Countdown: Redefining Torture
By Heather Tuesday Apr 28, 2009 4:30am
From Countdown April 27, 2009. Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about lastest revelations that the torture that occurred may not have stayed within the legal guidelines as defined by Bush OLC and therefore be subject to prosecution. Jonathan Turley makes this observation on the Democrats being informed about the torture:
Turley: We now know that the Bush administration did what frankly a lot of criminal enterprises do. They bring in people to expose them to what they know to be an illegal program or illegal act. It's a lesson that frankly I know some of my past clients used in their organization and so they even brought in Democratic Senators to get them to buy into the program.
But there's this notion that if you had so many people that knew about it, it's less of a crime. Of course that's ridiculous. It's a worse crime. If you're a rogue operator and nobody knew that you tortured it would be treated as a simple crime. A war crime is, the concern there is that is was coordinated and premeditated and many people participated in it. And that's exactly what we have here.
Login or Register to post comments.
Dear Lord, what have we become? We must convince Obama to prosecute the men responsible for these actions.
... the fearful. Look at the Joe Scarborough thread from yesterday. Pal Joey is afraid, he builds this argument to justify his fears, he has his Girl Friday agreeing with him ... there's no rational thought here.
"Kill us all"
"Destroy our cities"
"This is a rational fear!"
No, it's not. It really isn't. And thus, America is reduced to a fearful little island. This is the nation that conquered an untamed West? That put men on the moon? Fought a World War? Survived the Great Depression and Dustbowl?
Could have fooled me.
Aren't we having a lot of threads on torture lately?
How many ways can we find of saying I'm agin it.
By next week, everyone will be completely focused on swine flu -- we'll even all become experts in it -- and torture, like the JFK assassination, will become a thing of the past.
...........is legal, but Pot is not. Go figure.
..you should paint that on a really big sign and stand in Front of the White House gate! Or, maybe Faux News Hdqtrs., or some Texas Mega-church....
Does anybody think for a moment that these torturers are not living amongst you now in places like Dallas, for example, and most likely getting away with all kinds of shit just like they always did?
28% of us know the truth
28% of us are involved in an on going criminal conspiracy.
We need as much info to win support of those unknowing that wrote pay checks for torture.
This fight for our original understanding enshrined in our constitution, to be restored.
Good Day.
...never experienced. Obama should let Holder do his job and go after these sadistic cowards. Justifying the use of waterboarding as not being torture will be legally hopeless.
against later retribution, you make sure the people who might eventually want to prosecute you are in on the crime.
Brilliant!
that's why impeachment was off the table at the Reid ans Pelosi houses.
it needs to be clear that people who should be engaging in oversite are held responsible when they don't fullfill their duty
is doomed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg_NYa2_3ek&fe...
.........It is a very sad truth, and it started with the lack of prosecution of Prescott Bush (Fascist) and his hench-men, the WALLSTREETGANGSTERS. They all loved HITLER, he was their best client for those ovens.
Beating someone to death, packing his dead body in ice and dumping it
probly doesn't follow any guidelines. How many americans know (much less care) about the "Ice-Man":
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
a modern-day crucifixion is what it was.
This, and most of the rendition and torture that has taken place during the Cheney Reign, had nothing to do with gathering information to 'keep us safe'.
It's about a bunch of criminal thugs with power, money, and the big-boy toys necessary to live out their disgusting, sociopathic fantasies.
So the last administration took a page out of the mafia's play book?
... get one, get 'em all.
They have always been the mafia, only had better PR managers then to cloak the sewer they live in and propagate where ever they go, conquering the world-WORLD DOMINATION is the goal.
Quite apropos.
when he's on Keith. It's a shame he won't/can't be appointed Special Prosecutor to investigate the Bushies. He's a really bright guy who's very in touch with reality.
An Independent Council.
And no fecking, limp-wristed, 'congressional/lee hamilton committee.'
But it aingonghapun...
Nobody wants the truth hidden more than Obama and the Dims...
Please provide facts and not jaded innuendo.
without the cooperation, compliance and complicity of the WHOLE government establishment.
Obama has three categories of legitemate excuses to use to rationalize his reluctance to prosecute the Busheviks before bowing inevitably to the political one:
1) It is pretty much entirely unprecedented. That's a HUGE hurdle, just on the practical side. We SHOULD have prosecuted Nixon, which is the core of the current dilemma.
