What is the law that congress passed regarding torture

vanity

[airedale]

The media and the DemoRats like to bring up the Geneva Conventions when the issue of torture comes up and give its protections for lawful combatants to unlawful combatants. Those that disagree with them point to something that congress passed which defines torture and the legal definition is substantially different than the everyday meaning of the word torture. Does any one know and could post the actual law in question so we can read it. Also when it was passed so we can determine who was in charge in congress when it was passed. I suppose we also should know who sponsored it and who voted for it as well. I know the MSM will never ever provide us with this if the Republicans are right. It will hurt the meme they are using so it would have to be suppressed.

[airedale]

This is the wrong act since it was passed long after the incidents in question.

[airedale]

But the incidents in question occured long before 2005 that’s why the earlier laws were the ones the White House used in 2001-2004. Laws can’t be made retroactive in the US.

[philman_36]

But it’s what we’re operating under now, as far as I can tell.

[philman_36]

Laws can’t be made retroactive in the US.
Amazing! I find what you can't find and are looking for and yet you're lecturing me on ex post facto! Too funny!
I would think you would give me some credit.
Later!

[airedale]

Not lecturing you and I appreciated your finding the code section in effect before 2005. You also keep bringing up the 2005 law which made substantial changes and it’s not applicable to my question. If the incidents in question occurred after 2005 then it would be which is my point.

[Sandy]

I do not think that any American who actually puts cigarettes out on a terrorists eyeballs, in a foreign country, can be tried in a civilian United States Court, as long as the terrorist is out of uniform when captured, is NOT a US Citizen and is not covered by POW protections.

You're wrong. Read the statute:

18 U.S.C. § 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense.-- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.-- There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if--

     (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

     (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.-- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Note that torture is defined in section 2340 as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law [...]"

[Kansas58]

No, YOU are wrong:

“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; “

Waterboarding those NOT covered by Geneva Conventions and NOT covered by the US Constitution (non citizens) was LAWFULLY SANCTIONED by the United States Government!

Any pain or suffering these animals felt was “incidental” to the task of GAINING INFORMATION WHICH SAVED AMERICAN LIVES!

Sandy, wimps like you will force Presidents, in the future, to issue Presidential Pardons to all all CIA and intelligence agents, on a regular basis.

We MUST do what we did.

Cowardice on this issue will likely mean that radical Islam will kill all of us, or in slave all of us, very soon.

[Sandy]

We MUST do what we did.

You think we put cigarettes out on people's eyeballs? Because that's what your question was about, remember?

Waterboarding those NOT covered by Geneva Conventions and NOT covered by the US Constitution (non citizens) was LAWFULLY SANCTIONED by the United States Government!

So what? The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with the torture statute, which was written to enforce the torture treaty we signed only about twenty years ago. And btw, "under color of law" and "lawful" do not mean the same thing. You're begging the question.

[Kansas58]

I did, true, say “cigarettes in eyeballs” -— however, I also said, “terrorists who were not covered by Geneva and were not US Citizens who were captured on foreign soil” -—

If someone planted a nuclear device, ready for detonation, and was later captured, I do think that the President has the duty, right and ability to “sanction” whatever it takes to get information vital to protect life, thousands of lives. The pain is not the point, the pain is “incidental” to gaining vital information. The President, who can “sanction” the launch of a nuclear missile, which will kill millions, SURELY has the right and duty and ability to “sanction” a cigarette in an eyeball, to PREVENT the death of millions!

YES Geneva is important, primarily because the brain dead leftists bring it up constantly, and treaty obligations are FAR more important than any act of Congress.

The Geneva Conventions do NOT give POW protection to terrorists!

The statute that YOU rely upon also has very broad exceptions.

[Kansas58]

And
I am fully aware of what “under color of law” means.

That would seem to make the Clinton administration guilty of torture, since Clinton handed terrorists over to foreign countries, had THEM do the dirty work, with REAL torture, and then Clinton benefited from the information that was obtained!

That is the very definition of “under color of law” lol.

[Para-Ord.45]

reference

[philman_36]

reference
A reference mark for yourself?