Subscribe
Notify of
93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Ivan:

Lay off the stupid pills.

Ivan, you really have no sense of history.

I’ve got another post in the quiver about this. Time to put it up.

@Ivan:
Ivan

Why did we start bombing Libya?

DrJohn,
hi,
I must fix a word, when I read it,
it is the word CONDONE, WHICH i MISTAKENLY TOOK FOR THE WORD CONDEMN,
SO WHEN i said I condone, I meant condemn, the vicious actions of killing
GADAFI CUTTING HIM AND BLEEDING HIM BEFORE SHOOTING IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA
FOR THE WORLD TO SEE WHAT KIND OF HUMAN THEY ARE.
They say to have endure 40 years of his regime,
how come they just now revolt.

@ilovebeeswarzone: I kind of thought that’s what you meant, Bees, but I’m glad to read it.

Thanks!

@Tom:

whether enhanced interrogation is consistent with American principles.

Tom,

Do you equate the CIA’s EITs as constituting the same thing as torture? Or “torture-lite”?

Since Mata and I do not, hence the charge that you are equating the Libyan rebel thugs who tortured and killed Gaddhafi with what our intell interrogators did.

For the record, it’s the Bush Administration that deserves any blame for enhanced interrogation, not people simply doing their jobs.

I think they and those “simply doing their jobs” deserve credit.

TOM,
there you go,
it’s BUSH FAULT AGAIN,
you have been program deep to the core, and proving it,
just when the ELECTION’S COMING WILL RESULT IN THE CLEAN UP OF THE WHITE HOUSE,

@Wordsmith:

Do you equate the CIA’s EITs as constituting the same thing as torture? Or “torture-lite”?

I think the answer to that question is very dependend upon once’s definition of torture.

Here is one definition (italics added by me):

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. –UN Convention Against Torture[1] one one’s definition of torture.

I think where many disagree is whether “mental” enters into the equation (the phrase I italicized). In the case of waterboarding, from everything I’ve read from those who have experienced it, it’s the fact it simulates drowning, rather than the physical discomfort, that is the worse aspect. Even those who experience it knowing it end have reported feeling a a helpless sensation of terror that they were drowning. Now obviously detainees would be expected to feel even more helpless, terrified and uncertain. As I happen to agree with the concept that torture, specifically the threat of a horrible death, can be mental, I do think it is a form of torture. We can argue about degrees, but there has to be a line somewhere, no? Perhaps I think it’s on one side and you the other, I understand that. But it’s close enough to warrant discussion I think. I believe it has hamstrung our ability to place moral or ethical pressure upon the actions of other governments and regimes, because we are, at the very least, in a gray area with enhanced interrogation. My position, I think you will concede, is not a fringe position. There are liberals, moderates and conservatives who are against enhanced interrogation, just as there are many who have concluded it is acceptable. Of course if we drop the moral posturing from the equation and take the approach that it’s a necessary evil and/or the ends justify the means, that’s an entirely different discussion. I will tell you up front, I don’t buy that.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my stance without accusing me of being anti-US military, or anti-US in general. I am against EIT precisely because of my feelings that we’re better than that, not because i’m looking for an opportunity to look down and take shots at the US military and intelligence communities.

Since Mata and I do not, hence the charge that you are equating the Libyan rebel thugs who tortured and killed Gaddhafi with what our intell interrogators did.

Well, I don’t agree that that charge is warranted and I categorically deny it. Certainly, a clarification could have been requested, rather than a charge leveled. I am talking about squaring principles with any torture against prisoners, not comparing waterboarding to rape with a knife.

drjohn
thank you you have figured it, like you always do,
and I apologize for having check your comment.

Tom, you aren’t even half as clever as you think you are. Your ego causes you to post here and unintentionally prove you just aren’t on the same intellectual level as others on FA.
You got caught spewing your typical bigoted partisan talking points and think you can spin your way out. Watching you squirm is amusing.

@Tom:

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession,

So much for waxing…..