2) By bringing prosecutions, and creating a precedent, he'd be opening himself to the same treaatment by vindictive GOPukes at the end of his own regime. This is not entirely selfish, because he' also be making that the almost inevitable consequence for every subsequent presidency.
3) No jury in any venue in the USofA would now or will EVER convict Bush and his minions of crimes committed against despised, marginalized, demonized 'enemies' ("them fuckin' Hajis") in 'defense' of the country. You'd have to be institutionalizable not to see that.
Do the math: 75% thinks its war-crimes. 25%, presumably don't thinks so. There are 12 members of a jury. 25% of 12 = 3. Three jurors, on average, on any jury panel will be already predisposed to jury nullification.
So, even if he goes ahead and courageously ignores the problems and dilemmas posed by doing so, in points one and two above, there's still (probably than) a 25% it's all in vain, and he loses in court AND sets a pretty terrible (in the hands of the Pukes) precedent, and all for naught?
Here, let me spell it out for your: na ga haapun...
If there was anything substantial to your diatribe, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly would be all over it without let up.
to figure it out...
Yes, I agree, someone from the huge numbers of the lawyers professional ethics board, which has been beating drums to clear the nation of unqualified brownshirts left as moles in all levels of gov. Fitzgerald was a pussy, figure to cover their tracks. PLEEZE..............only 'Scooter' ...............PLEEZE...............
FACTS to prove what you say, or are you just a bush clown.
Howzaboot we have our prisoners watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEQXcbqvbT0
The reason is treason.
If and when this can of worms gets opened completely, I don't know what we'll do with all those desperate slimy creatures slithering around. It's gonna be a big mess for sure.
... I don't care who they are. If you signed off on it, you're toast.
Absolutely! Party affiliation has not one damned thing to do with it. If someone (dem or repub) was being held verbally hostage under some dire threat, I want to know about that too.
Rep, Brad Sherman provided one insight into that 'strong-arm' tactic, when he revealed that members of Congress were threatened when considering the TARP legislation. He said they were told martial law would have to be implemented if the banks weren't given billions to prevent their insolvency.
Sounds like blackmail to me!
is when Hannity and his ilk say "let's find out WHO ALL knew about this and round them ALL up for questioning" - meaning of course, Pelosi, Rockefeller, etc. What this stupid tool (and his ilk) don't get is that WE RADICAL LEFTIES AGREE.....round 'em all up.....I don't care if their Dem or Rep, WRONG IS WRONG and I want them outed and gone. I have voted for Rockefeller since the late 70's here in WV and I DON'T CARE.....if he is somehow complicit he needs to go.
..it may be that Congress was lied to about torture also. That's what Pelosi has been saying. However, I'm in total agreement: Who knew, who acted, who enabled, doesn't matter, its illegal and the perpetrators must be punished, all of them, no free passes, no pardons.
... the 'we weren't briefed' story Pelosi is spinning. They didn't mention it at all? And when the allegations of torture began popping up, you did ... nothing?
Why, exactly, was impeachment 'off the table'?
Yes, I think everyone here blames the complicit 'Dems' who are still railroading us. Kneepads Nancy, Rahm, Reid, each and every DINO - look at all the code words to cover up SHIT!!
support the Constitution and the Rule of Law radical lefties. I think they might better be considered patriots. Then again the Founding Fathers were some pretty radical lefties. But the important thing is that YES they ALL need to be rounded up and prosecuted if they were in any way involved in torture and other war crimes.
I want the person who came up with the idea in the first place and also the person who gave the final go ahead. These are my main concerns. I do have others but they aren't as important to me as these two.
......it was the pissy, little pervert that that sullied the Oval Office with his gang of Petroleum Mafiosos. These folks put the Sicilians to shame.
George W. Bush
|
Richard B. Cheney
---------------------------------------------
| | |
Alberto Gonzales Donald Rumsfeld George Tenet
Jay Bybee Douglas Feith Porter Goss
John Yoo Paul Wolfowitz Michael Hayden
Michael Mukasey
My gut feeling is Rumsfeld should be on the same level as cheney as far as this is concerned.
agreement here on rumdum.
