we are left assuming the worst.. (if it indeed can get any worse) wondering if what survived the "PURGE" was this bad, shuttering to think of what did not.
AH! The Good ol'Days under THE BIG DUBYA! (Daddy WarBucks) when the paperr shreaders were going full-tilt grinding up EVIDENCE of the IRAN/CONTRA DEAL.
I never said they didn't gain some useful information, but did that lead to saving ANY American lives or thwart an attack. There's still no direct evidence of the latter.
His is still speculation... "The Bush-era interrogation techniques that many view as torture may have yielded important information about terrorists...."
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
From your link
Quote:
United States government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects.
Last line from the 2002 memorandum
Quote:
In the absense of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.
Quote:
Illegal acts were committed but those who authorized them used language to make them seem legal?
Thats exactly what I mean . Read the 2002 memorandum they try to justify waterboarding that it does not cause long lasting mental or physical harm so therefor its not torture <-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture
fwiw; I went looking in the Geneva Convention for water boarding which there was no mention
Keep in mind that Obama specialty was Constitutional Law , this is International Law...
He'd appreciate the relationship between the two because the question arises whether the constraints of international conventions are binding in US domestic law. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo happened because advice was given that that interrogation methods could be defined without reference to international treaties when in fact the Convention Against Torture 1984 (CAT) provides an absolute prohibition against torture as therein defined in all circumstances.
A lot of the advice relied uppn is in the public domain and so open to critical analysis. Gonzales for example produced a memo from John Yoo to the effect that since the US was not a party to the Rome Statute it was not bound by its provisions and that US nationals could not be prosecuted at the ICC. The second point which is wrong does not follow from the first point which is right. The ICC exercises jurisdiction over individuals not states and US nationals can be prosecuted if they commit torture in any territory which is a party to the Statute or which otherwise accepts the jurisdiction of the Court.
Yoo went on to assert that CAT was only applicable in US law if both defined torture in exactly the same terms. That was to say that where US law and international law conflict, US law takes precedence. In fact the opposite is true. It's fundamental principle that where international law and domestic law conflict international law prevails because were it otherwise there'd be no point in nations agreeing to the terms of a treaty in the first place.
The error of analysis that national law trumps international law also catches out Jay Baybee whose advice it was that torture in US federal law was limited to actions "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure". Where the pain is mental, Baybee claimed, torture was limited to actions causing "lasting psychological harm as seen in mental disorders". The President, he said, was free from censure by Congress and was unconstrained by international requirements as to torture because they had not been adopted by the legislature. Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School however said that Baybee's analysis was a load of rubbish <---.
I never said they didn't gain some useful information.
Yes you did, go back and read your first or second post I believe it is. (3) Lastly -torture has been proven NOT to work for any purpose but to inflict pain and revenge. For interrogation, it's worthless.
As far as thwarting an attack or saving lives, that's one of those circular arguments I don't care to get into since neither of us has any inside info. I was just referring to what was in the article about useful information being gained, not our armchair speculation on how that info was used.
<-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture
Yes we all have different interpretations. Generally my interpretation leans towards procedures that physically alter the person. However waterboarding 200+ times on two people in a month is pretty damned ridiculous. Whomever thought that would accomplish anything needs to have the same done to them.
Regardless of people's interpretations, which acts are and aren't allowed by international law should be clear. If not, the language needs to be looked at and re-written to be more clear.
_________________________ Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
I never said they didn't gain some useful information
That would have been correct had you done so, of course. To 'gain' information means learning something you wouldn't otherwise have known when if fact establishing a rapport with a person is known to be more effective than torture at getting him to open up.
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
Originally Posted By: carp
<-- ah ha the power of interpretation , even when everyone else calls it torture
Yes we all have different interpretations. Generally my interpretation leans towards procedures that physically alter the person. However waterboarding 200+ times on two people in a month is pretty damned ridiculous. Whomever thought that would accomplish anything needs to have the same done to them.
Regardless of people's interpretations, which acts are and aren't allowed by international law should be clear. If not, the language needs to be looked at and re-written to be more clear.
Correct
I went looking in the Geneva Convention which their definition of torture is very broad and non specific , like any harm or humiliation yada yada . Their definitions leaves the door open for all kinds of different interpretations .
#425327 - 04/22/0908:29 PMRe: Three cheers for torture!
[Re: keymaker]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I never said they didn't gain some useful information
That would have been correct had you done so, of course. To 'gain' information means learning something you wouldn't otherwise have known when if fact establishing a rapport with a person is known to be more effective than torture at getting him to open up.
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in a written statement.
I tend to agree like how about carefully crafted Trick Questions ? but I guess the language barrier gets in the way