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
Ms. Toesing then turns this into:
Torture under that law means "severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which in turn means "prolonged mental harm," which must be caused by one of four prohibited acts.
Which means Ms. Toesing needs to do some more careful reading of her own. "Severe physical or mental pain or suffering" does not "in turn" mean "prolonged mental harm." #2 simply defines mental pain and suffering.
Ms. Toesing then claims:
The only relevant one to the CIA inquiry was threatening or inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering."
This is flatly untrue. Sensory deprivation falls under condition B, and waterboarding specifically induces the sensation of drowning and imminent death. Just ask wise-ass rightwinger Mancow Muller who thought he'd get waterboarded to prove it wasn't torture. He lasted six seconds and was shaken to his core, immediately declaring it absolutely to be torture.
Ms. Toesing also declares the definition of torture to be circular. Either she does not know what this means, or fails to show said circular logic.
Finally, the attempt to find a loophole in what an interrogator "specifically intends" is flatly ludicrous, as one can expect. Obviously methods of torture are intended to cause severe physical and mental anguish. How else does the interrogator believe they would work?
I have to wonder if Ms. Toesing herself bothered to refresh herself with the law before putting out this piece of hackery.
Because, obviously, a person who had been in a position to make these decisions wouldn't know the law as well as you do.
Argument by authority.
Argument by truth.
It is true that she is an authority. However using her authority as a rebuttal is a fallacy.
"argument by truth" = "I don't actually know anything about how reasoned argument works, but I'll make a point of looking it up on Wikipedia later"
However using her authority as a rebuttal is a fallacy.
I understood the point you were wanting to make, Jeromy. But you have little standing to argue that anyone knew less about legal interpretation than you do.
TT--lonely?
Sharon: You are still using the argument by authority. It seems you have no valid response.
I simply acknowledged your argument but disagree. Do you know what intent means when applied to law?
Mostly the same as it means in the English language. Feel free to offer your complete rebuttal, especially an explanation as to how interrogators did not specifically intend "to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."
Sharon you'll feel better if you just say "I don't really have an argument that can hold up but in my heart I know I'm right"
Torture is a specific intent crime.
Really? Does that apply in all cases? I don't think you want to follow that line of thinking into a internment prison where American soldiers are being held; we're not the only ones who can play fancy-dancer with the language and change "torture" to "harsher measures" on the books when it suits our needs, you know.
I think I can give you your auto-fill response for this one: "that's disgusting" or some other easy-way-out fake-outrage, right?
The people who saw heads off don't worry about legalities.
"Torture is a specific intent crime."
Meaning...?
Interrogators were not trying to torture prisoners. They did not have the intent required.
As I said, feel free to present your full argument up front, but...
"Interrogators were not trying to torture prisoners."
Before you try any semantic tricks:
(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;
I think you were trying to circle back and claim that since they thought they had clearance from above via the torture memos, they weren't intentionally torturing.
The flimsy fraudulence of those memos aside, the law defines torture in terms of extreme physical and mental pain intentionally inflicted. In other words, it is defined by the nature of the deed itself, not what the deed is called.
You cannot reasonably claim that the interrogators did not intend, very specifically, to inflict severe physical and mental pain on their captives in order to elicit answers.
However, I think you revealed your hand when Thomas Tallis provoked you about the legality of this.
The people who saw heads off don't worry about legalities.
You attempted to accuse us of not knowing what we were talking about regarding the legality of torture. When pressed, you confessed that you simply don't care about the legality.
Unless you have something else to add, you have failed in your objective and we have validly defended ourselves. Thus, this debate is over.
Your desire to dismiss the memos at argument is really cute. Particularly since they address the point you are wanting to make.
[A] showing that an individual acted with a good faith belief that his conduct would not produce the result that the law prohibits negates specific intent. Where a defendant acts in good faith, he acts with an honest belief that he has not engaged in the proscribed conduct….A good faith belief need not be a reasonable one...(p. 4-5, emphasis added).
But how could any human being have a good faith belief that waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation, beatings, etc. would not produce severe physical or mental pain?
Quoting Bybee's memos does not exactly bolster your argument. Their shoddy legal reasoning is widely agreed to be "F" material were any law student to produce it, and he may very well be disbarred for it. He acted with all the integrity of a mob lawyer, and is not a reliable interpreter of the law.
Without sources, your opinions are just that.
And calls for disbarring Bybee are widely considered to be politically motivated.
But how could any human being have a good faith belief that waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation, beatings, etc. would not produce severe physical or mental pain?
Intent requires not just knowledge that something might happen but desiring for it to happen. There's no evidence that interrogators or lawyers desired the techniques to produce severe physical or mental pain.
Are you for punishing the interrogators? Or do you just want to punish lawyers doing their jobs?
Sharon if you'd actually held up your end of the argument I'd say "hats off." But Jeromy has beaten you every time you've attempted to move the goalposts. You should admit defeat instead of opting for the coward's last resort, the Comments Thread Of Attrition.
I doubt you are an impartial observer, nor is this a game show.
"Widely believed" by who, outside of the shrinking Republican base, the most politically motivated bunch of people on the planet?
"There's no evidence that interrogators or lawyers desired the techniques to produce severe physical or mental pain."