Cheney should be at the top of your chart. Georgie, Jr. was just along for the ride and because Daddy told him he had to...or else. He doesn't have the brain power to lead or even figure out how to accomplish these dastardly acts.
Little Bush is a petty, vindictive little shit, the kind of guy you could count on to punch the kid with glasses if he thought nobody was looking.
The kind of guy who would shoot someone if it was legal, just because he could.
He is the consummate "little prick".
isn't a prick....I'm just saying he wasn't/isn't smart enough to have been the leader of the pack. That's why GHWB had Cheney 'pick himself' to be W's VP. Get it?
It's the right place to start. Others are culpable under the law (carrying out an unlawful order is itself unlawful), but it's time to stop going after the small fry like Lynde England and go after the ones really responsible for the decisions that condoned what the small fry did.
I wonder what would have happened if one democrat, let's say Pelosi, had stood before a camera and said the administration was in the act of torturing prisoners. Would she have been laughed at, listened to, what? Would anyone have paid any attention to her while the administration continued to deny it? How long would it have been before she was pinned with title of traitor?
I am not defending her, just wondering what the mood would have been back then when over half the US still believed that Saddam had WMD and he was involved in 9-11.
said there was no torture. If Congress was briefed on the non-torture, then how were they possibly complicit? Bush and Cheney were lying about everything, so I would give Pelosi some benefit of the doubt.
I still can't figure Obama out. The worst of humanity would enjoy the work of torturing people, to death in some cases, and he thinks these people should be protected, and continue in their careers with all the perks and privileges? Accessory after the fact?
If Obama satisfied some progressives and agressively went after Bush and Company, Conservatives would immediately go into victimhood and claim the President is interferring with the DOJ to go on a vengeful witchhunt. I don't agree with this method, but I believe Obama is waiting for overwhelming public sentiment to demand investigation to nullify bullshit Republican claims of political retribution.
but why call the torturers "dedicated"? That wasn't neccessary for what you're saying and actually would help to swing public opinion towards being pro-torture. No?
definition.
then his and Holders protecting them is their calling them "dedicated to protecting America" when we know good and well that torture does the exact opposite and that no "dedicated" American intel agent nor soldier would ever engage in torture since it's against our laws. What message does calling torturers "dedicated to protecting America" send to those intel agents and soldirrs who OBEYED our laws and refused to participate in the war crimes???
Torture is just tough LOVE!
Why to the liberals want to ban LOVE?
The GOP just wants to LOVE you!
Hey librul people, the video Keith Olbermann showed of waterboarding was not accurate, nor was Olbermann's description of waterboarding ! Keith Older man does not know more about waterboarding than a CIA agent who underwent waterboarding himself !!
According to this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4uWTg-HEtY&tr...
Water does not enter the body at all !!! The Saran wrap prevents it. On the video-from 1:05 - 1:30 Mr Kiriakou explains how harmless waterboarding is.I think it should be called "water sprinking".I trust this CIA agent, John Kiriakou, because he seems very sincere and honest.
Call it "water sprinking" if you like, it's still illegal.
I meant sprinkling not sprinking. Hi pissed-off Patricia. I'm a big fan of yours...love your messages. I was being as sarcastic as 'Liberalicious' in the message above mine posted as 06:39.
I get a kick out of that propaganda video. John Kiriakou makes waterboarding sound like somethin' only nice fellas do.
I think that would be illegal
Baptism without consent.
in public...now I'm not allowed in the library anymore.
In my defense, I had to sprink REALLY bad.
Past tense of sprinking is spunk LNM. "I spunked.."
Uh oh. There I go commenting on grammar again. I hear site monitor sirens.
Waterboarding harmless? You're a coward.
... but I'd wager people hear 'no permanent harm' (as opposed to, say, breaking someone's arms/legs) and that's getting translated into zombie-speak as 'harmless.'
... no AIR enters the body, either. The amount of water used is not the criteria that defines torture; it is the perceived threat of imminent bodily harm/death.
Before you go talking about how wonderful John Kiriakou is, why don't you slap a piece of saran wrap over YOUR nose and mouth and see how well you fare?
Honestly, after I saw that propaganda video the day it came out -my wife waterboarded me using the technique John Kiriakou described and my 10 year old son was the timer. I lasted about 20 seconds.....which is much longer than John Kiriakou's 5 seconds. Kiriakou was trying to show us that he was such a wimp that ,well, he must be trustworthy because he told us the truth about what a softee he was. I wonder if he got acting coaching for that propaganda video. He came off as such a sweetie. How can we not trust such a nice boy??
