presented.
Examples of what “average, reasonable people” (on the Left) think torture is:
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.
It just underscores what I’ve been saying: “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.”
Note: This opinions are not to be “excluded” in determining what we want to believe torture is (no need to actually look at the law; opinions will do fine). They are just to be ‘ignored’ per Raymond.
>Comment 58: When did I say they “must be excluded”? Pointing out that they are unrepresentative or unpersuasive – and thus don’t make a particularly good case for or against anything – doesn’t mean they can’t be heard. Go ahead, quote them if you like. I’ll still point out that they are… er… ‘outliers’, and don’t count for much in this debate.
*** Okay. They won’t be excluded as unrepresentative because Raymond considers them to be ‘outliers’; just ignored (“don’t count for much”) as unrepresentative because Raymond considers them to be ‘outliers’.
“When everything is “torture”, nothing is “torture”.
You see what Dr. Jackson did there? He compiled a random list of the most outré opinions he could find. But the law, as Inwood pointed out, requires the ‘reasonable person standard’. The fact that Dr. Jackson can easily find unreasonable persons doesn’t mean that there are no reasonable persons.
Indeed, the fact that there are average, reasonable persons is apparently what makes it necessary for him to misrepresent what was done.
> Why is it that you guys … grossly minimize or ridicule it
*** Note the sources listed in the article I wrote [all are Left-wing, so maybe the inherent ridiculousness is a point well taken]:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/documents/td_transcript.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7180
http://coloradoindependent.com/19970/colorado-aclu-supermax-move-for-gitmo-detainees-would-mock-justice
etc.
> Why is it that you guys … compare it with the most heinous tortures imaginable
Ozzie: Torture exists on a continuum, like anything else.
To claim that the Japanese — architects of the Bataan Death March — were prosecuted for “waterboarding” would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.
What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners’ healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves.
While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial, similar to what happens during an R. Kelly trial.
The Japanese “water cure” was to “waterboarding” as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary “honey.”
The Japanese version of “waterboarding” was to fill the prisoner’s stomach with water until his stomach was distended — and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.
Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner’s nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.
Or they would “waterboard” the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.
Meanwhile, the alleged “torture” under the Bush administration consists of things like:
– “failing to respect a Serbian national holiday”; or
– “forgetting to wear plastic gloves while handling a Quran.”
“When everything is “torture,” nothing is torture.”
>You see what Dr. Jackson did there? He compiled a random list of the most outré opinions he could find.
*** Note some of the “random list of the most outré opinions”
1. Award winning documentary: TORTURING DEMOCRACY ANNOTATED TRANSCRIPT Produced by Washington Media Associates In Association with the National Security Archive listed at the George Washington University Archives.
2. UK Telegraph
3. Center for Research on Globalization
4. Colorado Independent newspaper quoting the ACLU
This is what the Left considers reasoned thought on the issue of torture.
“When you’ve lost the language, debate is impossible. What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis.”
Ah, yes. If something is less brutal, that means it’s not brutal. Of course.
For an interesting contrast, here’s what an effective interrogation operation looks like.
Raymond says:
Ozzie–
It’s almost as if they thought that the “average reasonable… person” would conclude those actions were torture if they were accurately presented.
That would be my theory as well. I read a recent poll where 70% of Americans polled thought waterboarding is torture. Natch, conservatives might argue that this is due to media bias, etc, but given the number of responsible conservative opinion leaders I have cited that feel the same way (Jonah Goldberg, Manzi, Noonan, George Will, etc), it looks like reasonable people do look at all this and see it for what it is. Not the WORST torture imaginable, but torture nonetheless.
Oz
Dr. Jackson, I know you have a passion for reasoned, objective debate (because you’ve said so).
If you did happen to feel like rejoining the discussion, I do hope you flag it for me somehow, so that I can notice it and respond.
I’m just sort of ignoring or briefly glancing at your posts at this point, since they are all just re-quoting yourself. I’ve read and refuted all of that stuff previously.
Just didn’t want you to think I am avoiding any points you might make–it’s just too hard to wade through all that yah-yah to find anything new.
Oz
Raymond: “If something is less brutal, that means it’s not brutal.”
Ozzie: “Torture exists on a continuum, like anything else.” “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.
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 read a recent poll where 70% of Americans polled thought waterboarding is torture. [of course, no citation is given]
“80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.” http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
“More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.” http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
“An ever-increasing percentage of people believe that the lunar landings were a hoax perpetrated by the government.” http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_moon_landings_have_there_been
“nearly 16 million American adults still believe Elvis is alive” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60353,00.html
‘Forty-seven percent of the respondents rated African Americans as prone to violence, 21.9 percent rated African Americans as unintelligent, and 21.9 percent rated African Americans as lazy.” http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day28/default.aspx?p=2
“What we have instead are opinions disguised as analysis,” (and a good reason why public opinion should not be the primary basis for making policy).
“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.”
Phil, you simply don’t understand what Raymond Ingles is trying to express because you are not “average” or “reasonable”. “Average” and “reasonable” people are those with whom Raymond Ingles agrees – most especially the people who write for his favorite political ‘blogs, which are the source of all truth and enlightenment in the world. The people you cited are not reasonable because they do not agree with Raymond. It is YOU who has “lost the languge”. You see?
Patrick: It’s all beginning to make sense now …
That, and the fact that ‘I believe’, ‘I feel’, ‘it’s my opinion (and the opinion of others too’), and a statement that ‘the Bush administration tortures’ isn’t actually an analysis of the issue. But like I said before, there are “details”, and “just details”.
Dr. Jackson, I agree that public opinion polls should not drive any kind of debate, although it puts into context how much your position is shrinking. This is why I mention it only in passing.
However, I notice that you’ve not commented on the prominent conservatives that, as I also noted above, believe that what we did seems like torture.