Tom, no I don’t think EITs… which do not include maiming, dismemberment, sodomy or sexual abuse and executions, are inconsistent with American principles. To one able to read, this was made quite plain many times over. Law enforcement and G-men have been engaging in interrogations of criminals, suspected criminals, POWs and enemy combatants since the nation’s inception. It is not vigilante justice meted out for emotional retaliation.

Which brings me to your, again regurgitated, ends/means discussion you are so desperate to have. Oddly enough, a legitimate end goal of HUMINT for a nation’s security is one – but not the only – difference with Libyan “justice” for revenge. Yet does that mean the US inflicts the same “Libyan justice” to extract that intel? Well, according to your heightened sensitivity, they do….

But the truth is, absolutely not. The EITs are conducted with observers and medical personnel, and under strict rules – limited in duration and numbers of events. Using your definition, I could sue the physical therapist, or as Drj says, the salon body waxer (LOL… good one, drj), for torture. I could get debt collectors quashed because they inflict mental harm and distress on the indebtor. Hang.. the IRS would be out of business. I could even say listening to dodgeball think/speak like yours borderlines on torture… LOL

There is no end to what one may claim as “mental” harm, as you can see in our court system with out of control punitive damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering.

Only a fool would think delivery of three Mickie D happy meals daily, ballroom dance lessons three times a week, and a “Good Morning, Sunshine!” greeting would get HUMINT. I doubt many crimes in the nation would get solved were law enforcement never to play hardball – both mentally and physically – with those possessing needed information.

So again, as thru history, and at all stages of law enforcement, EITs are very consistent with America. And perhaps that’s because you seem to have a different view of America than I do… soft, a patsy, tiptoeing around cautiously – afraid to offend or be judged.

The America I live in is tolerant of freedoms and differences, and allows for any disputes to be battled in our judicial system… not at the hands of lynch mobs. We are not tolerant of criminals and terrorists wishing to do the nation great harm. It’s a nation that, historically, has known when to be compassionate, and when to be aggressive to survive. That is very American in principles.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my stance without accusing me of being anti-US military, or anti-US in general.

LOL! How many times did I ask you the question, Tom? Gave you the cyber floor to explain what you believed? Yet I had to chase you to another thread and hound you to finish. ’tis truly a pity that you sidled out with a bunch of mish mash on the first attempt.

Now, on the second, you did only slightly better in contacting your inner self. You “categorically deny” that you hold the US military/intel with the same disdain you hold vigilante justice… and out of the other side of the forked tongue say “I am against EIT precisely because of my feelings that we’re better than that, not because i’m looking for an opportunity to look down and take shots at the US military and intelligence communities.”

Who mentioned opportunity? You either consider our EITs at the same level of inhumane treatment – which you emphasized by an outright lie about KSM’s treatment – as the new Libyan justice, or you don’t. Has nothing to do with the “end/means” of wanting, or not wanting, to debase the US military. That’s just a sideline perk to your core belief that you do equate EITs with vigilante justice.

Oh.. and of course you must add the token “it’s Bush’s fault!” :0) I guess that means you are either blissfully ignorant, or accepting of Bagram, and how that site is a more convenient Gitmo for Obama… tucked carefully out of the prying media eyes.

You cannot disguise your beliefs to us, but you sure go the extra mile to disguise them from yourself with all kinds of caveats. As I said, rather sad you are not comfortable enough in who you are, or have strong enough convictions, to admit and defend what you believe. If you did, tho we would disagree, I might have a modicum of respect.

@MataHarley:

Tom, no I don’t think EITs… which do not include maiming, dismemberment, sodomy or sexual abuse and executions, are inconsistent with American principles.
***
The EITs are conducted with observers and medical personnel, and under strict rules – limited in duration and numbers of events. Using your definition, I could sue the physical therapist, or as Drj says, the salon body waxer (LOL… good one, drj), for torture. I could get debt collectors quashed because they inflict mental harm and distress on the indebtor. Hang.. the IRS would be out of business. I could even say listening to dodgeball think/speak like yours borderlines on torture… LOL

I’m not sure i understand your response. You clearly (for once) indicate you don’t believe EITs are torture by the definition I provided (not my definition by the way, and I clearly indicated that and the controversial nature of it. Feel free to supply a better one). But then you do your typical strawman “Tom must think torture is like getting a hangnail or body wax”. Do you really think that buys you credence with anyone here, when you can’t even state your opinion clearly? When instead, it’s back to setting up a strawman for mockery and attributing it to me? Anyone who can read knows I didn’t write that. You do this over and over and over. Quite tedious.