What part of 'threat of imminent bodily harm/death' are you having trouble with?
"I trust this CIA agent, John Kiriakou, because he seems very sincere and honest."
Did you look into his eyes to divine that?
How is it "simulated drowing" if no water enters the body?
Waterboarding is torture, period, but I have trouble with that video that they showed. It looks fake to me. Watch the hands of the person being waterboarded. They are totally relaxed and it's made to look like they are stuffing that rag in his mouth and yet it doesn't look like his mouth is open when you look at his jaws.
... you are blindfolded, you cannot breathe, and you feel water on your face, it simply confirms what your involuntary reflexes are already telling you: you can't breathe.
Drowning is simply suffocation by immersion. Hence, 'simulated drowning.'
Either you ARE drowning and/or suffocating or you AREN'T. The only thing that could remotely be considered simulation of this would not involve water no having air passages blocked - ie: holding your breath. If someone is involunteerily blocking your air passages they are drowning/suffocating you no simulation about it. They MAY stop before you die but that doesn't make it simulated!
... I'm not trying to justify the action, just answering Janet's question.
And it remains 'simulated drowning' because one can achieve the same physical stresses of asphyxia without the necessity of filling the subject's lungs with water.
It's still torture, and it's still illegal.
No Livid, it is you and Kiriakou who are wrong. Otherwise there would have been no need for medical personnel to stand by in case a tracheostomy was needed if the victim aspirated water into his lungs. Water also gets into the sinuses and the middle ear, which can both lead to infection.
Saran wrap was not used. It defeats the entire purpose of waterboarding. Plus, the interrogators had zero interest in protecting the victims.
Pat Buchanan isn't losing sleep over torture but this morning he was still bitching and moaning about President Obama's "handshake". He went so far off the track that fu*king Joe Scarborough couldn't even follow him.
And you were surprised?
joe has trouble following his own nose.
Americans survived the Bush Administration. Get a clue.
Look at America befor bush. Look at America today. You say we survived. America has been treated just like bush ran the 4 busniess he tried, ALL went bankrupt where bush walked with HIS money and NEVER looked backed.
But just like his NAZI loveing clan, he will walk.
A few traps not to fall into…
1) Waterboarding is not torture. It’s just “enhanced interrogation”.
Wrong. Drowning someone IS torture.
2) Sometimes torture “works” and is therefore necessary.
Wrong. Torture ALWAYS works. It’s just not effective or reliable.
3) It’s illegal – period.
Feeble. There are degrees of felonies and it’s a cop-out to define torture as simply illegal. It’s immoral; it denigrates all involved, jeopardizes our soldiers and our country, and is one of the most heinous crimes anyone can perpetrate on another human being.
4)Only those who ordered the torture should be held accountable.
Wrong. The mentality of everyone involved should be in question, at the very least. Following illegal orders is also illegal, and we’ve long established that “just following orders” is no excuse.
5)This is a political witch-hunt.
Wrong. It was the last administration that instituted and institutionalized the practice of torture. It would be impossible to investigate and prosecute WITHOUT involving the last administration, therefore political overtones are meaningless.
6) Pulling at this thread would bring down the government at the highest levels.
Then bring down the government at the highest levels, if necessary. Too big to fail is the best argument to let it, whether it is corrupt big-business or corrupt big-government.
7) Others torture too.
Yes, they do. We don’t.
8)Let’s just move-on.
Investigating and prosecuting those who ordered and were involved in torture is not just about the past crimes, it is also about future crimes. We need to ensure this never happens again. If there are no consequences for actions, then our way of life becomes a free-for-all and civilization collapses.
Are you suggesting there are 'degrees of torture,' some of which are acceptable or not?
It IS illegal. This has been fairly determined by our courts and through the diplomatic process that led to the Geneva Conventions. It IS that simple.
Actually , 4 days ago I saw a video on youtube where a former CIA or FBI guy who is anti-torture and anti-waterboarding and was an interrogator said something like if forced to choose between waterboarding or bloody torture -he'd prefer waterboarding. Again I say he was /is anti-torture but simply said that in answer to a question. He supposedly underwent bloody-type torture many yrs ago. Does anyone want me to search for that video.It'll take me about ten minutes.
