This includes:

1. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994). Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

2. The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons.

3. The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
4. The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441).

—————————————————————-

As you should note those “interrogations” were done to get a “confession” about an AQ Iraqi link. NOT NATIONAL security. Torture has only one goal get someone to say what it is you want them to say not tell the truth.

Anyone involved needs to be tried, if convicted they need to face the music. Anyone.

I asked if it was an insult for clarification.
I was not sure so I asked.

You seem to be wanting to use excuses to defend the indefensible that is your right to try.

I see you decided not to attempt to defend other indefensible comments visa vi your present logic. Again is your right.

Thank you for the interaction.

Good day.

Who are these legal “experts”? And what are their qualifications? If I’ve learned anything from watching the news, its that the term “expert” has no meaning, as there is no qualification process to claim one self as such.

I’ll repeat what I said before: this means that the odds of a Justice Department official cooperating with a request for counsel from the CIA are down about zero right now. or, at least, any meaningful advice — the lawyers will toss out everything and say whatever they can to cover their asses, and say “no” to everything to avoid being punished by future administrations.

Or, more likely, it will discourage them from giving bad advice. You’re subsidizing failure, in the government. How socialist of you.

Grumpy, you’re sounding like the liberal stereotype view of conservatives. Talking in absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil.

The whole “you’re with us or against us” rhetoric from the past 8 years doesn’t exactly help your case.

But if there is, then it should start not with the interrogators or the Justice Department lawyers, but with those who hold the most responsibility — the Bush administration officials who signed off on it and the Congressional leadership that was briefed on it and said nothing.

I’m willing to accept this.

Of course, because you believe that when we torture people it’s okay.

In the Bybee memo, the effect of waterboarding is described in the following way:

Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.

First, note the euphemistic wording in the first two bolded sections.

Air flow is not constricted because of the cloth. Air flow is constricted because the cloth is soaked with water which blocks air from getting through. When the person tries to breath wiht a water soaked cloth over their face, the natural suction action will draw water into their breathing passages. If they hold their breath, water still enters their nasal passages as they are held at an incline.

The whole point of the technique is to force water in the breathing passages of the person tied down. That’s it.

Then what about those three to four unimpeded breathes between water applications are not going to be clean, full breathes as there will be water in the air passages from the previous 40 seconds. So what you’re talking about is not “unimpeded breathes” but the spasmodic, gasping reaction to having water forced down one’s breathing passages.

Then repeat.

The approved technique described in the Bybee could be applied for up to 20 minutes.

The language of the Bybee memo is the language of functionaries looking for ways to authorize the rephrensible.

Simple as that.

“severe mental pain or suffering” means … (C) the threat of imminent death; or

Many accounts I’ve seen describing waterboarding say that it is actual drowning in that water enters the breathing passages and the victim cannot breathe. Even those accounts which only describe it as “simulated” drowning says it’s purpose is to at least make the person feel like they are drowning so that the fear for their life.

In other words, it is an act “specifically intended” to cause the person “mental suffering” by convincing them that they are drowning and facing “imminent death”.

How does that not meet the definition of torture?

J.

My position on the CIA’s technique of waterboarding is that it is a very unpleasant experience, should only be used rarely and as a last resort in the most extreme of cases. And I don’t think that it meets the US legal definition of “torture.” That law sets a very high standard — as it should — and I don’t believe it reaches that. Nonetheless, it should not be used except in the most extreme circumstances.

In the case of the three men waterboarded, I am satisfied that the law was followed and the need was great.

Let’s see if I can get the block quoting correct for once:

As used in this chapter—
(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;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html

It should also be noted that these interrogations were not done with the intent of an eventual criminal trial, so the legal admissibility is moot. They were being interrogated for information vital to the national security of the nation, so things like Miranda and Fifth Amendment protections don’t apply.

I don’t think that anyone should face criminal prosecution over those interrogations. But if there is, then it should start not with the interrogators or the Justice Department lawyers, but with those who hold the most responsibility — the Bush administration officials who signed off on it and the Congressional leadership that was briefed on it and said nothing.

J.

If so be a man ans speak plain.

As to the rest of what you said I saw no attempt to defend your previous position.

Defend it please.

As to your defense of the inhuman acts you are once again falling on an argument of degrees only “THREE” people.

I will say it again.
Wrong is wrong no matter how many times it is done or who dose it.

As to your request for “proof’ that it is against the law look up the Geneva Conventions, U.S. law et. al.

