Apparently Zubaida was not #3 at alll...

[makattak]

It's not torture if you volunteer for it. As Rev said, consent makes a world of difference.

Funny how consent is not in the definitons he linked:

(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;

(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.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

Are you wishing to clarify what exactly you mean by torture beyond these legal definitions?

[Balog]

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.

Reading is fundamental.

[Iain]

As an interesting (to me) side note - I wonder if waterboarding someone would be legal even with their consent outside of something like SERE training or media stunts.

If two blokes decided to find out what it was like and waterboard each other and someone got hurt in the process, I wonder if prosecution would be possible.

[makattak]

Reading is fundamental.

Ahhh... so it is not the ACTION that makes it torture, but rather the purpose, then?

[Waitone]

Once again we get wrapped around the axle at the definition of torture.  Any discussion is a waste of time until an agreeable definition is reached.

<note to self--Knothead, you have to stop reading these threads>

[Balog]

Ahhh... so it is not the ACTION that makes it torture, but rather the purpose, then?

/facepalm

Feel free to ignore the already multiply presented examples of rape vs consensual sex, MMA fighting vs beating someone, and voluntary BDSM vs kidnapping and torture.

[RevDisk]

Those doing the torture were not/are not subject to the UCMJ. In addition Bush Admin lawyers determined torture was legal.

Both statements are false.

Detainees under military custody do legally fall under the UCMJ and DOD regulations.  If the personnel who are committing or facilitating torture are members of the US military, obviously they fall under the UCMJ.  No person in the US military is exempt from the UCMJ under any circumstances.

Bush era lawyers did NOT find that torture is legal.  To vastly oversimplify the Opinion, Yoo claimed  that torture only occurs if organ failure is involved.  This opinion is the "Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§2340-2340A" (aka Bybee Memo, aka Torture Memo, aka 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion).  This Opinion was rescinded on Oct 2003 by Jack Goldsmith (chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice).  This Opinion was found to substantially contradict 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (d)(1)(A), and per the Office of Legal Counsel should not be considered as valid under any circumstances.

OLC Opinions, by the way, are not law nor binding in any court of law.  They are merely opinions.  They are a defense, but the courts are not bound to them.  A person can follow guidance provided by an OLC opinion and still go to jail.

Prescient aren't we. Yeah those things have happened and will become more and more common as time goes on (it's a function of the moral decay the US is experiencing - why is another thread)  but that's not got a thing to do with torture being used as a legitimate interrogation technique against terrorists. If the powers that be try that on US Citizens and it becomes common knowledge (and it's debatable whether it would/could become common knowledge) - well - at that point all bets are off.

The same law forbidding the US govt from torturing US citizens is exactly the same one forbidding them from torturing foreign nationals.  That happens to be why some of us are irate over this whole situation.  I could really give two cents over the detainees in Gitmo.  I am deeply concerned about our govt waterboarding or torturing US citizens.  One will lead to the other because there is no legal difference.

That's 4 and the list doesn't include extracting useful intelligence information that could be used to capture or destroy other terrorists.

In addition I find it difficult to believe that agents of the US would torture for any of the reasons RevDisk's sources provided. With the possible exception of sending a message none provide any short or long term benefit to those involved or to the US. Any agent of the US torturing prisoners, even terrorists for the reasons listed by RevDisk deserves what he gets.

Ironically, those sources were official terrorists (on the State Department list) before Washington changed its mind and declared them allies. 

You could probably imagine why I generally personally paid attention to their opinion on such matters...  My old terrorism prof (Dr Henry Fischer, retired now, but I highly recommend his work) certainly got a kick out it.


I assure you, despite attending public schools, I really can count.  That's 3.  Emotional stuff, intimidation, and getting a confession.  And you are correct that torture used to obtain "useful intelligence" is not on the list.   You can get information by torturing a person.  It's not "useful intelligence" (ie reliable) by itself.  It CAN be used to collaborate reliable intelligence, but is not directly useful by itself.  Information obtained by torture is unreliable intelligence until it is compared with reliable intelligence.  That's why it's not on the list I was provided.  No sane person would trust information provided by coercion without verifying it through other means.

What's so shocking?  Someone physically commits torture for one of two reasons.  They are either 'just following orders', or they don't mind work (means either they like the work, or really hate the workee).  The folks obviously issuing the orders must be doing so for SOME reason.  Would you be shocked that brass occasionally issue orders on emotional grounds?  Or to send a message of intimidation?  Or the brass realize there's a chance that said person might be innocent, and they really want that person to be guilty?

Extracting information used to shut down terrorist networks and bring their barbarism to a halt by means of torture is justified and a legitimate use for torture.

Perhaps.  That is subjective, and you are always welcome to your opinion.  It's up to your own moral code to decide if it's justified or not.

But, it's currently not legal.  Justified and legitimate or not.

[makattak]

No sane person would trust information provided by coercion without verifying it through other means.

Also, no sane person would trust information proved by terrorists without verifying it through other means.

ANY statements gathered from enemy combatant should have its veracity questioned.

However, a statement that allows you to point your efforts in an area where you can find confirmation is extremely useful.

The fact that you consider the means to obtain it "torture" does not change the nature of the intelligence gathered from the detainees.

[makattak]

Also, by your definitions, I will be guilty of torture when I spank my children.

Not consensual, in my custody, done as punishment...

Fits all the criteria. How is a spanking not torture, by your posted definitions?

Oh... it's because of how you define "SEVERE".

Which, then leads to, as Waitone noted, an argument over your definition of "torture" and what "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering are.

[Balog]

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who's intentionally being obtuse. And again, reading is fundamental.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

(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

[makattak]

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who's intentionally being obtuse. And again, reading is fundamental.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

Ok, so what's severe physical or mental pain, then?

You keep quoting the law and the law keeps referring to "severe physical or mental pain or suffering". You have not defined it.

[Balog]

Like "speedy trial" "unreasonable search and seizure" or "cruel and unusual" aren't defined?

In any case, I'd love to hear your definition of torture, and what (if any) limits you'd feel appropriate to place on our conduct.

Can we break bones? Burn people, cut them, rape them, murder their families in front of them? The ends justify the means, right? And if it's being done they obviously had it coming, right? Besides, better to torture 10 innocent men than let one terrorist get away without possibly contributing to our intelligence.

[Werewolf]

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those that don't.