... we use waterboarding in SERE training is because it produces no lasting harm - as opposed to motion impairment inflicted by breaking the subject's bones, cutting off appendages, puncturing eardrums, etc. - but it cannot be said to be 'harmless,' since the purpose is to replicate the stress of interrogation that a soldier can expect to undergo if captured.
It's still torture, and it's still against the law.
The 'degrees of felonies' is a misrepresentation of murder classifications, which govern sentencing and special circumstances (i.e. the death penalty), and not the actual act of murder.
Apparently we did both but nobody ever comments on the pics showing pools of blood and smears of blood where they drug the bodies from Abu Grabass
... addressing the continued nonsense and bullshit of 'waterboarding isn't torture.'
The photos from Abu Ghraib make it clear we engaged in a number of illegal acts beyond waterboarding.
Not at all.
I’m saying that the argument that it is simply illegal is feeble. Lying under oath about a BJ is also illegal, but it in no way comes close to the atrocity of this. Jay-walking on an empty street is simply illegal, but the implication of breaking this law is not equivalent.
There are degrees of felonies, and the law takes into account motive, intent, harm, and other factors. Simply illegal is too black and white, and has the potential of equating a simple crossing the line of legal boundaries with that which is innately and undeniably immoral, heinous, and outrageous.
... because the moral implications of the act of torture were considered from a legal and moral standpoint during previous rulings and the ratification of the Geneva Conventions.
You're buying into the 'we need moral clarity' horseshit that the Bush Administration was shopping around when this started coming out. The circumstances under which torture was defined as illegal and, furthermore, the exact language of the Geneva Conventions, makes it quite clear.
You are arguing my very point Shadowgm.
I'm not saying that that the legality is in question. It is not. I'm saying that it is a trap to argue moral equivalence between that which is trivial, and this which is at the apex of high-crimes.
... that the moral implications of a law are determined when the law is drafted, not in the enforcement. That's true of even 'degrees of felonies.'
Thus, it is sufficent to say, "X is illegal." There is no moral debate to be had, no further 'clarity' to be purchased whilst one continues to break the law.
We accept that the death penalty is not appropriate punishment for jaywalking. Jaywalking does not involve foreign prisoners in our custody, nor does it carry implications as to our trustworthiness in international relations.
Furthermore, the Eight Amendment specifies that excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. This, too, is a point of law which need not be re-argued in conjunction with a violation.
We are not in disagreement, but clarification is helpful.
The speed-limit in front of my house is 25 miles per hour. I sometimes go 30. This is illegal. There is no question about this, and should I be cited, the law prescribes penalty. The moral implications of my speeding could be brought into question, but as you say, it doesn’t matter. The law has been broken.
We take a presumed innocent civilian, drown him to extract a false confession; and continue to torture him for a month. This is illegal. There is no question about this either. Our own laws prescribe penalty for this crime.
Is one crime worse than the other? Yes. They are not equivalent, though they are both illegal.
This is the trap. This is where the argument that it is “Illegal – Period” has the potential to trivialize the crime, and punishment.
To understand the difference, it is not sufficient to just point out the severity of penalty. You must also understand the moral implications, the harm, the intent (yes, all of which was done in Geneva).
To be clear – I am not trivializing torture. I am warning about the hazard of doing so.
... 'seeking moral clarity' is the one that seeks to trivialize the matter. It presupposes that, 'in the post 9/11 world' things have changed sufficiently as to render previous determinations null and void (or 'quaint and antiquated').
I'm sorry, but bringing jaywalking or the speed limit into things doesn't help your case, because we're also supposed to be able to reason such things out. If you zoom down the street, you're eligible for a ticket; that you don't get one doesn't mean the law hasn't been broken, or that it is less worthy of enforcement than what we're discussing here.
The apologists for torture are approaching it from both sides - that their actions are not illegal, and that circumstances now require a new approach to existing law.
Adhering to the law only becomes a weak argument if you accept their premise. Otherwise, it's perfectly sound.
Yes, they are arguing that the Geneva Conventions and our International treaties are quaint and anachronistic (literally). They are saying that they have not broken any laws while at the same time saying the laws need to change.