No nuances. No room for compromise. No gray areas.

Sometimes life is about unpleasant choices. Not about doing the absolute good vs. the absolute evil, but choosing between two things that are neither very good, and finding the least bad path.

Three — THREE — Al Qaeda operatives were interrogated by the CIA using their most extreme measures. And even those methods were vetted by lawyers expert in interpreting the laws.

It was not done willy-nilly. It was not done indiscriminately. It was not done cheerfully. It was not done casually. It was not done carelessly.

The CIA covered themselves six ways to Sunday. They consulted with the Justice Department, the Executive branch, and briefed the Congressional leadership. At each step, they could have been told to knock it off. They wanted to be certain that there would be no one coming after them years later to punish them for what they did — and that’s happening anyway.

We went through this in the 1970′s. The results today will be the same as they were then: it’ll be a cold day in hell before the CIA (or anyone the CIA asks for advice) will ever take a single chance. They will play it safe — it’s always safer to say “no” than to say “yes.”

And we’ll suffer for it. Because the CIA played by the rules, and got burned anyway.

J.

Disbarment is far too easy.

As you pointed out the “law” had no problem with slavery so by your own argument you have no problem with that wrong at all.

Or am I misunderstanding your “logic”?

Abortion is lawful as well so let me guess being a “law and order” kind of con your Pro-Choice right?

So where do you stand? Is there right and wrong?

Defend if one way or the other your wrong.

You have the right to repeat the illogical ruse as many times as you wish.

But wrong is wrong.
Doing it a little bit is wrong. Doing it a lot is wrong. Doing wrong by a Lib is wrong. Doing wrong by a con is wrong.

The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to admit that speaks volumes to me.

Peace Be with you.

Of course, for the horrific “crime” of giving legal advice, those lawyers are now looking at being disbarred and, possibly, deported for trial in Spain…

I’ll repeat what I said before: this means that the odds of a Justice Department official cooperating with a request for counsel from the CIA are down about zero right now. or, at least, any meaningful advice — the lawyers will toss out everything and say whatever they can to cover their asses, and say “no” to everything to avoid being punished by future administrations.

J.

It is a matter of degrees?

Like saying killing someone by blowing them up is wrong.
Killing someone by slitting their wrists is fine with you?

Con logic boggles the mind.

It’s wrong, no matter who dose it no matter how long it is done.
And by any measure used by anyone thinking person it is against the law.

And I’d much rather my country not engage in any form of torture. Period.

Sort of like it doesn’t matter to me if lethal injection is considered more humane than electrocution.

I’m opposed to the death penalty itself, not the method by which its applied.

It’s is not simulated drowning, it is drowning. People are forced to breath in water until they start to asphyxiate. This is the textbook definition of drowning. It’s the same fucking thing, just using different words to describe it.

And it is torture.

And no, this is not a double-post. I writing this again in the hopes that you will read it and actually understand it.

When you waterboard someone, you are drowning them. You are doing it under a controlled circumstance so that, theoretically, you won’t kill them, because when you are torturing someone, you don’t want them to die.

It is torture under every reasonable definition of the word.

It’s is not simulated drowning, it is drowning. People are forced to breath in water until they start to asphyxiate. This is the textbook definition of drowning. It’s the same fucking thing, just using different words to describe it.

And it is torture.

And yes, Navy Seals are waterboarded in order to train them to resist torture. This isn’t evidence that waterboarding isn’t torture. This is evidence that waterboarding IS FUCKING TORTURE

It might not be the worst thing out there, but it is probably the worst thing you can do to someone that won’t leave any permanent marks. … Assuming you ignore all the people who died because of it.

No, Jay Tea. It’s all equally horrific to me.

You, however, are suggesting that when we commit acts of torture it’s “OK” because 1) it’s not as bad as what other countries do and 2) it’s not as bad because we’re the ones doing it. In other words, it’s our culture.

I am not the one looking at the same exact descriptions of waterboarding and suggesting that one is tantamount to torture and that the other is not. You’re one playing that semantic game.

When you write, “I don’t consider 20-40 seconds of stimulating a drowning sensation “torture,”” you’re the one diminishing and distorting what torture is.

Forcing someone to breath in water for 20-40 seconds is torture, once is torture. Doing it repeatedly until the surrender information to you, is torture.

Pelosi, if possible, sickens me more than Cheney (and just slightly less than Lieberman). Cheney doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what he is.