Torture memos

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't measure intent, unless a person tells you what it was, and severe mental pain is a completely subjective thing.

I fail to see how prohibiting death threats or threats to bodily harm (talk or I'll start pulling off your finger nails) or mind-altering drugs or threats to family members...has anything to do with "intent" or is ambiguous.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.

Oh, I am not trying to justify it. Merely pointing out that there are holes in it. If I was innocently caught and sent to Gitmo I certainly, along with my lawyers would be quick to say that I was being tortured. Wouldn't you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I fail to see how prohibiting death threats or threats to bodily harm (talk or I'll start pulling off your finger nails) or mind-altering drugs or threats to family members...has anything to do with "intent" or is ambiguous.

You have to be able to prove it in a court, that the individual said those things. The prisoner is not a very strong witness in many of these cases. Unless I confess you have no idea what my intent is or what was said.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh, I am not trying to justify it. Merely pointing out that there are holes in it. If I was innocently caught and sent to Gitmo I certainly, along with my lawyers would be quick to say that I was being tortured. Wouldn't you?

If you were innocently caught and sent to Gitmo, you probably would have been tortured.

The lads from manchester and Tipton were innocent. They were also tortured. The medical evidence for that torture is very hard to ignore.

Besides: there's no reason to turn to such accusations. We know that waterboarding (which puts a suspect into a state similar to that of drowning and induces a fear of death) has been used. That is torture. We know that prisoners have been sent elsewhere to be interrogated by states in which torture is legal. We know that other 'enhanced interrogation' techniques have been used. The question is not whether those techniques were used, but whether or not they constitute torture.

And you have absolutely been justifying their use.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If you were innocently caught and sent to Gitmo, you probably would have been tortured.

False. There is no proof that every person sent there was tortured. Period.

The lads from manchester and Tipton were innocent. They were also tortured. The medical evidence for that torture is very hard to ignore.

There are some really good experts out there that specialize in that type of research. I believe that is the information that is out there about those guys. I doubt anyone will ever know the complete truth.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Besides: there's no reason to turn to such accusations. We know that waterboarding (which puts a suspect into a state similar to that of drowning and induces a fear of death) has been used. That is torture.

True.

We know that prisoners have been sent elsewhere to be interrogated by states in which torture is legal.

True.

We know that other 'enhanced interrogation' techniques have been used.

True.

The question is not whether those techniques were used, but whether or not they constitute torture.

For those cases where it can be proven, true.

And you have absolutely been justifying their use.

False.

[DanaC]

[quote=TheMercenary;631002]False. There is no proof that every person sent there was tortured. Period.
QUOTE]


I didn't say you would have been tortured, i said you wouold probably have been tortured. There is no evidence to say that every prisoner was tortured, hence the lack of an absolute in my post. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it was widely used, however, which is why i believe you 'probably' would have been.


There is equally no evidence to suggest that those inmates who claim to have been tortured were lying. Especially given they were not contained within due process. So, why assume that an accusation from them is just a lie?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say you would have been tortured, i said you wouold probably have been tortured. There is no evidence to say that every prisoner was tortured, hence the lack of an absolute in my post. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it was widely used, however, which is why i believe you 'probably' would have been.

And I say that is completely and utterly false and there is no way you can support that premise. Period.

There is equally no evidence to suggest that those inmates who claim to have been tortured were lying.

But you choose to believe whatever they say about the subject is true because you want to believe it.

Especially given they were not contained within due process.

Yea, it was not a police process it was a combat process.

So, why assume that an accusation from them is just a lie?

My assumption is that there is no way to really prove every accusation without a complete evaluation based on subject matter experts who deal with people like this. I am not saying they have lied only that until they are examined by said experts that we will never know.

[DanaC]

From earlier in this debate:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It is more than that. Cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment is a highly subjective list which most will never agree on. If you have operators who are always looking over their shoulder and supers who do not have their back they will hesitate and will not be an effective force. They run the risk of gutting the soul of the Operations Branch. The world is not a fair place and those countries that allow the enemy to dictate the rules of engagement are setting themselves up for failure. It has happened before in the CIA and it is going to happen again. We are going to lose a valuable tool when that portion of our forces loses it's heart in the fight. Maybe some are ok with that. I have seen these people work. I am not willing to accept that.

Therefore we shouldn't have them 'looking over their shoulders'. That's a recipe for them continuing to use methods that are illegal and immoral. This in itself is a justification. I realise that you were arguing against them being held accountable retrospectively and the damage that might do to the organisation in the future. But you are arguing here for complicity in the actions they took. The actions they took included torture.

I don't by the way mean you have advocated the use of torture\; you've been very clear that 'torture' is illegal and should not be used. You have however shown remarkable unwillingness to accept that commonly used methods of interrogation during this period constitute tporture. Even where you have (after much diagreement over definitions) accepted something as a method of 'torture'you have then suggested that the inmates who suffered it are the least reliable witnesses. This is a catch 22. The only people who can make an accusation of torture in individual cases are those who were present\: the interrogator and the victim. The fact that they are claiming they have been tortured is taken by you, seemingly as evidence that they have not. The only people who can be trusted are those who were not involved. Therefore nobody can be trusted and therefore no evidence is secure.

I was perhaps unfair to say you have justified the use of torture. But you have advocated an attitude which is inherently complicit in that crime, and which inherently removes all possibility of truly illuminating it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My assumption is that there is no way to really prove every accusation without a complete evaluation based on subject matter experts who deal with people like this. I am not saying they have lied only that until they are examined by said experts that we will never know.

It is not really an issue of proving anything.

These are the accepted legal approaches to interrogation by US personnel..and they involve little, if any, subjective analysis of whether they inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...4-52/app-h.htm


added:

And one of Obama's first Executive Orders was to put an end to the previous administration's approval of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that go above and beyond these procedures.

Period.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Y'know, thids is bizarre to me. If someone had said to me when i was younger, that in a decade or so, I would be having a conversation in which Americans were attempting to justify the use of torture on detainees, I'd never have believed it. I'd have believed it of my own country before I'd have believed it of yours.

C'mon, do you think Americans (or anyone else) don't abuse spouses, beat children, or kick puppies? People is people, but I digress.

Except for Dick Cheney and UG, I think most Americans don't approve of torturing detainees, foreign or domestic. But the wrinkle is, what constitutes torture? The Department of Justice, Army Field Manual and Geneva Convention, outlines are open to interpretation, especially when it applies to mental torture.

For example;

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

Certainly the threat of rooming with Horny Bubba would cause me mental anguish, but it's not torture because it's "incidental to lawful sanctions".

Except where the interrogator,(or just a guard), is following a script, it remains up to the individuals sense of right/wrong. That becomes pretty subjective, especially in retrospect.

Some people would say puting milk in their tea, is torture.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Except for Dick Cheney and UG, I think most Americans don't approve of torturing detainees, foreign or domestic. But the wrinkle is, what constitutes torture? The Department of Justice, Army Field Manual and Geneva Convention, outlines are open to interpretation, especially when it applies to mental torture.

And back to the beginning we go. This was exactly my point. Its all up to interpretation.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Except where the interrogator,(or just a guard), is following a script, it remains up to the individuals sense of right/wrong. That becomes pretty subjective, especially in retrospect.

That is the point exactly. And all of these recently posted "new" definitions have come about after the fact after a specific event was uncovered.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is the point exactly. And all of these recently posted "new" definitions have come about after the fact after a specific event was uncovered.

But I think everyone is real clear about waterboarding, especially after we convicted our enemies for it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, physical torture is more easily defined, although people will still be split on it, than mental torture.