It is precisely for this reason that the nature of the crime must be taken into account. There are thousands of laws on the books in every State that are trivial and silly. This is not one of them, and it is important to make the distinction. This is NOT jaywalking or speeding where the efficacy of the laws may be brought into question.
I keep thinking of the argument used to impeach Clinton, and the rationale for the zeal by which they prosecuted him. “He broke the law – period!” Regardless of the success in this endeavor, the argument was feeble. It didn’t matter much one way or the other.
In this case – it matters.
Torture is torture.
Torture is not jaywalking.
Torture is not exceeding the speed limit.
Torture is not a misdemeanor.
Torture is illegal, a finding that has been upheld by our own courts and agreed upon in international treaty.
These are not deep, philosophical points for intellectuals to debate ad infinitum. They are clear, factual statements.
By insisting that we MUST debate the morality of their actions AGAIN, you're simply enabling them to shop their excuses to a wider audience. It is justifying their 'the world has changed' meme.
It is not a case of 'the morality doesn't matter' - it does. It's part and parcel of the crime. But the moral aspects have already been settled in the process of establishing domestic and international law; those principles have not changed, and the weight of legal precedent is what sustains the 'it's illegal' argument.
It is not, as you continue to assume, some weak-arsed complaint to be easily dismissed.
You seem to think that there is disagreement that torture is immoral; that there is question whether or not the act of torture is equivalent to jaywalking. Put that to rest – torture is illegal. Torture is immoral and against our domestic laws and international agreements that we are constitutionally obligated to enforce and defend.
Again, we are not in disagreement. My assertion is that there IS a difference between speeding/jaywalking and torture – and simply because they are all illegal, does not make them all equivalent. My warning is to not let there be any gray-area in these assertions, and not to equate those laws which could be debated with those that should never be.
... that there's a moral component to all laws, therefore, it's debatable.
There is no gray area as far as I'm concerned; the questions of morality in the use of torture have been answered by the courts and affirmed in international treaty. Therefore, it is sufficient to say, 'torture is illegal.'
This is also true of your jaywalking/speeding example; the appropriate measure of accountability has already been defined in the process of adopting laws against them, and there is no need to settle the question again.
A ruling in football is not pertinent to a disputed stolen base in a Yankees' game. What the courts hold on jaywalking is not pertinent to what they hold on torture; by allowing that there are different moral implications, you indirectly open the subject to debate.
And there's not one to be had. Torture is immoral, and it is illegal. The law supports these claims, and it is not subject to redefinition or 'moral clarity.' It is not a weak or flawed argument.
In that case, let us beat that dead horse to death.
I understand what you are saying. The moral implications of the law are accounted for in the law, and because of that, are irrelevant to whether the law was broken. This is true, and I concede this point.
However the same argument was used to impeach Clinton. The moral equivalence of impeaching Clinton because “He broke the law – Period.” and enforcing laws and treaties against torture? What say you? Does it matter? Is there no difference?
It was their argument that “It’s the law.” and this justified the Ken Star prosecution? Was it settled that in defending the letter of the law the prosecution was justified? Is there now no difference between lying about a BJ and torturing?
I say there’s a big difference (which was my original point). Though both assumed moral authority due to the enforcement of the letter of the law, the two crimes are not equivalent, and should not be dealt with equally.
Should all laws be enforced equally? Well, yes. Are they? No. There is great discretion between those laws which leniency is assumed, and those that the breaking we will not tolerate.
Likewise, there is a big difference in the response of authorities when you report your bicycle being stolen, and when you report your spouse being murdered. They are both illegal, but they are not equivalent.
In this case, the response of accusations of torture SHOULD be equated to an act of murder (or worse), and the response should be as zealous.
... all instances of the law are treated separately, on the merits of the case, unless a prior case establishes a legal precedent.
The actions of Bill Clinton have no bearing upon the actions of George W. Bush. You're still floundering for some kind of distinction, when there doesn't need to be one.
Let's get it straight - you keep comparing misdemeanors (jaywalking, stolen bikes) with felonies (murder). Apples and oranges. You're the only trying to maintain that I (or anyone else who takes the approach that 'it's illegal, ergo, case closed') is implying that jaywalking is the same as torture.
This is the real meaning of 'rule of law.' I'm sorry it's not to your liking.
