Waterboarding

For all of the mocking afforded the "Shock & Awe" strategy of the Iraqi campaign, it was entirely sensible, and it ultimately worked. The first part of the Iraqi War - defeating Saddam and his armies - worked like a charm.

While you, in a fit of self-indulgent pique cried Strawman, the reference I made to the dilemma of the truly pacifist was cogent to the issue.

History doesn't believe all is fair in war?

What does that mean?

First of all, so facile a statement cannot be substantiated.

Secondly, history comes after the fact, and should deal only with facts. It has no business applying the personal morality of its historians.

Ultimately people are free to form whatever opinions they wish, and in a democracy enough of them can assure that their shared opinion becomes the law of the land, but that is a far cry from establishing moral superiority, and there is nothing immoral about disagreeing with any given law and advocating it's change.

If one tortures someone simply for sadistic pleasure that is quite different than torturing them in an attempt to save lives.

="Finn dAbuzz "If a nation fights a war in defense of its homeland, that is quite different than fighting it for conquest - however the difference is only in the intent, not the results.

Of course all is fair in war.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Uh, what country are you living in? Here in America, we did pass a bill which prohibits waterboarding - the McCain amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Well, I've done a little digging, and found an article written by Andrew McCarthy in October, 2007, in the National Review, which sounds remarkable similar to what I've been saying.

Quote:

SO IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?So here is the question: If we captured a top al Qaeda operative who was certain to have information about what we reasonably believed was an imminent plan to attack midtown Manhattan with a nuclear weapon, would it shock your conscience if an intelligence officer waterboarded that operative in a desperate attempt to thwart the attack and save thousands of lives?

It is perilous to launch when one doesn't know key facts. Moreover, given the stakes for our intelligence officers, Mukasey has been wise to avoid doing so despite railing from the peanut gallery. But I'll hazard an opinion: Waterboarding should be considered illegal, under the McCain Amendment, in almost all instances. Certainly, it would be unlawful to make it a programmatic approach to interrogations; if there is a sliver of legality at all, it must be reserved for good-faith emergencies.

The legal challenges against Bush administration officials will go on for years. Yoo is already being sued and Addington won't be far behind. Hope that jail treats both of them well. Or better yet, subject them to the sorts of things that they say aren't torture.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-padilla080104,1,6749180.story?track=rss

Cycloptichorn

I think we need to define what torture actually is before we can decide whats illegal.

mysteryman wrote:

I think we need to define what torture actually is before we can decide whats illegal.

Why? Why should "we" (who ever that might be) not use the definition already excisting - and signed in a treaty by the USA? (Convention Against Torture [and Universal Declaration of Human Rights])

If you want to go to the extreme, ANY interrogation technique can be considered torture, no matter how benign it might seem to be.

It just seems to me that as long as it doesnt violate the Convention against Torture that any techniques used should be OK.

mysteryman wrote:

If you want to go to the extreme, ANY interrogation technique can be considered torture, no matter how benign it might seem to be.

It just seems to me that as long as it doesnt violate the Convention against Torture that any techniques used should be OK.

Many are, e.g. those methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques, see: European Court of Human Rights, Ireland vs. United Kingdom - 5310/71 [1978] ECHR 1 (18 January 1978)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The legal challenges against Bush administration officials will go on for years. Yoo is already being sued and Addington won't be far behind. Hope that jail treats both of them well. Or better yet, subject them to the sorts of things that they say aren't torture.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-padilla080104,1,6749180.story?track=rss

Cycloptichorn

Any lawsuit against Yoo seems destined to be dismissed at the summary judgment stage, if not a motion to dismiss. All he probably needs to show is that he was acting in his official capacity, and there was a good faith and reasonable basis for his legal opinion ... he will have immunity -- absolute or qualified -- from this suit.

And you aren't so naive as to think jail is a possible sanction arising out of that lawsuit, are you?

You mean this part...

167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ...

So they might be degrading and inhuman, but they are not torture, according to the court ruling in the case you cited.

There is no reasonable basis behind his legal opinion; that's the entire problem for he and the Bush crew. Yoo's theory that no laws whatsoever apply to the Exec. branch is not likely to be looked upon kindly by the judiciary.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is no reasonable basis behind his legal opinion; that's the entire problem for he and the Bush crew. Yoo's theory that no laws whatsoever apply to the Exec. branch is not likely to be looked upon kindly by the judiciary.

Then, if the unconstitutionality of his opinions is settled law, this lawsuit might have a chance, since his immunity might be at issue. Sadly -- for you -- that is not the case.

Of course even if the case proceeds past the immunity issue, there is still a little problem of proving causation, which might prove difficult for the plaintiff.

See here

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/32668/david_cole_on_john_yoo_and_the_imperial_presidency

Claims that the constitution could be interpreted to mean what he says are without merit. One could claim that the Constitution means anything they want, but that does not imply merit to those claims.

Cycloptichorn

"Why should "we" (who ever that might be) not use the definition already excisting - and signed in a treaty by the USA? (Convention Against Torture [and Universal Declaration of Human Rights])" Exactly. But Gonzalez would call that quaint. Tico would say Bushie is bigger than those laws and the constitution and MM could justify waterboarding his own mother if that was merely suspected to be "necessary".

His opinions are settled as unconstitutional, unfortunately for torture supporters. His reading of the Constitution is not supported by any known law or precedent; in the absence of some ruling supporting his radical departure from known law, there is no real basis for his opinion.

Cycloptichorn

Many of those Bushie tortured were only suspected terrorists later found innocent and released.