Here’s a question for you. If EITs don’t put a detainee under extreme mental and physical duress, what is their purpose? Is your contention we would use a technique that’s a veritable walk in the park as a measure of last resort against the most hardened detainees that have exhausted every other measure and interrogation technique? Does that make sense, Mata?

I doubt many crimes in the nation would get solved were law enforcement never to play hardball – both mentally and physically – with those possessing needed information.

So again, as thru history, and at all stages of law enforcement, EITs are very consistent with America

So waterboarding has been used through history, at all stages of law enforcement? Can you provide evidence for that?

perhaps that’s because you seem to have a different view of America than I do… soft, a patsy, tiptoeing around cautiously – afraid to offend or be judged.

So because I disagree with you on this topic, I’m what now? Who is tiptoing now, Mata? I think it’s pretty clear what you’re insinuating here, so be the “brave American” and come out and say it. We could all use a laugh at one of our expenses.

Is David Patreus also a soft patsy when he wrote the following?

what sets us apart from our enemies in this fight… is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings

What about the former US military officials who signed this letter, which reads in part:

We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of American military personnel in combat.
***
The current situation, in which the military operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we believe that all U.S. personnel – military and civilian – should be held to a single standard of humane treatment reflected in the Army Field Manual.
***
This is a defining issue for America. We urge you to support the adoption of Section 327 of the Conference Report and thereby send a clear message – to U.S. personnel and to the world – that the United States will not engage in or condone the abuse of prisoners and will honor its commitments to uphold the Geneva Conventions.

and back to Mata

You cannot disguise your beliefs to us, but you sure go the extra mile to disguise them from yourself with all kinds of caveats. As I said, rather sad you are not comfortable enough in who you are, or have strong enough convictions, to admit and defend what you believe. If you did, tho we would disagree, I might have a modicum of respect.

So I’ve disguised my belief on this topic? I thought i was crystal clear in post 66. Perhaps if you had the intellectual curiosity to try and find out, rather than launching into your juvenile attacks, I would have laid out my thoughts in detail sooner. What really mystifies me is you criticizing me for coming to your forum and soliciting your opinion, as if I’d come here and written some anti-Con diatribe, that would have been a better basis for an intelligent discussion. I just don’t think that’s possible with you.

Tom: Here’s a question for you. If EITs don’t put a detainee under extreme mental and physical duress, what is their purpose? Is your contention we would use a technique that’s a veritable walk in the park as a measure of last resort against the most hardened detainees that have exhausted every other measure and interrogation technique? Does that make sense, Mata?

Tom, I’ve been very clear in all my responses and personal opinions. Not my problem it seems to waft thru your ears, guy.

How many times have I said that we don’t do “measures of last resort”, and any instance that even sniffed of such has been brought up in our courts, as they should. Therefore, it was never my “contention”, and there ya go… putting words in my mouth, as you like to say.

So waterboarding has been used through history, at all stages of law enforcement? Can you provide evidence for that?

So now you want to bring it down to a single type of EIT, instead of the concept of interrogation techniques used by law enforcement, military and intel since the beginning? So if I understand this right, your argument now spins on this…. if we didn’t use waterboarding in the wild west days, you are correct?

Parse theory and words when you’re desperate much, Tom?

But since you now turn your focus on waterboarding only, we have many FA forum members who are military and former military… and have undergone waterboarding as part of their training. They have commented here quite often in the archives. But, using your train of thought, now military trainers inflict “torture”.

Does this, perhaps, also fit into your narrative about the Libyan vigilantes as well? After all, you believe that waterboarding is torture. Ergo, the US military training “tortures” our enlisted men and women. The EITs “torture” is no better than the new Libyan justice system. Do we now assume you believe our military training programs are no better than the new Libyan justice system?