Not only am I not implying that misdemeanors are equivalent to felonies, I’m saying they should not be seen as equivalent in any way (except both are illegal).
And yes, “It’s illegal, ergo – case closed”, though accurate, says nothing about the nature of the crime, and the appropriate response of authorities to that crime. By limiting the dialog to this simple syllogism, you run the risk – the POTENTIAL – of trivializing that which should not be trivialized.
The mere fact that torture is simply illegal (and nothing more need be said outside the scope of the law), is where the breakdown in response could occur. The “why it is illegal” becomes important when discussing if the prosecution of this crime should be pursued. Make no mistake, that discussion IS taking place – and the “why” IS important.
Watching the demonstration and the description of suffocation, I keep thinking about Sean Hannity with that smug smile of his when he said he'd be willing to be waterboarded, because to him, all you're doing is pouring some water over a persons' face ("Big deal", I'm sure he's thinking. "I do that every morning in the shower.") :(
Owie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&fe...
Watching torture apologists make excuses for torture is like watching members of NAMBLA making excuses for pedophilia. There is one key difference, though: Even the most diseased child molesters aren't so intellectually dishonest as to claim that the jury is still out on whether a creep putting his wiener in a 12-year-old really counts as pedophilia, as torture enthusiasts claim about water torture.
Torture has been shown to be effective for only two things:
1) Getting people to swear to things that everyone knows are not true. For example, Johannes Junius, a town elder in 17th Century Bamberg, Germany was tortured until he "confessed" to blighting the town with disease and the countryside with bad weather and failed crops -all through the use of witchcraft and black magic. Abu Zebaydah was tortured until he "confessed" that Iraq and Al-Queda were allies and that Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 attacks.
2) Arousing the loins of sadists and giving them a kinky thrill. During the numerous cases of witch hysteria, the authorities took great delight in examining the bodies of accused witches while searching for a "witches' mark" -a search that almost always focused on the genitals. Compare that with the rape and sexual humiliation at Abu Ghraib.
Right-wingers who condone torture are every bit as vile and loathsome as witch-hunters and pedophiles.
... but a woman's breasts.
One of the charges against Anne Boleyn was that she had a third nipple, and was therefore a witch.
(Cue ys and the witch trial from Monty Python & The Holy Grail)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Actually superfluous nipples were what was being looked for along with the Devil's Mark, Matthew Hopkins specialty. Around late 30's early 40's little flesh tags on the skin are normal, and have to be surgically removed although it be merely cosmetic. These could easily be taken as nipples. They looked for them on men too.
Sometimes it was unclear whether familiars sucked milk or blood. The Devil's Mark was supposedly where the Devil touched them to consecrate them, and left an insensitive spot, so with special puncturing tools they would look for a spot where the accused Witch wouldn't react. What Matthew Hopkin's, the so-called Witchfinder General, was use retractable blades that slid back in the handle.
or a cry for help?
I'm a real person. Sorta.
C &L message posters :
1.) Do you think Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Yoo and Addington with all of their money and evil ruthlessness and powerful connections will ever really get prosecuted?? Are things different now in the age of the internet? Can it really happen- these gods get sent to jail? Seems impossible, doesn't it?
2.) How will the world react if no prosecutions take place ?
bandwidth that expands with my consciousness.
1. No.
2. Same way they reacted to Vietnam, the Contras, the Death Squads, that mess with Cuba, and every other errant finger America has jammed up some other country's arse: they'll shrug, say "fuckin' Americans", and go back to playing Footy.
1) yes it can happen. It has happened before. They are only "gods" to you.
2) they are already reacting. It's a large part of why they're giving the US the finger on helping out on the economic situation. They'll move forward economicly while leaving the nation that tortures to rot in it's filth.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
even in states that still have the Death Penalty for capital crimes the executioners are not allowed to apply "cruel and unusual" punishment....indeed, the methods used are to reduce if not eliminate pain and suffering.
isn't it ironic that we have brave soldiers fighting and dying to protect out liberties and values....while here at home folks like GW, Cheney, and Rummy are flushing some of those values down the toilet??
what have we become??