It's the other way around, actually. There's no conceivable explanation for how they could not intend to produce severe physical or mental pain. As I already asked you, how do they think such techniques would actually work? These techniques are specifically designed to push the limits of human tolerance and make the detainee say whatever it takes to make it stop. How could you waterboard and not intend to produce the fear of imminent death?
The burden of proof is on you to attempt some conceivable explanation as to how these things could happen without being torture. So far you have only evaded my questions.
As for your final question, which should be noted has nothing to do with your original point, I'm more in favor of charging people higher up on the ladder, and would favor a case-by-case approach for interrogators that would look for flagrant criminality. Disbarment at the least for Bybee and Yoo, and prosecution for the architects of torture, Bush and Cheney, possibly Rumsfeld as well. I'd settle for Cheney alone.
This is what the actual rule of law would point towards. It is only politics that keeps it from being followed.
There's no conceivable explanation for how they could not intend to produce severe physical or mental pain.
Sure there is. The intent was to get information.
Why are you more interested in prosecuting attorneys who offered legal analysis than interrogators who performed the "torture"?
To get information by inducing severe physical or mental pain. You're claiming that as long as the interrogator has a question he'd like answered, all bets are off, thus any form of torture is effectively legalized.
Note the law on war crimes:
(A) Torture. — The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
You are searching for loopholes. You forget our nation's long tradition of being against torture, signing treaties banning it, and passing numerous laws against it.
If I shoot somebody to clear a path because I'm late for work, did I have intent to kill?
Not to mention that the Justice Department shortly afterwards issued an overriding memo:
“We do not believe it is useful to try to define the precise meaning of ‘specific intent’ in section 2340. In light of the President’s directive that the United States does not engage in torture, it would not be appropriate to rely on parsing the specific intent element of the statute to approve as lawful conduct that might otherwise amount to torture.â€
You're claiming that as long as the interrogator has a question he'd like answered, all bets are off, thus any form of torture is effectively legalized.
Nah, it's fairly obvious when thugs are sawing off heads. Or forcefeeding people with rice, then making them drink water till their bowels explode. Or bayonetting them.
You forget our nation's long tradition of being against torture, signing treaties banning it, and passing numerous laws against it.
Not at all. That's why we only waterboarded 3 people.
“We do not believe it is useful to try to define the precise meaning of ‘specific intent’ in section 2340.
Now that sounds like a loophole.
The laws against torture kick in well short of sawing off heads, Sharon. Let it be noted that you're now shifting the argument towards severity.
This indicates to me that your "specific intent" parsing/parroting of Bybee has run into a dead end.
There's no "loophole" in pointing out bad faith and poor reasoning are required to declare that it isn't torture if the interrogator is doing it for a purpose. Throughout history, torture has always had some noble purpose attached to it. We have always opposed it, and never before have we made such a distinction.
So move the goalpost to severity, if you will. I'll beat you on that point as well.
There's no "shifting" to anything. You stated that if specific intent to torture is necessary to commit the crime, then "any form of torture is effectively legalized." I gave examples of things that would clearly be considered torture because there's simply no other reason to commit the acts. There are also rather specific qualifications for torture, such as causing permanent damage to a person.
You seem really concerned with "winning," rather than just making your statements and leaving it at that, which, I suppose, explains your whining about goalpost shifting when I present an argument you haven't addressed. Why not just declare victory and leave like you usually do? You've written your nasty post thumping your chest that you "won." What else do you need? Shall I close comments so you can scratch your balls and slap TT on the back?
Sharon, the things you cite as "torture" are called "murder."
So yes, they couldn't be done with the intent to acquire information. And they're quite illegal.
Of course you're making a severity argument. You're now claiming that only things that produce lasting physical harm, like missing fingers, etc. really constitute torture.
The thing is, that has zero legal basis.
That's Sharon making things up. So much for the "legal rationale."
The thing is, that has zero legal basis.
Exactly what authority are you using to state this?
(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 -
It's all about severity.
While pithiness is good, it implies completeness. Your answers are incomplete.
You are very clearly trying to establish a line of "severity" that starts, apparently, just short of murder.
You, however, just rebutted me by quoting the law that I've already quoted to you, which addresses lingering mental harm.
So that doesn't illustrate your case at all. Instead of asking me what "authority" I use, why don't you bother demonstrating the legal basis for the line you draw on torture with something actually relevant?
I think using the law that you yourself quoted is quite the essence of pithiness. You obviously either (a) didn't read it or (b) don't really believe it.
Again, I gave examples that clearly fall into the torture ranks. Your argument is that torture is something other than severity. But the law is all about severity. And thanks for finally admitting that the law is concerned with long-lasting or permanent effects, as opposed to momentary discomfort.
"It is true that she is an authority. However using her authority as a rebuttal is a fallacy.
Jeromy "
"Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).
The argumentum ad verecundiam is the appeal to authority — that is, to
the feeling of respect people have for the famous — to win assent to a
conclusion.
This method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special held of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.
If laymen are disputing over some question of physical science and
one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony
is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly
tends to support it. ...
But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of his special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad Verecundiam. ..."
Irving M. Copi, authority on logic
http://archives.starbulletin.com...ws/
story11.html
Commenting by HaloScan
