Skip to comments.Osama bin Laden dies, torture thrives (Barf Alert)
Posted on 05/05/2011 3:27:07 PM PDT by tobyhill
The unity and pride inspired by the killing of Osama Bin Laden has quickly deteriorated into a nasty debate over the effectiveness of torture.
The administration is reportedly upset by this diversion. But President Barack Obama has nobody to blame but himself.
While President George W. Bush took the nation down the dark path to torture, Obama ensured that it remained part of our national debate by failing to investigate and hold to account those who tortured.
His failure to do so means that we now debate publicly whether or not to torture based on assessments of whether or not torture is effective a question relevant only if we accept that effective torture is justified. Torture, it seems, is no longer immoral or unlawful so long as it works.
The current debate offers occasion to consider the distance we have covered in legitimating torture. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan no national security softy signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture. In his signing statement, Reagan denounced torture as an abhorrent practice and emphasized the need for universal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who engaged in torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading practices.
The convention, later ratified by the Senate, obligates nations to prosecute treaty violators. At the time, it was unthinkable that the United States the worlds beacon for human rights would make use of torture and cruel practices official policy. Indeed, Congress passed legislation to make torture a criminal offense.
In 2003, the nation was horrified by the images of detainee abuse emerging from Abu Ghraib prison and large majorities of Americans thought the practices unconscionable. When Bush left office, even after his apologists had conducted a vigorous pro-torture campaign, a majority of Americans still opposed the use of torture.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
It’s pretty obvious the writer WORKS for AlQaida.
Somewhere I’ve read that waterboarding does not rate as torture under an internationally recognized definition thereof, inasmuch as it does not inflict severe and lasting physical damage or deformity, or something like that.
Anyone know of such a definition?
I would think that the definition torture would have to include something you would not voluntarily do.
Would you let them waterboard you? Many soldiers do, for training.
Would you let them pull off your fingernails for training? I dont think so
That would make one TORTURE and the other just very uncomfortable
You are making a wholly rational argument. For example, torture could be life-threatening; water-boarding is not.
But liberals don't respond to rational arguments. They're not wired that way. If they disagree with your view, they call you a racist. Or warmonger. Or bigot. Or homophobe.
Or, in this case, sadist. But, for that, they've got to be re-programmed. "Sadist" isn't in their talking points...yet.
I haven't had an intelligent discussion about issues with a liberal -- including my sis, the social worker -- in 20-30 years.
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;
Waterboarding is not torture, which is the conclusion the Bush Justice Department came to. There is no severe physical pain nor is there any actual threat of death or severe physical pain. It's very uncomfortable and definitely plays mind games, but it's not torture.
What happened at Abu Graib was not torture either. The misconduct at Abu Graib was abuse and humiliation of prisoners which was prohibited by Army regulations in existence at the time which is why the Army was already investigating when the story broke.
The unity and pride inspired by the killing of Osama Bin Laden has quickly deteriorated into a nasty debate over the effectiveness of torture.It's nasty on the left, which uses BS op-eds like this screed to attack the rest of humanity.
I remember myself being horrified.
I thought, prison? They put these people in prison?
They should be grinding them up for dogfood.
“Title 18, United States Code § 2340. Definitions”
- - — re “torture” ...
Thanks very much for this information. There is much too much loose and careless chatter about “torture” in the mass media. Even Greta S. evidently has not taken the time to learn the legal definition of torture and its specifications.
William Yeomans served as Sen. Edward M. Kennedys Chief Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has also been Legal Director of the Alliance for Justice
Billionaire Financier George Soros Open Society Institute Contributed $535,000 To Alliance For Justice Since 1999
The Barbara Streisand Foundation Has Given At Least $50,000 To Alliance For Justice.
Liberal Icon Ted Turners Foundation, The Turner Foundation, Has Given At Least $275,000 To Alliance For Justice.
The Tides Foundation, An Entity Committed To Positive Social Change And Funding The Progressive Movement, Donated Over $835,000 To Alliance For Justice Since 1999.
The Liberal Alliance For Justice Spent A Quarter-Million Dollars On Ads Accusing Republicans Of Abuse Of Power.
The Alliance For Justice And Other Liberal Groups Are Joining Forces With Ted Kennedy To Build A United Front Against President Bushs Judicial Nominees
Amen to that. They unjustly sully the reputation of the United States and the men and women on the front lines in the conflict formerly known as the global war on terror.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.