They are, among others:
Jonah Goldberg
George Will
John McCain
Peggy Noonan
Rick Warren
Now, I assume you’ll say they are mistaken. So, are they also operating only on ‘feelings’, and incapable of analysis, as you say I am?
If so, what does that do to your pet theory that conservatives use facts and logic, whereas it is predominantly liberals who operate on ‘feelings’ and ‘emote’, and so on?
Or maybe, like Mountain Man stated, you are so far off the fringe of the right wing that people like George Will are ‘not conservatives’ to you.
Oz
Since Jonah Goldberg, George Will, John McCain, Peggy Noonan and Rick Warren are all legal scholars and have all explicity formulated and published precise legal definitions of what actions, and what extent or degree of those actions, constitutes “torture”, it is indeed baffling that Phil will not respond to your cogent use of their complex legal theories in your own strict legal definition of what actions, and what extent or degree of those actions, constitutes torture. I guess he’s just intimidated by your brilliance – you’ve stupefied and befuddled him yet again. I suppose the only “response” he’ll be able to muster is to repeat the same charges from his original piece, despite the fact that you’ve so clearly constructed and explained a complete and thorough strict legal definition of what actions, and what degrees of those actions, constitute “torture”. He just doesn’t get it, that guy.
>I read a recent poll where 70% of Americans polled thought waterboarding is torture.
*** [of course, no citation is given]
>I notice that you’ve not commented on the prominent conservatives that, as I also noted above, believe that what we did seems like torture.
*** Comment 78: “What we have instead are opinions [whether they are “Liberal,” “moderate” or supposedly “Conservative” doesn’t matter] disguised as analysis.”
“We could actually have people versed in the law debate this. But what’s the fun in that …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’.”
“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.”
Dr. Jackson says:
To claim that the Japanese — architects of the Bataan Death March — were prosecuted for “waterboarding” would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.
My goodness, why do you conflate the torture prosecutions of the Japanese with the Bataan Death March and those other brutalities? Of course, the Japanese did many bestial things beyond waterboarding. How is that relevant?
My understanding is that the Japanese soldier Asano was specifically charged with torture by beating and *waterboarding* (a description of waterboarding was in the specific charges), and it was against a handful of specific Americans. So, he was not charged with far-reaching crimes (although he did other cruel things as well) – he was charged pretty narrowly with beating and waterboarding a small number of persons. And sentenced to 15 years at hard labor, because the US considered his acts of beating and waterboarding to be torture and crimes.
Furthermore, the American sheriff I mention previously – convicted of waterboarding and sentenced to prison – was charged with waterboarding, and not much else was mentioned. So he didn’t need to commit any acts of horrific brutality beyond that, for the US government to find him guilty of brutal mistreatment (as far as I’ve seen).
The Japanese, the Germans, the Russians, the Inquisition, the people in Salem… all through history, there have been barbaric acts. Just because waterboarding doesn’t rise to the level of the worst heinous crimes, doesn’t mean it isn’t A CRIME under the law. Why keep bringing up those things? They aren’t relevant.
Oz
“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.”
Dr. Jackson drags out a straw man and tortures him severely:
Meanwhile, the alleged “torture” under the Bush administration consists of things like:
– “failing to respect a Serbian national holiday”; or
– “forgetting to wear plastic gloves while handling a Quran.”
Again, Dr. Jackson, why not debate the people that are actually here, rather than some bizarre goofiness?
Oz
>Just because waterboarding doesn’t rise to the level of the worst heinous crimes, doesn’t mean it isn’t A CRIME under the law.
Note to file: It doesn’t mean it “is a crime” either.
“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.”
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”?
From Inwood: But once again, as P has noted, you keep ignoring our point that the Bushies, at least up to 2004 or 05, when they stopped waterboarding, were operating from what I construe to be the following syllogism:
Torture is illegal
Waterboarding* is not torture.
QED, Waterboarding* was not illegal.
*Meaning the process used by the 21st Century CIA not those of either the Japanese in WW II or Torquemada.
There is no legal ruling that what the Bush Administration did is a “crime”. Rather, “Like I said, 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.
I don’t debate “bizarre goofiness.” I simply acknowledge that it exists by reproducing the relevant quotes, and refer bact to the article I wrote to show why it’s “foofy”.
I must confess to being baffled by this sudden awe of the legal profession being shown here. I seem be hearing that if people are not legally trained or legal analysts, they cannot coherently analyze or meaningfully comment on the issue of torture. Could that really be the view here?
The death penalty, abortion, immigration law, the war on drugs, Obama’s birth certificate…all of these issues have fundamental legal aspects, yet I see no hesitancy on Intellectual Conservative for people to opine upon them in detail.
Patrick, why is it relevant whether any folks expressing an opinion are “legal scholars and have all explicity formulated and published precise legal definitions…”? A
Are you saying that if a matter concerns a legal distinction, then George Will should be disregarded as a source of productive analysis?
This is a just little Internet message board, you guys, not a court. Dr. Jackson has expressed (poorly and confusingly) a view that the treatment of the detainees is NOT torture. He’s not legally trained, as far as I know, and it wouldn’t matter to me if he were.
Why doesn’t he explain his own definition of torture, and what constitutes ‘severe mental/physical suffering’? I’ve provided mine, and outlined the logic, repeatedly.
The question is rhetorical of course–he can’t, because it would screw the pooch for his case if he tried.
I’m gonna let ‘er lie there, folks. All the millions – nay billions – of readers, now and in future generations, can analyze and decide who has been providing facts and ‘real analysis’, and who has been using straw men, evasion, and unresponsiveness.
Feel free to waterboard me in effigy in my absence.
Ozzie
So what?
Oz
Actually, “foofy” may be an even better term.