There is no point in having government officials debate the meaning of torture from a personal or subjective standpoint. Torture is defined in federal regulations promulgated by the State Department, 22 C.F.R. Part 95, as "[a]ny act by which severe pain or suggering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...." This definition is binding as a matter of law in cases where the US is considering extradition of an individual to a country "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." 22 C.F.R. 95.2. The definition also contains a lengthy description of the circumstances that would constitute torture under the rules, which I won't paste in here. So we know what torture is, and we have defined it in federal regulations that control the actions of government officials as a matter of law. To ask someone whether in their personal opinion some hypothetical situation does or does not "constitute torture" is pointless, non-binding, and irrelevant.
Posted by Nick L. at December 13, 2007 10:09 AMum, nick- that presumes that this administration, you know, actually cares about the law. which was the point graham- a republican, mind you- was making.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 10:14 AMBut for a high-ranking American general to be unable to condemn as torture any hypothetical waterboarding of a captured American truly defines the degree to which the Bush Administration has decimated our national moral standing. We do it, so who are we to say others can't?
Well, it all depends how you do it. And why. And to whom. And all that. But, you know, in general, if we waterboard, it's not torture because, well, because we don't torture. Therefore, whatever we do isn't torture. But if, say, Iran does it, especially to our guys, it's torture. Of course, if they were to do it to al-Qaeda, then maybe it wouldn't be torture. To sum up, if we think it's a good idea, it's not torture. If we think it's a bad idea, it is. It's perfectly clear. I don't see what the problem is. *sigh*
Posted by CG at December 13, 2007 10:17 AMWell, the general was honest; and consistent.
More than Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo or Gonzales are willing to be.
Whether the general is exemplifying what we might wish to think were/are American values or following American law or the Geneva conventions are other questions entirely.
However, the general was kind enough to answer those questions too.
Posted by clio at December 13, 2007 10:29 AMSo, are we going to retroactively pardon the Japanese torturers we hung after WWII?
Seriously, though, once the pictures from Abu Ghraib were published, the Geneva Conventions were pretty much obsolete. Any American abroad now can be kidnapped and tortured and we can't say a damn thing about it.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 13, 2007 10:43 AM"We do it, so who are we to say others can't?"
Actually, that would not be an unethical position. It would be, in fact, a consistent, single-standard position, and quite reasonable. What we got from the good General was something rather different. What we got was "oh shit! Of COURSE it's torture if someone is doing it to one of 'our boys', but I can't say THAT!" Basically it was a case of hoist on his own petard. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't, and clearly exposed for what he - and all the other "America does not torture" bullshit bearers.
Posted by Shirin at December 13, 2007 10:52 AMBlack Thursday. Today is Black Thursday: the seventh anniversary of the Bush secret fascist overthrow of our Democracy on 13 December 2000, with Five Supreme Idiots giving election-stealer Bush the keys to the Oval Office. And its been downhill ever since...
Posted by James K. Sayre at December 13, 2007 10:53 AMActually Coyote, that seems to point to the answer for all of the questions. The general, the GOP can hide nearly successfully behind the word game, but the Abu Ghraib pictures once published, gave us the clue as to the uproar that would ensue if the torture tapes surfaced. No amount of circular logic could ever outweigh published tapes for the world to see of who we have allowed ourselves to become and the danger we have subsequently put our citizens and military abroad in.
Posted by mainsailset at December 13, 2007 10:53 AM"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."
Robert H. Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor, Trial of Major War Criminals
International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson
Can't make an omelette without breaking a couple of eggs...three tops. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at December 13, 2007 11:00 AMBut for a high-ranking American general to be unable to condemn as torture any hypothetical waterboarding of a captured American truly defines the degree to which the Bush Administration has decimated our national moral standing.
Must make our soldiers feel really great that their leadership is looking out for them.
Posted by hells kitchen at December 13, 2007 12:33 PMMust make our soldiers feel really great that their leadership is looking out for them.
Posted by hells kitchen at December 13, 2007 12:33 PM
Trust me. They know who is, and your on the wrong side of that issue.
yes, jj- they do:
Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 01:24 PMThe views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
Some units in Iraq are refusing to fight, like 2nd Platoon, Charlie 1-26.
Looks like they took care of themselves because they certainly knew their leadership wasn't going to!
Posted by Seven of Six at December 13, 2007 01:28 PMLos Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll ????
Now there is real credible poll.
Good Morning !
Posted by jj at December 13, 2007 02:56 PMjj- to successfully shoot the messenger, you have to have a valid explanation, not to mention an analysis of why the methodology fails. i'm sure you'll now offer one.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 03:05 PMBut for a high-ranking American general to be unable to condemn as torture any hypothetical waterboarding of a captured American truly defines the degree to which the Bush Administration has decimated our national moral standing. We do it, so who are we to say others can't?
B-B-But, Bushies support the troops!?
Posted by bartcopfan at December 13, 2007 03:25 PM"um, nick- that presumes that this administration, you know, actually cares about the law. which was the point graham- a republican, mind you- was making."
Don't be tempted by Little Lord Lindsey's fake concern.
He has a history of sniffing in his opponents, then dropping them like limp hankies.
He is truly the lowest among the low when it comes to hypocrisy.
Posted by = at December 13, 2007 04:26 PM=- i'm not deluded by graham, it's just that for even he to be using this kind of rhetoric underscores that it's not some partisan game.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 04:30 PMjj- to successfully shoot the messenger,
Not my intent-do not need to-you are perfectly capable of doing that yourself. To use an La Bloomberg poll is foolish and you know that. Historically at the the low end of accuracy,mainly based on geographics of where they poll, and you also know that. Need a specific answer to a poll? "We can do that"
jj- geographics? what- they only poll l.a. and wall street? you'll have to do better.
Posted by Turkana at December 13, 2007 06:33 PMjj just a recommendation: REMOVE your head from your ass BEFORE posting, it may serve to reduce the amount of bullshit you produce...
Posted by headxray at December 13, 2007 06:44 PM