I call on Hannity to make good the offer he made on his own show to be waterboarded for charity for the troops and their families. If I wasn't "banned for life" on his website message board I would raise that point.....but they won't let me on anymore
being shackled and hooded and incarcerated and stripped naked and photographed in sexual positions with other prisoners and slapped and punched and forced into stress positions and involuntarily waterboarded. Maybe Hannity could skip a lunch to show how starving people isn't really all that bad, or shake his head a couple of times to show that shaken baby syndrome perpetrators and just regular folks.
I am an older American and it is clear to me that this has become a nation of fear. We are afraid of terrorists, flu, prosecuting criminals, and almost anything and everything. How sad for this and future generations. No one with any courage.
Keith needs to put the jacket back on. Looks more dignified.
Well, as if we needed any further proof that repugs aren't big history buffs...
WOW! Reagan DoJ convicted TX Sheriff for waterboarding in 1983
GAH!!!
Stupid, longer'n hell links!
Well...it's on dailykos....I tried.
[FIFY-Sitemonitor]
That'll generate a shortened url that you can use for links.
I guess that's a dirty word or something.
[We're disallowing URL masks, because there is not a way to tell where you are being directed. It's a security issue-Sitemonitor]
You have uncovered the true source of Texan discomfort with Washington. When even Ronald Reagan cannot be trusted to let our local law enforcement boys do the job God failed to let the Rio Grande do, how can we trust anyone in the federal government?
You're the BEST! ;)
The 50+ nations' written warnings given the Bush administration that a 9/11 event was on it's way...those warnings were ignored/mocked, as we all know.
Those nation's who provided the warnings to our White House through their normal intelligence gathering protocols...NOT from use of torture.
Also the bombings in the EU were NOT prevented even though we were torturing in GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan and at the infamous black op prisons.....
We also know that GW and cabal had ordered torture to make someone, anyone, say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 while they were threatening the global community either "be with us or against us" in attacking a sovereign nation for natural resources.
Those [tortured] statements GW needed linking Iraq to 9/11...and now we know that is exactly why the torture tapes were destroyed:
they didn't get the results linking Iraq....and the White House was aware a Saudi Prince and a Pakistani General were the financial backers and planners for 9/11.
In the earliest days of the "war with Iraq" propaganda...it was infuriating to know/recall, as well as the that the rest of the world was well aware
...that Saddam Hossein was a mortal enemy of bin Laden and any type of religious rule/gov't - for decades - The global voices (and us here who knew) were threatened with "either with us or against us" saber rattling....American's were called names, fired, lives, families, careers destroyed...silencing those voices.
Those nation's who were blackmailed to be "with us"....were not only aware they would be attacked by the US as Iraq/Afghanistan.... their nations economies were threatened if they didn't let GW have his war President legacy.
I still havent heard if hammy has undergone the pleasure.
HAS HE?
I think not. (the fraidykat.)
It's not torture, if you do it to someone else.
He rembers when Beck did it and look what happen to him. Now he is a retard. hamity is a pritty boy, he talks all his shit. Pat Tilman was a real MAN. hey prity boy,if you are so gun ho, enlist in the Army and show your people YOU arnt a punk-ass bitch.
If "waterboarding" isn't torture then why are the "torture doctors" in ski masks? Why aren't they like doctors in "whites"? Why are they afraid to reveal themselves? BECAUSE " waterboarding" is FRICKEN ILLEGAL, THAT'S WHY !
The republican party is dead....dead....dead.....
John
... as means of legal defense, it's probably more because a faceless interrogator is more imposing/threatening to a subject, and the mask also confers a measure of psychological distance for the torturer.
That your fate is dependent upon a nameless, faceless entity - who may or may not be the same person from previous sessions - is inherently disturbing. You can't build a rapport or even plead when you can't be sure of whom you're relating to.
Additionally, it's part of the 'strategy' - you're trying to obtain information from the subject while denying them the opportunity to gain information from you (descriptions, names).
None of which absolves anyone from guilt. But guilt alone is not the reason for the masks.
I would imagine the torturers spoke Arabic to their victims, no?
I'm getting tired of conservatives reframing arguments to benefit them politically. How in the world is this country split on using torture? Answer: Reframing.
This article sums it up quite nicely.
http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=517
... it's that we have to learn how to recognize when we're being led down the primrose path and how to focus on our objectives.
When your opponent relies on a fallacy, the proper response is to identify it and call it out, expose it as fraud, not emulate their tactics.
Login or Register to post comments.