And by what definition of torture are we using?

[southernleftylady]

Ugh I hate that line isn't that the same as the "definition of is is?" that they hated????
it drives me crazy and I'm not that great with words so i always say "the one that the civilized world has been using for decades...
but what would you say to rebut this comment?

[station agent]

1. Anything you wouldn't do to a suspect in an American jail

Of course, that could led certain smart asses to point out that suspects get heinous shit done to them all the time.

[alternativethot]

2. ...and do you really want to train people to Torture?

or become like the 'enemy' we say we are fighting. It's almost cliche, but no less true. Been blogging about this a lot lately. Could be anyone who speaks out that could face this if we let it go on.

[Zodiak]

3. Here is the law and some comments US code 2340A

Torture is clearly defined by its effects in Geneva III and USC 2340A, not by prohibited methods (because we, as humans, can always think of new ways to hurt each other). The RWers want to reverse that trend and make the law prohibit a laundry list of methods so they can make up a new one and use it.


18 U.S.C. § 2340A (2000).
10
Section 2340 provides in full:

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under 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;

The many, many people who have died at Abu Ghraib as a result of "blunt force trauma" would fall in this category for sure. So would electrical charges applied to various extremeties.

(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;

Anything under #1 will certainly cause #2A to occur, according to the law. All one has to do is threaten these things, which means that every prisoner shown pictures of the torture of other prisoners is in violation of this law.

(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;

Hooding people for days would fall under this category. So would sensory deprivation of any kind. Also, the "poppers" we have been hearing about (microwave weapons mounted on rooftops in Iraq that alter personality) wuld fall into this category, as well.

(C)
the threat of imminent death; or

Any time we threaten to kill someone in our custody, that is a violation of the conventions. How many examples of this can we dig up?

(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

I wonder if the family members that we have catored of insurgents were threatened in any way. The same applies to any threatening notes we leave behind to the insurgent about what is to hapen to his family.

(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, die District of Columbia,
and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States,

Do we "possess" Gitmo? I bet we do. Also, I would argue that we "possess" our secret prisons, as well.

[grizmaster]

4. It's about EFFECTS, not methods

I have this great post bookmarked that covers the subject

Also, there is an official definition of torture for Article 3.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2837557

The President, as he picks nits, wants us to forget that the
authors of Common Article III INTENTIONALLY wrote it to
describe EFFECTS - not METHODS - so as to take into account
man's infinite creativity in finding new ways to inflict
cruelty and pain on his fellow man.

These authors knew that if they simply created a fixed
"laundry list" of what was acceptable and what was
not that someone somewhere in the future would come up with a
new way to torture people that wasn't on that list.

In short, they created a "catch-all" protection to
prevent legalistic loopholes for would-be war criminals who
would torture prisoners in the future.

[southernleftylady]

5. thanks everyone for your answers!!