Torture (Test Post)

Tybz, please do not associate me with Justin's ranting. :)

That's great that you found those techniques on globalsecurity.com, but I don't see their relevance to the techniques employed/allowed for the "war on terror."*

A sampling from the "Fear Up technique":
"Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions."

Well, that right there shows that these are irrelevant. One is not required to adhere to such a silly agreement as the Geneva Conventions when questioning an enemy combatant, which, as we all know, is a term that anyone in the world, including American citizens, can fall under, thanks to Prezzy Bush and his friends. As head of the military and national security, he can determine any one of us to be an enemy combatant. And torture us. Proof:

The Pentagon Working Group March 2003 draft report on interrogation methods concluded as follows:

"In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority…it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority" ("Portions").

Essentially, no soldier, interrogator or other military person in a position of authority could ever be held responsible for an act of torture. The responsibility now rests legally, not just rhetorically, with the state, or, more specifically, the President and the Secretary of State.

Tybz, have you read the Patriot Act?

After that, I suggest starting with portions of the Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods (March 2003) and a troubling memo from John Yoo to White House Counsel from 2002 that pushes the limits of the English language to justify torture.

The memos engage in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a "general intent" to inflict pain and a "specific intent" to inflict pain, since a "specific intent" is the language used in the U.S. Code's prohibitions against torture. The researchers assert that "…even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent" (Yoo 3). For example, if an interrogator's specific "objective" was gaining essential intelligence through interrogation, then his "specific intent" could not be shown to be that of inflicting pain. Even if inflicting pain was the method employed to obtain intelligence, the interrogator would not be guilty of torture. In this case, the verbal question of intelligence effectively obscures culpability for the physical act of torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html

For anyone who is interested in being flabbergasted further:

Yoo, John. "Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White

House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture." Electronic. August 1, 2002. < http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ doj/bybee80102ltr.html>.

"Portions of Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods,

Reportedly Prepared In Consultation With The U.S. Deptartment of Justice." Provided by The Wall Street Journal Online. March 6, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html

"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment." Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by

General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1). < http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs. html>.

Bush, President George W. "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in

the War Against Terrorism." Military Order from the Office of the Press Secretary. Nov 13th, 2001. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/ 11/20011113-27.html>.

This is a really good one!

Also, I find it odd that you are comparing the way a detainee or enemy combatant is treated to the way we train Navy Seals. I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but the people in question did not exactly volunteer to be Navy Seals. So....huh?


*Do we seriously have to keep using this term? First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. For the last time, you cannot actually fight TERROR. It is a freaking emotion. You can, however, suppport the aims of terrorist groups by making it into a giant slogan. Second of all, the phrase just allows us, as a nation, to cast any nation or individual as "the enemy", thereby throwing the rulebook of diplomacy and international law out the window and making room for war/torture/etc. Laziness. Slovenly lack of morals as a direct result of fear, or wait-- terror! They win!

Love,

Rachel