So because I disagree with you on this topic, I’m what now? Who is tiptoing now, Mata? I think it’s pretty clear what you’re insinuating here, so be the “brave American” and come out and say it. We could all use a laugh at one of our expenses.

I didn’t tiptoe. I said you have a view of America that is only the soft patsy, and not the strong defender when threatened…. which is most definitely a very American principle. What’s “insinuating” about that? Any word(s) you need clarification on?

And you might want to read exactly what I wrote….

So again, as thru history, and at all stages of law enforcement, EITs are very consistent with America. And perhaps that’s because you seem to have a different view of America than I do… soft, a patsy, tiptoeing around cautiously – afraid to offend or be judged.

…. is there anything in there that refers to labeling you – Tom, the person – anything? Or is there something in there you are particularly hypersensitive on and we should know about… just so we don’t pick a word or phrase that offends your heightened sensibilities in the future? We don’t want to be engaging in mental torture, ya know.

Is David Patreus also a soft patsy when he wrote the following? … snip…

Did you even read what you linked? Petraeus was trying to crack down on military personnel, not reporting anything they thought to be illegal treatment. You would think you’d be bright enough to recognize that means there are limits, and anyone going over that legal limit needs to be prosecuted.

Do ya see that happening in Libya, to which you equate our treatment with their rebels?

Nor did Petraeus single out any particular treatment – in your case, your obsession with waterboarding which you fully admit you have never been subjected to – in that as being illegal. Instead, you take that statement, and try to revamp it into vindication that he believes, like you, that all EITs are no different than Libyan vigilante justice.

The same goes for the letter you linked. You take their statements of the Army Field Manual, and attempt to apply to specifically to anything that you… not a military lawyer or officer… find offensive.

Perhaps if you had the intellectual curiosity to try and find out, rather than launching into your juvenile attacks, I would have laid out my thoughts in detail sooner.

…snip…

What really mystifies me is you criticizing me for coming to your forum and soliciting your opinion, as if I’d come here and written some anti-Con diatribe, that would have been a better basis for an intelligent discussion. I just don’t think that’s possible with you.

I asked you quite nicely, with an apology for jumping to conclusions, not only in the first request, but in subsequent requests. It was only when you spent time with 4 or so other comments, dancing around returning here to “clarify”, that you bothered. Torture, by your definition, perhaps? LOL

As I said, having a conversation, or debate, with someone who constantly hides behind vague third party presentations … just so he can claim “that’s not my opinion, and you didn’t ask me for one” when met with dissent… is a waste of bandwidth.

Take, i.e. this from your latest response:

You clearly (for once) indicate you don’t believe EITs are torture by the definition I provided (not my definition by the way, and I clearly indicated that and the controversial nature of it. Feel free to supply a better one).

You provide a “definition”, but then are quick to say that’s “not my definition, by the way”. Now I don’t know what online dictionary you googled to pick, but the only definition I’d be using would be that in the Army Field Manual… which obviously includes things outside your more generic and benign, Webster style meaning. That’s about as clear as mud, and as demonstrated, most anything could fit into that category.

Here’s the point, Tom. All of us here have no problem, proffering our opinions in the first person and accept the heated dissent for our own convictions. I’ve given you mine at every turn… even tho it seems beyond your comprehension… no matter how I phrase it.

But it seems only you feels the need to have the back door open for an easy exit for any argument you present. (i.e. verbatim: “that’s not my definition, BTW” or “where did I tell you that was my argument? I said it was an argument, never said it was mine and you never asked.”) So yes… I think discourse between you and I is barren of substance because I have little tolerance for chasing anyone who hasn’t got the cojones to speak out for his own beliefs, and requires nothing short of pulling teeth to scratch just the surface of those beliefs.

Now, if you’re looking for a “basis for an intelligent discussion”, perhaps you won’t throw out your question with exaggerated lies about the EITs and KSM to start with. When a debate starts with an uneducated premise, based on partisan hype instead of facts, it’s hard to work it back to the “intelligent” plateau – especially when the guilty party can’t even admit to the original error.

MATA you are seeing TOM taking the side of the same ones who butcher GADAFFI
which are dangerous criminals, the AGENTS had to questionned and not to forget
the AGENTS PUTTING THEIR LIFE IN DANGER WHILE INTERROGATING THOSE TERRORISTS,
TOM is showing the same INFECTION as the CRUMBLING DEMOCRATS MENTALITY OF
NOT CARING ABOUT AMERICANS BUT PROTECTING THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA
ANYWAY THEY CAN.

Bees, if Tom is “showing the same infection as the crumbling Democrats mentality”, that’s because he is, by his own admission here on FA, a Democrat.

@MataHarley:

He’s plenty clear IMHO. Seeing as how he first came here right after the Tucson shooting.
You remember, don’t you Tom? That’s where you defended your fellow leftists who were using the incident to smear the GOP and then accused Republicans of using the incident to smear the Dems.
Like I said, you are a dispicible partisan bigot.

Here’s the point, Tom. All of us here have no problem, proffering our opinions in the first person and accept the heated dissent for our own convictions. I’ve given you mine at every turn… even tho it seems beyond your comprehension… no matter how I phrase it.

So your point is that I should just tell you what I think, what I feel, my own definition for torture, for EIT, and no one here will ask me to site evidence or fact to backup this opinion? What you’re saying is if I flat responded to Wordsworth, “yeah I think it’s torture. My definition of torture includes that”, and left it at that, no one here would expect me to elaborate, but I might get a pat on the back for sticking to my guns? And then I’d be what, just like you, shooting from the hip, a real American? Let’s rewind: I gave you a third party definition of a term, not a third party opinion. . I don’t know if you’re dense, but that was made quite clear, as I sited it. I even helpfully (to cut down on obvious back and forth muddle) pointed out where in that definition reasonable people might disagree, and then, having laid that groundwork, gave my detailed personal take on it. I really don’t know what to say to you if you read a person siting information, putting it in perspective, and then opining on it as giving a “third party opinion”. I’m honestly starting to think you’re hopeless. But more so, I’m starting to think you have no reasoned basis for YOUR opinion other than blind partisanship. If it’s good enough for Cheney, it’s good enough for Mata, eh?

@Hard Right:

You always add a lot to the discussion, HR. Thanks for the insight!

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi wants to turn himself in to the Hague war crimes court, a senior Libyan official told Reuters on Wednesday.

On the run in the desert, fearing for his life after his father was captured and slain and despairing of any safe haven across an African border, the 39-year-old who many once assumed would inherit dynastic power from Muammar Gaddafi now saw a Dutch prison cell as his best option, the official said.

With him was his relative, former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, the third man indicted along with the two Gaddafis by the International Criminal Court (ICC) after their crackdown on the popular revolt that began in February.

They are proposing a way to hand themselves over to The Hague,” said Abdel Majid Mlegta, a senior military official for the National Transitional Council.
The ICC had hoped to try Muammar Gaddafi himself for crimes against humanity, although —-Libya’s NTC also wanted to have him face justice at home. —-

More here:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Gaddafi_son_offers_to_surrender_to_Hague_-_Libyans.html?cid=31360236

@Tom:
Coming from you that is a compliment. You don’t even have the guts to say what your “real” opinion is. Too bad for you we already know and all your dancing won’t change that. Like I said, you aren’t very bright.

@Tom: So your point is that I should just tell you what I think, what I feel, my own definition for torture, for EIT, and no one here will ask me to site evidence or fact to backup this opinion? What you’re saying is if I flat responded to Wordsworth, “yeah I think it’s torture. My definition of torture includes that”, and left it at that, no one here would expect me to elaborate, but I might get a pat on the back for sticking to my guns?

To give you an answer you cannot misinterpret or spin into some web of victimization… *yes*.

That’s exactly what you should do. And you might find a completely different tone of discussion, as we’ve had that here before. With and without citations of source materials. It’s called intellectual honesty and strong devotion to your beliefs. Give it a try sometime….

… And then I’d be what, just like you, shooting from the hip, a real American?

….. and without the drama queen hyperbole.

@Hard Right:

You don’t even have the guts to say what your “real” opinion is

And you don’t have to guts to not be a parrot. Try coming up with your own material. Also, I doubt Mata needs your virtual backrubs to feel better.

@Tom #66:

Here is one definition (italics added by me):

…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. –UN Convention Against Torture[1] one one’s definition of torture.

I think where many disagree is whether “mental” enters into the equation (the phrase I italicized).

I emboldened the parts of the CAT that I think are caveats against the notion that EITs rise to the definition of “torture”.

The CIA, in the desire to protect their own, was very meticulous in seeking legal counsel, consulting with their lawyers. They would not proceed with the Program without guaranteed legal cover against future prosecution. The Bush Administration also wanted to be sure they knew exactly where the line was to be drawn so as to not cross over it. After much serious deliberation, the OLC gave them the legal cover. Has anyone on the Holder team been able to prosecute anyone involved with the CIA program?

Former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Victoria Toensing, said:

“torture means ‘severe physical or mental pain or suffering’ which in turn means ‘prolonged mental harm'”

~~~

to violate the law, the individual carrying out the acts must “specifically intend” to commit torture. It is not enough to know “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” could result from the acts; the individual committing them must specifically intend to impose such suffering in order to be guilty of torture.

Courting Disaster, pg 164

Thiessen goes on to point out that in Pierre v. Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a person can be deported, even if government officials know the person could be subjected to torture:

“Mere knowledge that a result is substantially certain to follow from one’s actions is not sufficient to form the specific intent to torture. Knowledge that pain and suffering will be the certain outcome of conduct may be sufficient for a finding of general intent but it is not enough for a finding of specific intent”

In 2009, Holder cited the Pierre case in fighting a claim by Nazi collaborator John Demjanjuk that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law:

While his claim was clearly frivolous (Germany was not going to torture him), the Holder Justice Department chose to argue that even if Demjanjuk were in fact subjected to severe pain in German custody, there could be no torture unless he could establish that American officials had the specific intent to inflict that severe pain and suffering on him. This is exactly what the Bush Justice Department argued when it came to interrogation of captured terrorists: A government official cannot be guilty of torture unless his specific intent is to cause severe pain.

-Courting Disaster, pg 165

Tom wrote:

In the case of waterboarding, from everything I’ve read from those who have experienced it, it’s the fact it simulates drowning, rather than the physical discomfort, that is the worse aspect. Even those who experience it knowing it end have reported feeling a a helpless sensation of terror that they were drowning.

Is it just waterboarding (as performed by CIA interrogators) that you believe rises to the definition of torture? Exercised on just 3 HVTs? What about “walling” and other EITs?

Here’s what Eric Holder said before a 2009 House Judiciary Committee when asked to explain why waterboarding during SERE training is not illegal: “It’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally”

Why does the standard change in regards to the CIA? As Marc Thiessen points out (pg 164, Courting Disaster):

The agency’s interrogators had no more intent to cause “severe mental and physical pain and suffering” to the detainees in their control than SERE trainers had the intent to cause this harm to our troops. Both went to great pains to ensure that no harm came to those undergoing the techniques. So by the Attorney General’s own rationale, waterboarding as conducted by the CIA did not meet the legal definition of torture.

Tom wrote:

Now obviously detainees would be expected to feel even more helpless, terrified and uncertain. As I happen to agree with the concept that torture, specifically the threat of a horrible death, can be mental, I do think it is a form of torture. We can argue about degrees, but there has to be a line somewhere, no?

Yes, I agree on a line being drawn and that there are degrees of separation.

As Mata responded, almost anything mentally stressful to a person can be considered “a form of torture”. Anything unpleasant to one might be severely unpleasant to another. Could tickling constitute a form of torture? Listening to Barney music or Justin Bieber over and over again? Merely the act of physical detainment of a person against his will can be defined as “torture” if one really wants to contort the definition around.

The whole “magic” of the EITs was psychological/mental- in making things appear to be worse than they actually were. And going back to the CAT definition of torture, where I boldened “information or a confession”, the purposes of EITs was not to illicit either information or confession but to put the HVT into a state of cooperation.

Perhaps I think it’s on one side and you the other, I understand that. But it’s close enough to warrant discussion I think.

I agree. I actually am open to the arguments about waterboarding as one of those EITs that crossed a line. Am not convinced of it; but am open-minded enough to be swayed. However, I do not believe that the Bush Administration and the CIA were devoid of good conscience and intent in their belief that these techniques were necessary on 30 HVTs, resistant and trained against standard interrogation techniques, and that the CIA program saved American lives.

I believe it has hamstrung our ability to place moral or ethical pressure upon the actions of other governments and regimes, because we are, at the very least, in a gray area with enhanced interrogation.

Perhaps the perception of it (call it “torture” enough times in the popular media and culture, and that’s what people automatically gravitate toward thinking when they hear about it).

My position, I think you will concede, is not a fringe position. There are liberals, moderates and conservatives who are against enhanced interrogation,

I agree. There are many good people on both sides who are against it. I include John McCain and Ali Soufan as among these.

Of course if we drop the moral posturing from the equation and take the approach that it’s a necessary evil and/or the ends justify the means, that’s an entirely different discussion. I will tell you up front, I don’t buy that.

I skimmed by your comment earlier regarding “ends justify the means” equation. I once again bring up the fact that purpose of EITs wasn’t to extract information/confessions. And that there was a line the Bush Administration and the CIA clearly would not cross. They did not believe in torture, which, we agree, is contrary to our values. But they definitely set up a line.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my stance without accusing me of being anti-US military, or anti-US in general. I am against EIT precisely because of my feelings that we’re better than that, not because i’m looking for an opportunity to look down and take shots at the US military and intelligence communities.

I think it’s possible to agree to disagree and be civil about the disagreements and have an honest, respectful debate.

@Tom #71:

Is David Patreus also a soft patsy when he wrote the following?

Keep in mind that many believe that the military’s Army Field Manual is sufficient for the purposes of the military but not appropriate standards to apply to our CIA- this includes John McCain and Petraeus.

@Tom:

Please post where I gave her “a virtual back rub”.
Parrot? This from the person who barfs leftist talking points ad nauseum.
You couldn’t even respond to my post about your contradictory stand on Quadaffi’s murder and EITs.

@Wordsmith:

“It’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally”

I hear a fat lady singing……

@drjohn:

You shouldn’t talk that way about your wife.

@Wordsmith:

I will try to get back to you soon when I have a chance. thanks for the response.

@Tom:

Next up for Tom: Godwin’s Law.

@Tom: You shouldn’t talk that way about your wife.

Now you see, here’s a perfect example of your drama queen insulting commentary, Tom. Drj made two comments to you… #42 and #69… neither were uncivil. In #42, he corrected your uneducated observation of KSM’s EIT treatment. In #69, he quipped that the definition you provided… that was, of course, not your opinion… could include salon waxing. In the last comment #84, he noted that Wordsmith documented waterboarding and EITs as definitive.

Yet you come back with a personal assault?

As far as I can see, your only beef about uncivility should be focused on me alone. Yet I actually issued an apology and asked you… quite nicely… to explain yourself. You chose not to, and wandered off to another thread.

When I chased you there, and reminded you… again nicely in the beginning… you had unfinished business, you merely dodged and escalated your own personal assaults on that thread before sauntering back over here, again being vague and non committal.

Obviously my apology was wasted, and I try to copiously not repeat my mistakes when possible. Don’t expect another. You reap what you sow… get over it.

Perhaps you will re read my comment #80, where I suggest you try the approach of a first person debate and genuinely try to base your discourse on your beliefs… and be honest about them to boot. Sometimes you will be asked to document with links. Other times, it’s a philosophical difference where no links are possible.

But entering the forum by making the chicken piccata to apple pie analogy that the Libyan revenge of justice shares the same principle as US EITs…and how do we reconcile that… does not get you off on the right foot.

Wordsmith, as usual, is commended for his more patient approach with professional dodgers like you. But you only demonstrate that “group assign” mentality when you decide to lash out at everyone here because you’ve made a fool of yourself with your shuck and jive.

I definitely give Word credit for being civil with Tom. I have not forgotten or forgiven him for what he said after the Tucson shooting. He crossed a line as far as I am comcerned and deserves no kindness at all.

@MataHarley:

i am seriously wondering if you’re insane. You seem to reinvent reality as you go along. Clearly, at one level, you want to sabotage any chance that Word and I can have a good debate. That is clear. But what I don’t get is why you’ve taken this bizarre interest in explaining to me, at Moby Dick-length, everything that you feel is wrong with me. At a certain point, can’t we all just accept that it’s understood?

The disconnect between what’s taken place and reality is truly stunning. In bullet form (because I really don’t have time for this):

* you did not apologize to me. You gave me a mocking ‘wink-wink” apology as part of your larger thesis that I’m “all third party opinion” (whatever that means, I still don’t know)

* You have spent the better part of two days ripping me apart with personal insults, on your own turf, and with all your clowns and sycophants there to cheer you on. So, do you really think you have the moral prerogative to be sitting in judgment of my alleged crass and antisocial behavior?

* I don’t know Dr. John. I don’t know if he’s a he. I don’t know if she’s a she. I don’t know if he/she’s a doctor. I don’t know if he has a wife, and I don’t know the first thing about his wife if she exists. Clearly, to anyone with half a brain, my response was in jest. He wrote a common colloquialism at my expense, and I responded as if he were being literal. Get it? Was it a little ‘edgy’? Perhaps. Would it be unfortunate if he actually did have a glandularly-challenged wife? Maybe, but in that case he obviously shouldn’t be using that expression, should he? What if I have an overweight wife, Mata? Does that make what he wrote an insult towards me? Should you be apoplectic on my behalf? You don’t know, so I guess you jumped to a conclusion didn’t you? Are you getting this now, is it getting through how idiotic you’ve reacted?

* Finally, going back to your penchant for reinventing reality, are you really playing at being Dr. John’s champion, you the person who practically single-handedly sent him off the board in tears for a month??! Are you actually that crazy, or that much of a hypocrite, to actually write a nine paragraph treatise on Dr. Johns virtue and my contrasting perfidy, all because of my little rhetorical quip (which you didn’t get), when he obviously hates your guts because you’ve humiliated him time and time again in the most brutal fashion? Who’s the hypocrite, Mata?

You are one sick mamma.

The notion that Drj needs “championing” or could be “single-handledly sent… off the board in tears for a month” by me, or anyone else, is not only downright hilarious, but just as much hyperbole as your KSM dribblings. Your comments to Drj were used as an example of your own personality and approach to people… a trait you seem incapable of stepping back and assessing.

Nor could Wordsmith be “sabotaged” from carrying on his own conversations. Why you believe Drj, Wordsmith and the FA forum are all mindless guppies that I control is not only insulting to the community, it’s quite the joke.

I have as many enemies here as I have friends, so battles ensue often. Part of the territory when sharing opinions. The enjoyable thing is that everyone tends to be individualists, with a passion for their beliefs. Something that is not only admirable… even when you differ in philosophy… but something you could use learning a thing or two about. The most passion I see you demonstrate has to do with defending yourself as the wounded and abused victim.

I have little sympathy for those who perceive themselves to be above reproach, and not part of the problem. You fit the bill. You, Tom, are one high maintenance person. So happy it’s not me that must maintain you.

@Tom:

Are you actually that crazy, or that much of a hypocrite, to actually write a nine paragraph treatise on Dr. Johns virtue and my contrasting perfidy, all because of my little rhetorical quip (which you didn’t get), when he obviously hates your guts because you’ve humiliated him time and time again in the most brutal fashion? Who’s the hypocrite, Mata?

Don’t have a family, do ya, Tom?

MATA
hi
I think you sure can say it well,
whatever the subject, you choose to deliver,
we should have a probe calculating the IQ of all from either sides,
you would come on top, with the conservatives, while the other TOM TOM
would fall behind, with their insults they try so hard to CATCHA YOU AND THE OTHER.
failing miserably,

Zelsdorf Ragshaft lll
how did I do with your name?
that was difficult by memory,
you said nuke em,
the problem is they don’t have those anymore,
they where sold to IRAN,
BYE
KIDDING